[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S731-S769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 1635. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce
the maximum capital gains rates, to index capital assets for inflation,
and to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on
generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.
CAPITAL GAINS AND ESTATE TAX REFORM LEGISLATION
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I spent the month of January attending
town meetings throughout the State of Colorado. That is one of the
things, when I go back to my State, that I spend a lot of time doing--
visiting the counties and visiting with the people of Colorado. Over
the years, we continue to have the issue of taxes brought up in the
town meetings--probably more so now than at any time that I can recall
since having town meetings.
The American people simply want to have their tax system reformed,
particularly those in Colorado. They want lower taxes, they want a
simpler tax system, and they want less intrusive means of collecting
those taxes.
Last year, Congress enacted modest tax relief, but it was only a
first step. It's time to move forward with more aggressive tax reform.
Today, I am introducing legislation that will do four things:
It will continue to reduce the capital gains tax to a top rate of 14
percent.
It will restore the one-year holding period for capital gains
treatment.
It will index capital gains and, thereby, eliminate the taxation of
gains that are due solely to inflation.
And then, finally, it will eliminate the estate tax.
These changes will provide important tax relief for families and
businesses, and continue to ensure that our economy remains the most
competitive in the world.
Mr. President, the new year has certainly brought good news
concerning the Federal budget. But let's be honest. The budget is
balancing because of the hard work of the American people, not because
of any bold action by the Federal Government. Economic performance in
recent years has exceeded all expectations. The result is that the
American people have been sending greater and greater amounts of their
earnings to Washington. The budget is balancing because of an explosion
in tax receipts, not because of any restraint in spending. In fact, the
budget continues to grow at a healthy pace. Federal spending in 1998 is
estimated to be 4.3 percent above the 1997 level--well in excess of
inflation. Many would like this to continue.
The President assured us in a previous State of the Union Address
that, ``the era of big Government is over.'' But it is clear that he is
now proposing a new era of big Government.
I favor a different course. We should not squander the people's
surplus on more Government. Instead, we should begin to pay down the
debt and reform the tax system. We should put American families ahead
of the insatiable appetite of Washington, DC, for more Government
spending.
Despite last year's budget bill, taxes remain higher than they have
ever been. Tax freedom day--the day to which the average American works
to pay the combined Federal, State, and local tax burden--is May 9,
which is the latest it has ever been. A reduction in the Federal debt
and a reasonable level of taxation should be the twin objectives of
Congress as we enter the next century. Our job is to ensure that the
bridge to the 21st century does not become a toll bridge.
Mr. President, let me begin with a discussion of capital gains taxes.
I call the capital gains tax the ``growth tax.'' Nearly all Americans
own capital, and they experience a tax on that capital when they sell
the stocks, or a small business, or a farm.
Mr. President, let's look at how this capital gains, or growth tax,
hits ordinary working Americans. Stock ownership has doubled in the
last 7 years, to the point where 43 percent of all adult Americans own
stock. Obviously, with those numbers, stock ownership is not just
confined to the wealthy; it is spread throughout society. Today, half
of the investors are women, and half are noncollege graduates. Stocks
are typically held for retirement, education expenses, and other long-
term goals. This is precisely the type of saving and investing that we
need in our economy.
Mr. President, I can't leave this topic without talking about small
business owners and farmers. There is no clearer area where the
``growth tax'' makes no
[[Page S732]]
sense. Millions of American families put their lives into building
small businesses and farms. Often, those businesses or farms are sold
to finance a decent retirement. But this can only occur after Uncle Sam
gets his cut of one-third or more of all the gains.
Simply put, low taxation makes it less costly to take the risks that
are critical in a capitalist economy. I am proposing that we enact a
maximum capital gains tax of 14 percent, with those in the lowest tax
bracket paying only 7 percent. Last year's reduction of the capital
gains rate was a big plus, but it came with a price--the holding period
required to qualify for the lower tax was extended from 12 months to 18
months.
The holding period change is a poor attempt by the Government to
micromanage the economy. This is the type of Government management that
has so clearly failed in Asia. A market economy functions best when
capital flows freely, unencumbered by Government distortions. The
holding period for long-term capital gains treatment has been 12 months
for years, and it should stay that way.
Mr. President, an additional mistake that Congress made in last
year's bill was a failure to include indexing. The real ``growth tax''
is often much higher than 20 percent. This is because our Tax Code does
not protect Americans from taxation on capital gains that result from
inflation. This is one of the most unfair aspects of the growth tax.
Government policies contribute to inflation, and Government turns
around and taxes its citizens on that inflation.
For this reason, I fought hard to see that indexing was included last
year. I offered an amendment to the tax bill that would have added
indexing. The amendment was carefully structured to avoid any revenue
loss. Obviously, I was disappointed with the defeat of this amendment.
I presume that this was due largely to the President's opposition to
indexing and his veto threat. Despite this, we got a strong vote, and I
promised that I would be back.
I have included indexing in this bill, and I fully intend to offer
this at each opportunity. Some have dismissed indexing as ``too
costly,'' but for me this is an issue of fundamental fairness. It is
wrong for the Federal Government to tax citizens on inflation.
Since I mentioned the issue of cost, let me make a few points on
this. I have long maintained that a capital gains tax cut will increase
revenue. In the short run, it encourages the sale of assets that would
not otherwise occur. This obviously increases revenue.
In the long run, a rate cut facilitates a higher level of economic
growth. This also results in greater tax revenue.
Unfortunately, during last year's tax debate, we continued to operate
under revenue models that forecast a loss to the government from the
capital gains rate cut.
I hope we can soon put this notion to rest for good.
It is already apparent that capital gains revenues will be coming
into the Treasury at a considerably higher level than forecast last
year when we were talking about capital gains. 1998 capital gains
revenues could be as much as 50% higher than previously forecast.
Even state governments will benefit from the rate cut. Earlier this
month, analysts for the Colorado Legislature forecast that the capital
gains tax changes would result in an additional $38 million this year
for the Colorado state budget.
Obviously, the impact at the federal level will be many times
greater.
estate tax elimination
The final provision in this tax bill is the elimination of the estate
tax.
Frankly, the estate tax makes no sense.
While the tax raises only 1 percent of federal revenues, it destroys
family businesses and farms.
The estate tax is double taxation.
At the time of a person's death, much of their farm, business, and
life savings has already been subjected to federal, state, and local
tax. These same assets are taxed again under the estate tax.
The estate tax fails to distinguish between cash and non-liquid
assets.
Family businesses are often asset-rich, and cash poor. But the value
of all assets must be included in the taxable estate.
This can force liquidations, and family businesses can see their
livelihood eliminated in order to pay a tax of up to 55 percent. Yes.
That is right--up to 55 percent.
This practice threatens the stability of our families and communities
while inhibiting growth and economic development.
The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that a 1995 survey by
Travis Research Associates found that 51 percent of family businesses
would have difficulty surviving the estate tax, 14 percent of business
owners said it would be impossible to survive, 30 percent said they
would have to sell part or all of their business.
This is supported by a 1995 Family Business Survey conducted by
Matthew Greenwald and Associates which found that 33% of family
businesses anticipate having to liquidate or sell part of their
business to pay the estate tax.
Recently, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse calculated the taxable
components of 1995 estates. While 21% of assets were corporate stock
and bonds, and another 21% were mutual fund assets, fully 32% of gross
estates consisted of ``business assets'' such as stock in closely held
businesses, interests in non-corporate businesses and farms, and
interests in limited partnerships. In larger estates this portion rose
to 55%.
Clearly, a substantial portion of taxable estates consists of family
businesses.
The recent tax bill increased the estate tax exemption from $600,000
to $1 million. However, this is done very gradually and does not reach
the $1 million level until 2006. The bill also increased the exemption
amount for a qualified family owned business to $1.3 million. While
both actions are a good first step, they barely compensate for the
effects of inflation. The $600,000 exemption level was last set in
1987, just to keep pace with inflation the exemption should have risen
to $850,000 by 1997.
Incremental improvements help, but we need more substantial reform.
It is time to eliminate this tax entirely. This action has been taken
in countries such as Australia and Canada. Unfortunately, the United
States retains what are arguably the highest estate taxes in the world.
Among industrial nations, only Japan has a higher rate than the U.S.
But Japan's 70% top rate applies only to inheritance of $16 million or
more. The U.S. top rate of 55% kicks in on estates of $3 million or
more. France, the United Kingdom, and Ireland all have top rates of
40%, and the average top rate of OECD countries is only 29%.
Repeal of the estate tax would benefit the economy. George Mason
University Professor Richard Wagner estimates that within seven years
of elimination of the estate tax the output of the country would be
increased by $79 billion per year, resulting in up to 228,000 new jobs.
Under the current system, the energy that could go into greater
productivity is expended by selling off businesses, dividing resources
and preparing for the absorption of an estate by the government. Those
businesses that survive the estate tax often do so by purchasing
expensive insurance. A 1995 Gallup survey of family firms found that
23% of the owners of companies valued at over $10 million pay $50,000
or more per year in insurance premiums on policies designed to help
them pay the eventual tax bill.
The same survey found that family firms estimated they had spent on
average over $33,000 on lawyers, accountants and financial planners in
order to prepare for the estate tax.
Ironically, the estate tax is often justified on the grounds that it
helps to equalize wealth. But this effect is greatly exaggerated. A
1995 study published by the Rand Corporation found that for the very
wealthiest Americans, only 7.5% of their wealth is attributable to
inheritance--the other 92.5% is from earnings.
Mr. President, it is time to repeal this outdated tax. We must insist
that no more American families lose their business because of the
estate tax. We must ensure that when a family is coping with all the
inevitable costs of passing a business from one generation to the next,
the Federal Government is not there as an added burden.
Mr. President, it is my hope that by introducing this tax legislation
and placing these proposals on the table we can begin to debate
significant tax relief for 1998.
[[Page S733]]
Each of these changes: a lower capital gains rate, indexing, and
repeal of the estate tax, are consistent with long-term tax reform. And
each of them can be enacted this year.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 1636. A bill to provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal
employees; to the Committee on Finance.
the domestic partnership benefits and obligations act of 1998
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last October, Congressman Barney Frank
broke new ground when he introduced HR2761, the Domestic Partnership
Benefits and Obligations Act of 1997. I am here today to break ground
in the Senate by introducing the Domestic Partnership Benefits and
Obligations Act of 1998. This bill does not introduce new benefits; it
simply extends existing benefits to a previously uncovered group of
employees for very little cost.
Mr. President, let me take a moment to outline my bill. This bill
provides benefits for same-sex domestic partners of civilian, federal
employees. Partners must be living together, in a committed, intimate
relationship, and responsible for each other's welfare and financial
obligations. It provides access to five categories of benefits in the
same way that married spouses have access: participation in retirement
programs, life insurance, health insurance, compensation for work
injuries, and upon the death of a government employee, the domestic
partner would be deemed a spouse for the purpose of receiving benefits.
This is a bill about justice, about fairness, about equity in the
workplace. This bill is about saying to our gay and lesbian employees,
``We value your contribution to the workplace, and to show you we value
you, we're going to protect your families, like we protect the families
of married employees, by providing them with benefits.'' It is about
providing the opportunity for same-sex domestic partners to provide
their partners--who previously have been denied--access to such
benefits as health insurance.
For many people in this country, insurance benefits for their loved
ones are automatic, they are expected, they are the norm. But benefits
didn't start out that way. In fact, they are a relatively modern
invention. Benefits in the form of compensation were created in the
1940's, essentially to increase compensation for some employees who
were prohibited by law from getting pay increases. So instead of more
pay, employers paid for certain products and services such as health
insurance to take care of their employees and to make their businesses
more attractive to potential employees. For gay men and lesbians, most
of these benefits are completely inaccessible.
But where is it written in stone that only married spouses and their
children deserve benefits? Yes, many employers have chosen to limit
benefits to married spouses and their children, but more and more,
governments, universities, and private businesses have been making a
different choice. Business and organizations like the San Francisco
49ers, Reader's Digest, Starbucks, Coors, Ben and Jerry's, Kodak,
Disney, the Union Theological Seminary, the Episcopal Diocese of
Newark, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers #18,
Mattel, the Vermont Girl Scout Council, and more than 50 Fortune 500
companies have made the right choice to offer domestic partnership
benefits. A more fair and equitable choice. A more humane choice.
I am disappointed that domestic partnership benefits have already
been offered in some cities and by some businesses since 1982 but here
we are in 1998 and we're just now talking about them here in the
Senate. Today there are at least 42 cities and municipalities, 12
counties, 1 state, and 342 private sector for-profit and not-for profit
businesses and unions which offer domestic partner benefits. The good
news, though, is that we have more than 15 years worth of employers'
experiences with providing these benefits.
By virtue of our vote on DOMA, we have said that same-sex couples
cannot marry. But that doesn't mean that people in long-term, loving,
and committed relationships don't deserve to have the opportunity to
provide their loved ones with health insurance, survivor benefits, and
other benefits. Domestic partnership legislation levels the playing
field for same-sex partners who are not allowed to marry. This bill is
aimed at correcting that inequity. Here is the story of how not having
domestic partnership benefits effected one couple's lives:
Anonymous: My partner and I have been together for almost
six. About a year ago, he had to leave work due to a serious
heart condition. Since my employer doesn't include domestic
partnership benefits, we had to pay all of his expenses out
of pocket. For quite some time I had to support him from my
salary, or else he would have ended up on welfare. We are
still scrimping and saving to try and pay off the health care
expenses that should have been covered by my insurance (if we
had dp benefits). Almost all of my heterosexual friends have
been ``married'' less time than my partner and I and received
benefits immediately after the marriage. Their relationships
seem no more permanent than my own. When my partner and I
have been together for fifty years, we will still not have
insurance for him through my employer.
Not only are domestic partnership benefits fair and just, they cost
very little. Employers have found that upon implementing domestic
partnership benefits, one percent of all employees--at most--actually
sign up their same-sex partners for benefits. And more often, it is
less than one percent. Even taking the most liberal figures, there is
no legitimate reason to argue that more than 1% of our almost 300,000
federal civilian employees will enroll. And even though this is a
relatively small number of employees--at most 30,000--let me tell you,
these benefits are of critical importance to those who do.
For example, Marieta Louise Luna is a graduate student studying in
the Divinity School at Duke University. She says,
I just returned home from the hospital on Thursday night
from having a knee replacement made possible largely because
of the fact that Kathryn is a Duke employee and I have
domestic partner benefits.
Guaranteed, I could not have had the surgery if I had not
had domestic partner benefits. For me, it was the literal
difference between walking and being handicapped for the next
several years.
And at a cost of less than 1% of the total benefits budget--or less--
it is truly worth making this investment.
Some might be afraid that domestic partnership policies could open
the door to fraud with people signing up their friends in order to get
health insurance.
Most employers never ask for verification of a heterosexual marriage.
I have never been asked to provide a marriage certificate to prove I'm
married, and I doubt that many of you have either.
But my bill has stringent requirements for qualifying as domestic
partners. Among other requirements, partners must sign an affidavit
certifying that they share responsibility for a significant measure of
each other's common welfare and financial obligations. And they must
show documentation to prove it--such as copies of a mortgage or lease
with both names on it, copies of bank statements showing joint checking
or savings accounts, copies of durable powers of attorney for property
and health, or copies of wills specifying each other as the major
recipients of each other's financial assets.
In addition, my bill specifies serious consequences for fraud,
including the possibility of disciplinary action, termination of
employment, and repayment of any insurance benefits received.
Finally, there are criminal statutes that provide that making false
statements and defrauding the government are crimes which can result in
a fine and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.
The bottom line is that this bill creates serious consequences for
fraud, establishes that every effort will be made to minimize fraud by
those falsely claiming to be domestic and specifies that those caught
will be seriously punished.
Let me tell you one more story:
Anonymous from Minnesota: I have had the same health care
benefits package for nearly 16 years. I began family coverage
when I married in 1978. Our two children were added when they
were born. My ex-husband remained on my insurance policy
after we divorced--at no additional cost--even though we were
not legally married.
I am now in a committed lesbian relationship. My partner
had been teaching part-time in a private school for two years
before she became eligible for health insurance through her
employer. Two weeks before her insurance was to take effect
she was stricken with severe abdominal pain. Though we
considered ``toughing it out'' until her insurance kicked in,
it became increasingly clear that
[[Page S734]]
she needed to be treated immediately. She had a large,
twisted ovarian tumor removed. By the time of the surgery,
her insurance was in place. We breathed a sigh of relief.
Months later we learned that because her pain started (and
was briefly treated) before her insurance began, the claim
for coverage for the surgery and hospital stay were
disallowed because there was a pre-existing condition
exclusion in her insurance policy. We are now faced with over
$5,500 (plus 12% interest per year) in medical bills. This
may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but it
certainly is to us. And it's money that wouldn't have had to
be spent at all if she had been on my family coverage all
along.
So why is it that my ex-husband (no legal relation) was
entitled to continue receiving benefits until he married, but
my life partner has had to go without medical insurance? The
answer is simple--discrimination.
This is a bill about fairness. This is about equity in the workplace.
This is about protecting employees' loved ones. It's the right thing to
do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Additional Stories Regarding Domestic Partnership Benefits
Wendy I. Horowitz: My partner was ill for almost a year. I
worked for a large conservative company that never considered
implementing domestic partner benefits. After seeing one of
my co-workers get married and have instant coverage for her
husband (after they had been married for a day), I decided to
apply for benefits for my partner. They were denied. Her
illnesses were related to her tonsils, and the doctors
suggested that she have them removed. I had to come up with
the money to pay for this surgery (over $4,000 by the end of
it all), which put a great financial burden on us and on our
relationship.
Jim and Hal: As an employee of the State of Maryland
(through my graduate assistantship), I receive comprehensive
health benefits. Although I could share my benefits with a
married spouse, I am not able to do a thing for my partner
Hal. Hal is another ``starving student''; he is in a doctoral
program at American University. Unfortunately, American does
not offer full health coverage to its graduate assistants, so
Hal is having to make do with emergency health coverage. This
has adversely affected us in two ways. First, we have to
cover Hals' regular health maintenance (e.g., dental
checkups) which is a strain on our already stretched budget.
Second and more importantly, Hal has a heart problem for
which regular appointments with a cardiologist are
recommended. We are not in a position to pay specialist fees
out-of-pocket; thus, we are unhappily have to settle for
doctors at American University's health center.
U Minnesota: R and S are their late 30's, and they have
been in a committed relationship for 20 years. S is self-
employed as a psychotherapist and is registered with the
University as R's domestic partner.
Four years ago, R gave birth to the couple's first child L.
R was able to put L on her health insurance policy as a
dependent. The couple incurred no additional cost or
additional deductibles for L's birth or subsequent medical
treatment.
Three years later, S gave birth to the couple's second
child M. Because the University only recognizes formal
adoption (not guardianship) for direct dependent coverage, M
is only listed as S's child and not R's child. Since the
University's domestic partnership plan only provides medical
premium reimbursement for partners and their dependents, R
and S incurred significantly higher costs for M's birth than
for L's birth.
Specifically, the couple pays out $526 every 3 months for S
and M's insurance policies which each have a $500 deductible
(the University plan has no deductible and low copays for
dependent care). Reimbursement from the University for this
cost takes additional 3 months after the couple pays. Due to
IRS regulations, which do not recognize the partners as a
couple, the University's reimbursement to the employee is
taxed. The end result of all the complications of this system
for the couple is that they have $1,500 in outstanding debt
for unreimbursed health premiums. In addition, they were
charged $1,000 in deductibles plus higher copays for M's
birth. They have had to take out a loan to cover these
health care related expenses.
Becky Liddle: I am a tenured associate professor. My
domestic partner quit her job and moved here to Alabama in
June of '97, as the ``trailing spouse'' in a dual career
couple. We thought she would find work very quickly. But due
in part to sexual orientation discrimination in hiring, she
has been unable to find professional work and health
benefits. She is working full-time for Kelly Services, which
does not include health benefits. We brought her a 4-month
hospitalization policy before she quit her job, assuming that
would be more than enough time--it wasn't. She has no health
insurance. We have looked at policies she could buy herself,
but they are extremely expensive, and cover very little. My
university will not allow me to put my domestic partner on
our insurance (in fact, Blue Cross of Alabama explicitly
states in its policy that ``spouse'' is limited to someone of
the opposite sex). Consequently, every time she gets sick it
is a crisis, and we make potentially life-threatening choices
about whether she should go to the doctor. For example, she
got pneumonia a few weeks ago. This is, she had all the
symptoms of pneumonia, according to our Time/Life ``medical
advisor--complete guide to alternative & conventional
treatments'' book, which has become her primary care
``physician''. The book said if it was viral she should just
go to bed, but if it was bacterial it could be life
threatening. It appeared from her symptoms to be viral, so we
did not spend the money to go to a doctor. This time we were
right. She recovered fine in about a week. Of course, if we'd
been wrong, she could be dead. I think we make good decisions
about how to spend our limited health-care dollars. But I
ought to be able to put her on my insurance.
Eva Young: I live with my partner of 10 years in
Minneapolis. I have benefits through my work place. Even
though the University of Minnesota offers ``domestic
partnership'' benefits, these don't work for us. To be able
to get pretax benefits (analogous to what a married couple
get), we would have to declare my partner a dependant. This
is degrading to my partner. Although I currently have a
better job than she does (it pays better and is permanent),
it doesn't mean we should have to declare her a dependant
(with all the negative connotations that has) in order to get
the benefits we are both entitled to. To add insult to
injury, I am taxed at the single rate, even though I am
primary breadwinner for a family of 4. I consider this an
equal pay for equal work issue. Why should I get paid less
than my married coworker, just because I am not legally
married?
Not having the same benefits that a heterosexual married
couple keeps my family in poverty. My family would not be in
poverty if we had the same rights as married couples do. It's
that simple. This isn't something that is just for the gay
couple--it also will affect a lot of children. Actually,
domestic partnership will do little for the dual career gay
couple, where both individual are in good jobs--it's going to
make a difference for gay couples who have families, or have
one partner who is uninsured. Allowing gay couples to insure
their partner and partner's children through their workplace
insurance could also help some individuals get off
government assistance.
Kirk A. Nass: My domestic partner and I have been together
nearly 14 years. My partner, Michael E. Gillespie, was an
attorney in Seattle when we met, now he is self-employed and
runs a business in Oakland which provides physicians as
expert witnesses to lawyers and insurance companies for
plaintiff work. Michael's past employers never provided good
medical coverage, if they provided it at all. In 1989 I
finished graduate school and started a job with Chevron.
Michael quit his job to move with me to the San Francisco Bay
Area. Chevron provides excellent health coverage to its
employees, but I was unable to cover him because domestic
partners were not eligible for coverage at the time. The
prospect of him having a major medical event and us not being
able to pay for it bothered me for years.
After starting his own business five years ago, he joined
an HMO (Kaiser Permanente, No. Calif.) under an individual
plan. In 1995 he was diagnosed with Type II diabetes; in 1996
he suffered a heart attack and underwent an angioplasty to
open the blocked artery. Because of his HMO coverage, all of
his diabetes care, his stay in intensive care, and the
angioplasty were covered. He's now in excellent health. If
his business failed--even if he still worked for some of his
past employers--we would not have had the financial resources
to pay for his cardiac care.
On Jan. 1, 1998, Chevron began extending medical and dental
coverage (and some other benefits) to the same and opposite
sex domestic partners of employees and the partners' eligible
children. The coverage Chevron provides for Michael through
Kaiser is even better than what he was paying for himself at
Kaiser. It's the first time since we've been together he's
had full coverage and the first time I haven't had to worry.
Having domestic partners benefits such as medical coverage
is important to us because it makes me sure that the most
important person in my life can be taken care of when he
needs to be. The experiences we've gone through together,
although they've led to successful conclusions, have shown
too often that ``what-if'' scenarios can be all too real.
Dan Ross: My partner of 5 years has cerebral palsy (a
congenital condition; in his case, it creates overly-tight
muscle tone). After orthopedic surgery to correct some
aspects of his gait, he had to make significant changes to
his walk, and work on daily stretches, most of which require
assistance. He is (and was) able to walk on his own, although
now does so with a cane. He travels quite a bit for his job
and works long hours, so it is difficult for us to work on
this on a regular schedule. He can't take a leave of absence
form his job, or even temporarily resign, to work on physical
therapy full-time, because he absolutely needs his health
insurance and he is afraid of jeopardizing that. (Some
insurance plans even make cerebral palsy a ``pre-existing
condition''.) My health insurance won't cover him, of course,
and until recently, I wouldn't have been able to take sick
leave to stay with him in the hospital and at home. He was
bedridden for a total of two weeks after the surgery. As it
was, I hurried back and forth between work and home, because
I had just begun a new job, and didn't want to make a bad
impression there; but he had scheduled the surgery for around
Christmas, so there were many
[[Page S735]]
people off on vacation time during that period. The issue
of domestic partnership benefits--whether equity in
providing health insurance, or even just uniform treatment
in granting sick/caregiving and bereavement leave--is
important to us as a result.
Pam Herman-Milmoe: I am a federal employee and Sara has
just finished her Masters Degree in Clinical Psychology.
While she was in school she had access to limited benefits,
but now that she is job hunting she is completely uninsured.
She is working in a paid internship position that is
providing great experience and a real service to the
community, but no benefits. As she moves on in her career she
would like to establish her own practice, but if she does
she'll have to pay for her own benefits without any support.
The practice of denying benefits to domestic partners puts us
at a severe economic disadvantage compared with my coworkers.
They can use the money their spouses save on benefits for
investments and other purposes. Sara and I plan on having
children, who will be covered by my benefits, but money that
would support their education and upbringing will have to go
to pay for benefits for Sara.
Steve Crutchfield: A year ago, my partner of 22 years was
fired from his job. When he lost his job, he lost his health
insurance benefits. He was able to maintain benefit through a
COBRA plan, but it cost us an additional $150 per month to
maintain his health benefits. Now that his COBRA benefits are
expiring, he has to buy individual medical insurance at a
cost of over $300 month.
If we had a domestic partner benefits law in place, I could
have put him under my insurance benefits as the spouse of a
Federal Government Worker. However, since our relationship is
not recognized as a marriage, I am unable to enjoy the
medical insurance benefits accorded to my colleagues who are
in traditional marriages.
David Perkins: My partner of fifteen years came with me to
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois in order that I might take a job.
We have been here over three years and he has not been able
to find anything other than part-time work that offers no
benefits. Because the state or the University does not extend
benefits to same-sex partners, he is without any health
benefits whatsoever--and as he will soon turn forty-five
years old, health insurance is too expensive for us to pay
out-of-pocket. If anything, should happen to him--it will
either completely wipe me out financially, or he will be
thrown on the mercy of the taxpayers as an indigent case. Not
a dramatic story, true--but a fear we live with daily.
Anonymous: My partner and I have 3 children ages 15, 13 and
3. I gave birth to the first 2 before getting together with
her. The youngest one we had together. Shortly after the
arrival of our youngest, the opportunity arrived that I could
stay home and care for her instead of putting her in day
care. But in quitting my job I also had to give up my health
care benefits. My partner's company does not offer domestic
benefits so I am not covered for my asthma medication that
I need to breath. I also am a high risk for breast cancer
due to family history (mother, grandmother and 3 sisters)
but I agreed to stay home for the benefit of all our
children.
Anon: My (same-sex) partner moved in with me in
Pennsylvania two years ago. She had been self-employed (a
clinical psychologist with a private practice) in CO. We are/
have been in a long-term committed relationship for three
years. She had been paying her own health insurance, but
since she gave up her income to move here, she had no way of
continuing to pay it. My employer (a college) has a
subsidized health insurance benefit for married couples only;
if we had been married, the additional coverage would have
cost $60. Instead, I had to pay $175 monthly so that she
would have less adequate health insurance than I have. Since
she needed surgery within months of moving here, with a long
recovery period, she also could not earn money to help with
expenses. We had to spend money on a lawyer to get documents
assuring the hospital that I (an ``unrelated'' person) could
make decisions for her were she to be incapacitated, etc.
Furthermore, she could not avail herself of the physical
recreational facilities at the college since she was not a
bona fide spouse. I had to pay a membership fee for her to
join a ``Y'' so she could use the physical exercise equipment
she needed to recover from her surgery. All in all, not
having our partnership recognized has cost me a bundle.
Mindy Kurzer: My partner Linda and I have been in a
committed relationship for 7 years and have a 2 year old
daughter named Della. I was very pleased when the University
of Minnesota instituted a domestic partner policy about 3
years ago. This policy has helped our family, because Linda
is self-employed and previously carried only catastrophic
coverage with lots of exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
Since the U of M started this policy, we have been able to
purchase a very comprehensive medical policy for her. This
has turned out to be extremely important, because she was in
a car accident 2 years ago, and sustained serious injuries
for which she underwent two surgeries and still requires
medical treatment. With her current health insurance, we have
been able to get her excellent care--without it, I doubt we
would have been able to do so.
Domestic partner benefits are important to our community,
but I think they are also important to the broader society. I
have had numerous opportunities to leave the University of
Minnesota and have chosen to stay here in part because the
University has shown a commitment to reducing discrimination.
As more and more businesses and Universities institute
domestic partner benefits, institutions that do not
(including the government) may be disadvantaged when it comes
to getting and retaining top-notch employees.
Sibley Bacon: I work for Peoplesoft, Inc. who provides
domestic partner benefits to same sex couples. My partner,
and I have been together for 4 years * * * she is self-
employed, so we opted to have her covered through Peoplesoft.
This year she developed a 5.5 cm dermoid tumor on one of her
ovaries which was causing her a great deal of pain on a
daily basis. Our health insurance paid for the surgery and
follow up visits. This would have cost us thousands of
dollars had we not had the coverage through Peoplesoft.
Additionally she's been able to see a physical therapist
to address some old gymnastics injuries. Needless to say,
I am eternally grateful that my company provides these
benefits to its gay and lesbian employees. Domestic
partner coverage will certainly be a deciding factor in
the future if I ever end up looking for a job outside of
Peoplesoft.
Toni A.H. McNaron: My partner, and I have been in a
committed relationship for almost 20 years (our anniversary
is in June). We own a large home in south Mpls., pay lots of
property taxes, earn well over $100,000 a year, and are the
first people in our neighborhood to shovel our walks in
winter.
One of our very nice heterosexual neighbors just married
his girlfriend and sometimes doesn't shovel until the next
day.
The moment he and she signed the marriage license, she had
his full health coverage and retirement plan benefits from
his quite successful legal coverage and retirement plan
benefits from his quite successful legal practice. My partner
has never had a PENNY of coverage during the 34 years I've
worked as a professor at the University of Minnesota. And,
even more unfair, if I were killed by a drunk on the freeway
on the way home tonight, she would not even get a condolence
letter from the University. Instead she would get a check for
the ENTIRE amount of my retirement--considerable after 34
years. Furthermore, she would have to pay the federal
government approximately $90,000 at tax time because of her
``windfall.'' (How amazing to consider it a windfall to have
your beloved partner of 20 years killed.)
My neighbor's wife would get a condolence letter from his
firm explaining to her her options for collecting his
retirement funds. She is smart and would choose to have them
delayed until she is older and then to have them parceled out
over time so that she would pay next to no taxes on them.
Nancy: I am in Texas on internship. Rose, my partner, is
back home in Minnesota. Rose has fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue
syndrome and a number of other health problems. She is in the
process of leaving her job and applying for disability.
Partly because of her health problems, we would like to
relocate permanently to Texas. However, it will take several
months for her disability claim to be processed so she can
get on Medicare. She can continue her insurance coverage
under COBRA, but that would only be good in Minnesota, since
her coverage is with a local HMO. I can't put her on my
insurance due to lack of domestic partner benefits. So we're
faced with a number of unattractive options: (1) I could look
for a job in Minnesota, even though both of us would rather
move south and that move would be good for Rose's health. (2)
She could move here and be without insurance coverage for her
multiple health problems until she is approved for
disability. (3) We could prolong our geographic separation
and have the expense of maintaining separate households
until she gets on disability, which can be a very long
process. I think this is typical of the difficult choices
gay and lesbian couples are forced to make without
domestic partner benefits.
Julie Ford: My name is Julie Ford, I am the Director of
News and Public Affairs for a television station in Sarasota,
Florida. My partner is Vicky Oslance, who is a surgical
technician by trade but who has chosen to work per diem
instead of full time in order to maintain our household since
my full time job is very demanding and time consuming.
Working per diem, she of course has given up health benefits.
This is an added expense for us, one that the other married
department heads at my workplace do not have to deal with. I
an my partner have been together nearly 9 years . . . longer
than most of the married people I work with. We maintain a
joint checking account, stock portfolio, and own property
together. It is totally unfair for me to have to pay an
outrageous amount to insure Vicky's health when other married
people at my workplace can get inexpensive company health
insurance for their spouses.
Susan Hagstrom. When I was hired by UC Berkeley five year
ago, I was struck by the lack of equal compensation for equal
work. What I did not know then was how close to home this
inequality would hit.
I recall vividly the day Debra, my partner of seven years,
suffered an excruciating ruptured disk. I cried as I watched
her in so much pain that she could not stand, sit, or work
and had to literally crawl to the bathroom. I cried when she
refused to get an MRI because we couldn't afford the $1000
procedure or the expensive doctor visits. I cannot fully
describe to you how difficult this lack of benefits has been
for me and for Debra.
[[Page S736]]
Lori Stone: Until recently, my partner had a job that
provided a much inferior benefit plan to my own. Because the
deductible on her plan was so high, she would often elect not
to get treated for illness, preferring just to ``ride it
out.'' Of course this was a risky way to go, and it back-
fired on us, when she came down with kidney stones, and was
eventually hospitalized. The physical trauma plus the debts
we have incurred, because I was unable to cover my partner's
expenses, have been difficult to surmount.
I currently work for an organization that has excellent
medical benefits but no provision for me to be able to cover
my partner's medical expenses. If I had been able to cover my
partner under my plan, I believe we wouldn't be in the
unfortunate financial situation that we are today.
Thanks so much for taking this bold move. I pray for the
day when I won't feel so disenfranchised in my own country.
DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS--VIGNETTES--CLV/GLCAC
[First case]
Bill and his partner Joseph have been living together in a
committed relationship for 8 years. Bill worked as an
attorney for a large Minneapolis firm for 12 years before he
was diagnosed with MS and had to leave his job within a year
from diagnosis. Joseph works as a maintenance engineer for
the State of Minnesota. Bill's income was two times Joseph's
current income when he was able to work. The benefits Bill
received on the firm's short term disability plan have
expired, and no long term disability plan was in place. Bill
requires 24 hour care, but is not yet eligible for inpatient
nursing care.
Bill's doctor visits and medications are covered by Medical
Assistance. Medical Assistance will not, however, pay for the
cost of Bill's in-home care attendants. Bill's doctors have
recommended 24 hour care. Joseph must continue to work to pay
household expenses. The loss of Bill's income and medical and
care expenses have forced the men to sell their home and trim
many other expenses. The insurance plan offered by Joseph's
employer would cover the cost of in-home care for the spouse
or dependent of the employee. The State of Minnesota does
not, however, offer health care benefits for unmarried
partners of its employees. At the rate Joseph is spending
money to pay for Bill's care, it is likely that he will have
to leave his job at the State, collect public assistance and
care for Bill himself.
[Second case]
Debra and Sara have been living together in a committed
relationship for five years. They own a home together and
have made other major purchases together. Debra and Sara had
a child (Michael) 2 years ago. Sara gave birth to the child.
Debra's employer offers health and life insurance benefits to
domestic partners, and children of domestic partners are
considered dependents of the employee for purposes of
insurance coverage. Sara is self employed. Michael, Sara and
Debra are all covered by insurance as a family through
Debra's employer's plan. Six months ago Debra was recruited
by a competing business because of her unique skill and
experience, and was offered a job. The job would be a step up
for Debra in the advancement of her career. The pay is about
the same, but the prospective employer does not offer health
and life benefits to unmarried partners and would not cover
Michael as a dependent of Debra's. For these reasons, Debra
decides to decline the offer of employment and delays career
advancement as a result. The competing business misses out on
Debra's unique skill and experience.
[Third case]
Joe is a student at a private college. His partner Jim
works for a mid-size accounting firm. Jim's employer does not
offer benefits to unmarried partners/dependents of its
employees. Jim and Joe can't afford to pay the $160.00 per
month for Joe's health insurance, and since Joe is only 38
years old, they hope the risk of health problems is low, and
decide that he will have to go without coverage. Within a
year, Joe is diagnosed with Crohn's disease and requires
surgery, treatment and ongoing medications that are very
expensive. Joe quits school under the financial pressure to
look for a job that offers health benefits. Joe gets a job
quickly and applies for health coverage, but the insurer will
not cover any costs associated with Joe's pre-existing
condition of Crohn's disease.
personal statements--university of minnesota
Selected personal statements of gay and lesbian University
employees on the impact of not having equal benefits.
1. The University should honor its nondiscrimination policy
statement by eliminating all polices that discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation. The University should recognize
domestic partnership couples as they do married couples. I
simply want for my family what a married employee can count
on for his/her family. If, as an employee they receive a
benefit, so should I. The solution is to provide similar
benefits to domestic partnership couples or remove the
benefits from married couples. As employees of the University
we should have the same treatment. Gays and lesbians employed
by the University have been systematically excluded from
benefits that have been provided to their heterosexual
colleagues with whom they work side by side, sometimes
performing exactly the same work. That is very wrong and
needs to be corrected!
On a personal level, for the 25 years I have been employed
at the University I have been denied the full employment
status and benefits provided to my heterosexual colleagues.
This has cost me dearly financially, and has sent me the
message that who I love is not valued. This treatment tells
me that my family concerns are not important to the
University. Although I am also an employee of the University
I am not provided with the same health care security for my
family as are my married colleagues.
Finally, as I approach retirement, I am outraged to find
out that my partner can not defer taxes upon receiving my
retirement money in the case of my death as a married spouse
is able to do. This amounts to a huge financial loss for my
partner and other gay and lesbian employees and their
partners. Imagine your spouse having to pay 28% of $250,000
($70,000) or 31% of $300,000 ($93,000) right off the top,
thus diminishing the amount received by our partners to
$180,000 and $207,000 respectfully. This is a concrete
example for two of us currently long time employees of the
University and who are also in long term domestic partnership
relationships. In addition, both couples have registered
under the city of Minneapolis domestic partner ordinance.
I am angry, disappointed and frustrated that the Board of
Regents, President Hasselmo and the administrative leadership
of the University have not taken action to enforce the
University's nondiscrimination policy. The University should
be playing a leadership role in righting this wrong, first,
for its employees and then in initiating changes for the
state of Minnesota and in urging Federal tax law changes.
2. When my partner's mother unexpectedly committed suicide
five years ago, I was scheduled to leave that morning for an
out-of-state business trip. I'll never forget my struggle
over how I would approach my supervisor to request permission
to either cancel the trip or to send someone in my place. I
was up for a promotion and I was afraid that to acknowledge
my sexual preference to this person, who I knew held
fundamental religious values, would compromise my work and my
livelihood.
I ultimately equivocated and asked if I could send someone
else on the trip, because my ``housemate--slash(/)--best
friend needed my support. As you might guess, this didn't
sound sufficiently persuasive and I left on the trip
(shortened by two days) with the ``blessing'' of my partner,
who, of course, was in shock. I succumbed to fear and in
doing so compromised my own humanity and my bond with my
partner. It is still deeply painful for me to remember the
coerciveness of the situation, the fear and intimidation that
I experienced, and my own personal failing.
It was one of the most demeaning and dehumanizing
experiences of my life. I ask those of you who are married to
imagine having to make such a choice: imagine having to ask
permission to be with your grieving partner. There are no
reparations the University can offer me to recast the past. I
would, however, like to think that the Board of Regents and
central administrators have the compassion and courage to act
now so that others will not be confronted with such a choice.
3. The University is discriminating on the basis of sexual
orientation. My family doesn't receive the same benefits as
families of heterosexuals.
I have had the Group Health Plan benefits package for
nearly sixteen years. I began family coverage when I married
(1978), adding my spouse at a nominal monthly fee to the
single coverage I already carried (which was paid in full by
the University). When my children were born (1983, 1986) the
cost of family coverage didn't change. In fact, the cost of
family coverage is constant no matter how many dependents you
have on the policy. I was amazed to learn that the cost of
family coverage (including coverage for my ex-husband)
remained the same even after getting a divorce. My ex-husband
remained on my insurance policy--at no additional cost--even
though we were not legally married.
I am now in a committed lesbian relationship. My partner
and I have a relationship every bit as stable and committed
as a marriage, but we are not entitled to the same benefits I
enjoyed when I was married.
My partner had been teaching part-time in a private school
for two years before she became eligible for health insurance
through her employer. Two weeks before her insurance was to
take effect she was stricken with severe abdominal pain.
Though we considered ``toughing it out until her insurance
kicked in, it became increasingly clear that she needed to be
treated immediately. She had a large, twisted ovarian tumor
removed in October, 1990. By the time of the surgery, her
insurance was in place. We breathed a sigh of relief.
Months later we learned that because her pain started (and
was briefly treated) before her insurance began, the claim
for coverage for the surgery and hospital stay were
disallowed because there was a pre-existing condition
exclusion in her insurance policy. We are now faced with over
$5,000 (plus 12% interest per year) in medical bills. That
may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but it
certainly is to us. And it's money that wouldn't have had to
be spent at all if she had been on my family coverage all
along.
So why is it that my ex-husband (no legal relation) was
entitled to continue receiving benefits until he married, but
my life partner has had to go without medical insurance? The
answer is simple--discrimination.
4. One of my colleagues, a male who is heterosexual,
received his Ph.D. the same year I
[[Page S737]]
did. We have taught the same number of years and were tenured
here the same year. However, he has received health benefits
for his wife and two children during this time. I believe
that would add up to several thousand dollars more that he
has received from this University than I have. My partner is
self employed part time and works at the University only to
receive benefits. I feel that I am discriminated against
based on my sexual preference and have suffered significant
financial loss by having to pay for health benefits for my
partner and our child.
5. I feel discredited in all but the most professional
senses since my University will not acknowledge the
centrality of my relationship with my partner of 14 plus
years. This level of constant and costly discrimination makes
any positive responses to me from the institution bittersweet
at best and hypocritical at worst. My family life is erased
and made invisible by an institution of learning which tauts
acceptance of diversity and pursuit of truth. When I'm not
furious, I'm terribly sad.
6. It is very demoralizing to see the incredible benefits
that my married colleagues (heterosexual) get and know that
it will be a fight to get the same. My partner is self-
employed and health coverage is astronomical for self-
employed people. In order to buy a plan similar to that at
the U, it would cost us $5-$7000 a year. Since it's so
costly, my partner does not have very good health coverage
and as a result I am very concerned about what would happen
if a serious health crisis occurs.
So I am not just losing the $1500 or so the U would pay out
to cover her because of the lack of recognition, I will have
to pay $5-$7000 per year more than most of my colleagues. I
view this as if I received that much less salary per year.
How can the U have sexual orientation, gender and marital
status in the equal opportunity statement and not consider
this discrimination?
I wrote a letter to Gus Donhower when I heard of the
proposed changes in health coverage. One option proposed was
that those people covered by their spouses' employment could
get the cash equivalent of coverage instead of being covered
by the U. I suggested that if that were done, then those of
us without spouses or dependents should certainly get the
cash equivalent of spousal/dependent coverage. It seems an
obvious parallel to me. He responded by saying it was an
interesting idea but there's no money for this added benefit.
Well, I think that's like saying it would be nice to pay
blacks or women what we pay men, but we just don't have the
money. One has no choice but to find the money. If there
really isn't enough then some benefits may need to be removed
from those who have them, in order to provide for those who
don't. Maybe people with more than two children need to pay
for their health insurance, or perhaps the cost for an
employee for spousal coverage needs to increase. The current
discrimination is so clear to me (of course I'm not a lawyer)
that I wonder if a lawsuit could successfully challenge the
University's non-compliance with its equal opportunity
statement.
At this point, my commitment, dedication, willingness to
work hard under increasingly difficult pressure, is affected
by my feeling of not being seen, recognized, and treated
equally to my heterosexual colleagues. Right now, it's hard
not to feel taken advantage
of . . . .
7. My partner returned to school to pursue a second
advanced degree. She attends the University of Minnesota. At
the same time, one of my married colleagues' spouse returned
to school. Their health insurance profile did not change at
all. Ours changed dramatically. Because I cannot get health
insurance for my partner of 10 years (longer than my married
colleague), we have paid 2,500 per year in health insurance
and routine health care out of pocket. Over three years, the
tax on being a lesbian has been $7,500. I realize of course,
that the cost of my health insurance would have increased
during this period, so the net cost to us would have been
above my current health insurance but below $7,500. This
economic burden is a clear example of otherwise similarly
situated people being treated differently solely on the basis
of sexual orientation.
Let me add that I do not think that the University should
require public registration of partnerships to receive
partnership benefits unless the state revokes the so-called
``sodomy'' law. To ask for such registration imposes the
acknowledgement of legal risk as a cost for benefits. In
addition, if reduced tuition is available for other family
members, this benefit should be extended to gay and lesbian
families as well.
8. The University considers me ``single''. As a ``single''
person, I subsidize both married couples and individuals with
children. But as a domestic partner I should be able to enjoy
the same benefits as other ``married'' couples.
Last summer my partner required minor surgery for skin
cancer. Because she was a substitute teacher, she had no
coverage. As a result we became responsible for the bills.
This created more financial and emotional distress for us
which I am certain impacted my own productivity.
Another issue I have is that it seems the administration
wants us to provide documentation (e.g. registration,
affidavits, etc.) to prove we are indeed a couple. Does the
University require married couples to provide an affidavit or
their marriage license when applying for benefits?
Furthermore, the domestic partnership applications become
public records. Given the history of the discriminatory
treatment meted out on gays and lesbians in ours and other
cultures, I would not want to be that public in my sexual
orientation, especially in a state without a human rights
amendment protecting us.
9. How do I feel about the University's treatment of
domestic partners? Not positive! My partner and I each have
one dependent. We must each pay for family benefits which is
a huge commitment, especially since my partner is self-
employed and self-insured. Many of us are on federal
benefits. If the University changes its policy we'll need
help so that we can move to University benefits.
10. I feel that if the University is unable to provide
health benefits to unmarried partners they should also refuse
benefits to married partners and only cover under age
dependents. I consider the lack of these benefits to be an
unequal and discriminatory pay scale, with married employees
receiving higher compensation levels just because they are
married.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 1637. A bill to expedite State review of criminal records of
applicants for bail enforcement officer employment, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the bounty hunter accountability and quality assurance act of 1998
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am joined by my distinguished
colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in introducing the ``Bounty
Hunter Accountability and Quality Assurance Act of 1998.'' Our bill
will begin the process of reforming the revered but antiquated system
of bail enforcement in this country.
Throughout our nation's proud history, bounty hunters have proved a
valuable addition to our law enforcement and recovery efforts. About 40
percent of all criminal defendants are released on bail each year, and
in 1996 alone more than 33,000 skipped town. Police departments, no
matter how efficient or determined, cannot be expected to deal with so
many bail jumpers in addition to their other duties. But while public
law enforcement officers recover only about 10 percent of defendants
who skip town, bounty hunters catch an incredible 88 percent of bail
jumpers.
Because of the special, contractual nature of the relationship
between bail bondsmen and those who use them to get out of jail, bounty
hunters have traditionally enjoyed special rights--a nineteenth century
Supreme Court case affirmed that while bounty hunters may exercise many
of the powers granted to police, they are not subject to many of the
constitutional checks we place on those law enforcement officials. As a
result, bounty hunters need not worry about Miranda rights, extradition
proceedings, or search warrants.
The ability to more efficiently track and recover criminal defendants
serves a valuable purpose in our society. But the lack of
constitutional checks on bounty hunters also opens the system up to the
risk of abuse. Each of us has read or heard about cases in which
legitimate bounty hunters or those simply posing as recovery agents
have wrongfully entered a dwelling or captured the wrong person.
In one recent Arizona case, several men claiming to be bounty hunters
broke into a house, terrorized a family and ended up killing a young
couple who tried to defend against the attack. It now appears that
these men were simply ``posing'' as bounty hunters, but there are other
reported incidents in which ``legitimate'' bounty hunters have broken
down the wrong door, kidnaped the wrong person, or physically abused
the targets of their searches. And there is little recourse for the
innocent victims of wrongful acts.
Our legislation would begin the process of making bounty hunters more
accountable to the public they serve, and would help to restore
confidence in the bail enforcement system. The bill would not unduly
impose the will of the federal government on states, which have
traditionally regulated bounty hunters. Our legislation contains only
three simple provisions, each of which will make it easier to better
regulate bounty hunters, but none of which will overburden states.
The first provision of the ``Bounty Hunter Accountability and Quality
Assurance Act'' would simply allow a national bail enforcement
organization to run background checks through the
[[Page S738]]
FBI, ensuring that there will be a relatively easy way to keep
convicted felons out of the bail enforcement business. A nearly
identical provision related to private security guards recently passed
the House by a nearly unanimous vote.
The second provision of the bill directs the Attorney General of the
United States to establish model guidelines for states to follow when
creating their own bail enforcement regulations. In the course of her
work, the Attorney General will be specifically directed to look into
three areas identified by the bill--whether bounty hunters should be
required to ``knock and announce'' before entering a dwelling, whether
they should be required to carry liability insurance (most already do),
and whether convicted felons should be allowed to obtain employment as
bounty hunters. While states are not required to follow the model
guidelines, those states who choose to adopt the guidelines within two
years will receive priority for Byrne grant funding.
Finally, this bill makes bail bond companies liable for the acts of
the bounty hunters they hire. The clarification of liability in our
bill will encourage these companies to carefully select and perhaps
even train the bounty hunters in their employ. Perhaps we can cut down
on the worst abuses if we force employers to take a closer look at who
they hire.
Mr. President, it is time to start the process of making rogue bounty
hunters more accountable, while at the same time restoring America's
confidence in the long tradition of bail enforcement that dates from
the earliest days of this nation. I urge my colleagues to join us in
taking this first step towards this process, and I thank my
distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, for joining me in
introducing this bill today.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be published
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1637
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 ``Bounty Hunter Accountability
and Quality Assistance Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) bail enforcement officers, also known as bounty hunters
or recovery agents, provide law enforcement officers with
valuable assistance in recovering fugitives from justice;
(2) regardless of the differences in their duties, skills,
and responsibilities, the public has had difficulty in
discerning the difference between law enforcement officers
and bail enforcement officers;
(3) the American public demands the employment of
qualified, well-trained bail enforcement officers as an
adjunct, but not a replacement for, law enforcement officers;
and
(4) in the course of their duties, bail enforcement
officers often move in and affect interstate commerce.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``bail enforcement employer'' means any person
that--
(A) employs 1 or more bail enforcement officers; or
(B) provides, as an independent contractor, for
consideration, the services of 1 or more bail enforcement
officers (which may include the services of that person);
(2) the term ``bail enforcement officer''--
(A) means any person employed to obtain the recovery of any
fugitive from justice who has been released on bail; and
(B) does not include any--
(i) law enforcement officer;
(ii) attorney, accountant, or other professional licensed
under applicable State law;
(iii) employee whose duties are primarily internal audit or
credit functions; or
(iv) member of the Armed Forces on active duty; and
(3) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means a public
servant authorized under applicable State law to conduct or
engage in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, or
adjudication of criminal offenses, including any public
servant engaged in corrections, parole, or probation
functions.
SEC. 4. BACKGROUND CHECKS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Submission.--An association of bail enforcement
employers, which shall be designated for the purposes of this
section by the Attorney General, may submit to the Attorney
General fingerprints or other methods of positive
identification approved by the Attorney General, on behalf of
any applicant for a State license or certificate of
registration as a bail enforcement officer or a bail
enforcement employer.
(2) Exchange.--In response to a submission under paragraph
(1), the Attorney General may, to the extent provided by
State law conforming to the requirements of the second
paragraph under the heading ``Federal Bureau of
Investigation'' and the subheading ``Salaries and Expenses''
in title II of Public Law 92-544 (86 Stat. 1115), exchange,
for licensing and employment purposes, identification and
criminal history records with the State governmental agencies
to which the applicant has applied.
(b) Regulations.--The Attorney General may promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section,
including measures relating to the security, confidentiality,
accuracy, use, and dissemination of information submitted or
exchanged under subsection (a) and to audits and
recordkeeping requirements relating to that information.
(c) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a report on the number of submissions made
by the association of bail enforcement employers under
subsection (a)(1), and the disposition of each application to
which those submissions related.
(d) State Participation.--It is the sense of Congress that
each State should participate, to the maximum extent
practicable, in any exchange with the Attorney General under
subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 5. MODEL GUIDELINES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish in
the Federal Register model guidelines for the State control
and regulation of persons employed or applying for employment
as bail enforcement officers.
(b) Recommendations.--The guidelines published under
subsection (a) shall include recommendations of the Attorney
General regarding whether a person seeking employment as a
bail enforcement officer should be--
(1) allowed to obtain such employment if that person has
been convicted of a felony offense under Federal law, or of
any offense under State law that would be a felony if charged
under Federal law;
(2) required to obtain adequate liability insurance for
actions taken in the course of performing duties pursuant to
employment as a bail enforcement officer; or
(3) prohibited, if acting in the capacity of that person as
a bail enforcement officer, from entering any private
dwelling, unless that person first knocks on the front door
and announces the presence of 1 or more bail enforcement
officers.
(c) Byrne Grant Preference for Certain States.--
(1) In general.--Section 505 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Preference for Certain States.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this part, in making grants to States
under this subpart, the Director shall give priority to
States that have adopted the model guidelines published under
section 5(a) of the Bounty Hunter Accountability and Quality
Assistance Act of 1998.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 6. JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR ACTIVITIES OF BAIL
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a bail
enforcement officer, whether acting as an independent
contractor or as an employee of a bail enforcement employer
on a bail bond, shall be considered to be the agent of that
bail enforcement employer for the purposes of that liability.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerrey,
Mr. Wyden, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 1638. A bill to help parents keep their children from starting to
use tobacco products, to expose the tobacco industry's past misconduct
and to stop the tobacco industry from targeting children, to eliminate
or greatly reduce the illegal use of tobacco products by children, to
improve the public health by reducing the overall use of tobacco, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the healthy kids act
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
we call the HEALTHY Kids Act. It addresses the question of how we form
a national policy on tobacco.
I am joined in cosponsorship by Senators Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman,
[[Page S739]]
Boxer, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Johnson,
Kennedy, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy,
Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Reed, Rockefeller, Torricelli, Wellstone, and
Wyden. And we have additional Senators who are considering
cosponsorship of this legislation as we speak.
First of all, I thank the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his
strong leadership and support of the work of the task force. Months ago
he called me and asked me to head up an effort within the Democratic
Caucus to draft tobacco legislation. We have engaged 21 members of this
task force in a lengthy effort to listen to those affected and to try
to craft a responsible national tobacco policy.
We held 18 hearings. We heard over 100 witnesses. We held hearings
across the country. We engaged in this level of effort because the
subject is so important.
Tobacco is the only product that when used legally--and as the
manufacturer intended--addicts and kills its customers.
For too long tobacco companies have waged war on our kids. It is time
to counterattack.
For too long big tobacco has hooked our kids on a lifelong addiction.
It is time to stop it.
For too long the tobacco industry has deliberately targeted kids as
``replacement smokers'' to fill the shoes of over 425,000 Americans
killed by tobacco each year.
Let me repeat that. Over 400,000 deaths a year in this country are
caused by the use of tobacco products. Many more, as we have heard in
our hearings, have suffered terribly. As we heard Monday at a hearing
in Newark, NJ, when we heard from Pierce Frauenheim, a coach and
assistant principal who had a laryngectomy because of throat cancer
caused by the use of tobacco products. He told us of the terror and
trauma of that illness. And we heard from a young woman named Gina
Seagrave, a young woman who lost her mother to a massive heart attack
when she was only 45 years of age because of using tobacco products.
Her tears told the story of her family's pain and suffering.
Mr. President, those stories are rewritten day in and day out because
of the awful effects of tobacco. There is something we can do about it
if only we have the political will and the courage to act. Witnesses
told us repeatedly that we need a comprehensive plan to dramatically
reduce the use of tobacco products in our country. That is what we
present today--the HEALTHY Kids Act.
Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act is the work of the Senate
Democratic task force on tobacco legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act
provides responsible tobacco policy. It protects children, promotes the
public health, helps tobacco farmers, and resolves Federal, State and
local legal claims, without providing immunity to the industry; it
invests in children and health care; it provides savings for Social
Security and Medicare; and it reimburses taxpayers for costs that have
been imposed on them by the use of these products.
The HEALTHY Kids Act protects children. It does that with a healthy
price increase--a $1.50 a pack health fee phased in over 3 years. It
protects children by providing the Food and Drug Administration with
full authority to regulate these products. It provides strong penalties
for those companies that fail to reach the targeted projection for the
reduction of teen smoking--a 67 percent reduction in teen smoking over
the next 10 years. Those penalties are a 10-cent a pack penalty
industry wide if the goals are not met and a 40-cent a pack penalty for
the individual companies for their failure to reach the objective. We
also protect children by providing comprehensive antitobacco programs.
Included in that are counteradvertising, prevention programs, smoking
cessation programs and research. Finally, in protecting children, we
provide for retailer compliance--State licensure of retailers and no
sales to minors.
The HEALTHY Kids Act also promotes the public health. It does so by
addressing the question of secondhand smoke. Most public facilities in
the country would be smoke free under our proposal. We would provide
exemptions for bars, casinos, bingo parlors, hotel guest rooms--that
is, hotels could have smoking and nonsmoking rooms as they do now--
nonfast-food small restaurants, that is, those restaurants with less
than 50 seats would be exempt; prisons, tobacco shops, and private
clubs. At the same time we provide those exemptions, we also provide
for no State preemption. If a State or local unit of government wants
to have more stringent provisions, it is free to do so.
We also promote the public health by protecting the public's right to
know. We provide for full document disclosure; all relevant documents
go to the FDA. The FDA is able to make those documents public; and the
public health interest overrides trade secret or attorney-client
privileges when the FDA makes a determination that the public health is
the overriding interest.
We also provide for international tobacco marketing controls: no
promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. I am proud to say that in this
administration we are not doing that, but in previous administrations
they have. This would codify the conduct of this administration and
provide for no promotion of U.S. tobacco exports. It also provides a
code of conduct. No marketing to foreign children. Any activities
carried out in this country to market to children in another country
would be illegal. It also has modest funding for international tobacco
control efforts. And we require warning labels, warning labels of the
country that is the recipient of products sent from this country. And
if they do not have a system of warning labels, then our own warning
labels would apply.
The HEALTHY Kids Act also helps tobacco farmers. They were left out
of the proposed settlement completely. Their interest was not
addressed. We do not think that is fair. We provide $10 billion in just
the first 5 years for assistance to farmers and their communities. We
authorize funding for transition payments to farmers and quota holders.
We provide for rural and community economic development retraining for
tobacco factory workers and tobacco farmers and even college
scholarships for farm families if the committees of Congress deem that
appropriate.
The HEALTHY Kids Act makes very clear that we will not provide
immunity to this industry, no special protection for future misconduct,
no special protection against individual lawsuits for past misconduct.
We do resolve the outstanding Federal, State, and local government
legal claims. States, however, can opt out of this national settlement
if they so choose, and cities and counties are assured of getting a
fair share of reimbursements that go to States.
On the question of attorney's fees, we concluded that no monies from
the HEALTHY Kids Act should be used for attorney's fees. With respect
to the size of the fees, we deliberated long and hard, listened to all
of the affected interests and concluded that the attorney's fees in
these cases ought to be resolved by arbitration panels using ABA
ethical guidelines. Those guidelines are set out with specificity in
the legislation that I will introduce today.
And so if we are in a circumstance like the controversy in Florida,
if the parties cannot agree, an arbitration panel would resolve the
matter and determine what the attorney's fees were in the case that has
been settled. That is also the case in other States. If the parties at
interest reach agreement among themselves, there would not be an
arbitration panel. But where there is disagreement as to what the
appropriate attorney fees should be, an arbitration panel would be
empowered to make the determination.
I do not think any of us want to see unjust enrichment of anybody
based on a resolution of these tobacco issues and tobacco lawsuits
around the country.
Mr. President, the HEALTHY Kids Act invests in children, in health,
in savings for Social Security and Medicare, and reimburses taxpayers
who have had costs imposed on them.
The distribution of the funds raised by the act is as follows:
Payments to States are 41.5 percent of the revenues. The States would
get 14\1/2\ percent of the money unrestricted; 27 percent would go to
the States for children's health care, child care and improved
education.
[[Page S740]]
We would also provide 15.5 percent for antitobacco programs. That
includes counteradvertising campaigns as well as smoking cessation and
smoking prevention programs. NIH health research would be increased.
They would receive 21 percent of the funds provided. Medicare would get
4 percent of the money initially but over time that would grow to 10
percent. Similarly, Social Security would get 6 percent of the money
initially and that would grow to 12 percent over time.
We believe it is appropriate when you receive a windfall not to spend
it all, and so we are providing that when the program is fully phased
in, over 20 percent of the money, instead of being spent, will be used
to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the future.
That is what the American people want to see happen, and we have
provided for it in this legislation. Farmers initially get 12 percent
of the revenues to ease their transition. Obviously, they are going to
take an economic hit here, and it seemed fair to us that they be
included in any package to resolve these controversies. Over time their
part of this package would be phased out and then the Medicare and
Social Security parts of the legislation would see their share
increased.
Mr. President, we have provided here a comparison of the tobacco
revenue and spending, a comparison between what the President's budget
called for and what The HEALTHY Kids Act calls for. First of all, in
terms of total revenue, our plan would raise $82 billion over the next
5 years, some $500 billion over the next 25 years. In the first 5
years, the States would get in an unrestricted way $12 billion. They
would get $22 billion for children--$14 billion for child care, $3
billion for health care for children and $5 billion for education. The
research component of the plan would provide $17 billion to the
National Institutes of Health for increased health research. Medicare
initially would get $3 billion in the first 5 years. The farmers would
get $10 billion. That is a 5-year figure. The antitobacco efforts would
receive $13 billion, and savings for Social Security would be $5
billion.
Mr. President, The HEALTHY Kids Act is supported by the American
public. We did extensive national polling to make certain that what we
are proposing is in line with what the American people want and the
polling data shows a high level of support for a significant per pack
price increase which we have termed a health fee, significant public
support for strong lookback penalties for failure to meet the goals of
reducing teen smoking and no special protections for this industry.
That is what the American people want. That is what The HEALTHY Kids
Act provides. With respect to the question of a $1.50 per pack health
fee for youth smoking deterrence and health programs, the American
people support that by more than a 2-to-1 margin--65 percent in favor,
30 percent opposed. By the way, this is across party lines, across
regional lines. The American people support a $1.50 a pack health fee.
The price increase support for youth smoking deterrence and health
programs cuts across party lines. The poll shows if it is termed tax
support it is very strong all across the country, even stronger if it
is for a health fee. In fact, 69 percent of Democrats support the $1.50
health fee, 67 percent of Republicans.
There is also strong public support for a lookback penalty of 50
cents a pack if the industry fails to meet the goals for the reduction
of teen smoking. By 54 percent to 34 percent the American public
supports lookback penalties of 50 cents a pack or more. In fact, a
significant majority of the 54 percent support a dollar a pack lookback
penalty.
Voters are also strongly opposed to providing special protections to
the tobacco industry. When we asked the American people: Do you want to
give immunity to this industry? Do you want to give them special
protection going forward? By 55 percent to 32 percent, they oppose any
special protections being given to this industry. They say no to
immunity. The HEALTHY Kids Act says no to immunity.
The HEALTHY Kids Act accomplishes the objectives laid out by
President Clinton. He laid out five. He said you have to reduce teen
smoking by providing tough penalties and a health fee or price increase
that will deter youth smoking. We have full FDA authority. We are
changing the industry culture. We meet the additional health goals laid
out by the President, and protect tobacco farmers and their
communities.
As the Vice President said yesterday when we unveiled this proposal
in a press conference here on Capitol Hill: The administration strongly
supports this bill.
The Vice President reported that if this bill comes to the
President's desk, he will sign it and sign it without hesitation.
I expect that big tobacco will fight these initiatives. Indeed, we
saw yesterday they came out swinging against the proposal that I am
offering here today. We will hear from the tobacco industry, its
lobbyists and its supporters in Congress, that we cannot have a health
fee of $1.50 a pack, we can't fund public health programs or hold the
industry and tobacco companies accountable if they sell to kids. We
will hear from them that we cannot give FDA the same authority it has
over prescription drugs and our food supply.
I submit, if we care about our kids' futures, we must do all of these
things. This legislation lays down a marker for good, responsible,
national tobacco policy to protect our kids and promote the public
health. It sets a clear, unambiguous test against which other
legislation can be measured. And it sets a challenge for those who say
they want to protect our kids but have so far not produced effective
tobacco control legislation. The HEALTHY Kids Act recognizes that
tobacco is causing addiction, disease and death. It also recognizes
that there is something we can do about it. HEALTHY Kids affirms life
and health and our commitment to our children. It tells you we can make
a difference.
I invite my colleagues to join in a bipartisan effort to pass
legislation like we are offering here today. We can do it and we can
make a difference. We can reduce the addiction, the disease and the
death that is being caused by the use of tobacco products. Now is the
time to act. The public supports it. Again, I ask my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. There is no reason for
this to be a partisan issue. There is every reason for us to work
together to resolve the challenges posed to our society by the use of
these products.
Mr. President, I note a colleague of mine, Senator Reed of Rhode
Island, is on the floor. Senator Reed played a critical role in the
development of this legislation. He was one of the most active
participants on the task force who has worked for months to fashion
these legislative proposals. I commend Senator Reed publicly for his
contributions to this effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator
Conrad from North Dakota, in supporting and introducing the HEALTHY
Kids Act and thank him for his kind words. I must say, if there is
anyone who has been a true leader and true hero in this struggle to
date, it has been Kent Conrad, whose leadership helped pull together
not only an impressive array of cosponsors but, with over hundreds of
witnesses and many, many sessions, he was able to get to the substance
of a very complicated and difficult issue: How are we going to respond
to the crisis of teenage smoking in the United States? How are we going
to protect the public health of America, particularly America's
children?
Today we are introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act, which will, I believe,
do that. Again, I commend Senator Conrad for his great leadership and
effort, and I look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to
develop legislation that will once and for all prevent the illegal sale
of cigarettes to children in this country.
We are all aware of the depressing statistics with respect to smoking
and children in the United States. Today, some 50 million Americans are
addicted to tobacco smoke. Every year, 1 million children become
regular users of cigarettes, tobacco. One-third of them will die
prematurely of lung cancer, emphysema, or other horrible smoking
related illnesses.
[[Page S741]]
This is an addiction. Fully three-quarters of smokers want to quit
but they cannot because they are addicted. The most disturbing aspect
of this addiction is it begins with young people. Mr. President, 90
percent of adult smokers today began to smoke while they were 18 years
old or less. In fact, this goes down to children who are 10, 11, 12
years old. It is a shocking, disturbing, and all-too-real aspect of
American life and culture. We have an opportunity, indeed an
obligation, to do something about it. That is why I am here, along with
Senator Conrad, to join in the introduction of this HEALTHY Kids Act.
In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a situation in which adult
smoking is beginning to stabilize. Unfortunately, teen smoking
continues to rise, with a more than 25 percent increase among high
school students. That is a bad omen for the future, a bad omen for the
country. It is too easy for children to buy cigarettes. It is too easy,
in a climate in which the tobacco industry spends upward of $5 billion
a year making cigarette smoking appear to be alluring, sophisticated,
adult-oriented--all those things which are attractive to children.
We know from the record that has emerged over the last several months
in court proceedings that this is not a coincidence, we know that
children have been deliberately targeted by cigarette companies. They
are the replacement customers for the 400,000 Americans who die each
year of smoking-related diseases. We have to stop that insidious
replacement, that insidious attack on the youth of America.
We begin this legislative process in a situation in which the tobacco
industry has worked hard to earn the distrust--let me say it again--the
distrust of the American people. Over the years they have not been
candid. They have deliberately confused, fought against, and frustrated
attempts to regulate their product in the marketplace.
I recently came across an interesting story about youthful smoking
among boys. One of the research scientists said, ``The cigarette smoker
is slowly and surely poisoning himself and is largely unconscious of
it.'' That report was in Education Magazine in 1909. The tobacco
industry has long known that cigarette smoking is harmful to children,
and harmful to public health.
In 1963, Battelle Laboratories in Switzerland did a series of studies
for the British American Tobacco Company, that's the parent of Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Company. The conclusion, after review of these
studies by the general counsel of Brown & Williamson, was shown as
follows: ``We are then in the business of selling nicotine, an
addictive drug, effective in the release of stress mechanisms.'' Since
1960, the industry has known they were selling an addictive product,
and has known they were selling a product that killed people.
It has all, though, been obscured and dressed up by advertising that
would suggest to everyone that smoking is not harmful; indeed, claiming
it is healthful. That is absolutely wrong. Back in the 1920s, the
companies that were selling cigarettes were advertising themes like,
``20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating.'' Promoting
cigarettes, in effect, as a healthful practice and not a harmful
practice. Another theme of those days was, ``For digestion's sake,
smoke Camels.'' Again emphasizing an illusory therapeutic value that
never existed in cigarettes.
In 1953, an advertisement read, ``This is it. L&M filters are just
what the doctor ordered.'' As if the medical profession was endorsing a
product which they knew was harmful and which they suspected, but
perhaps did not yet know, was highly addictive.
In this Congress, we have tried to rein in the use of tobacco by
children, tried to control the access of young people and tried to warn
the American public about the dangers of tobacco. In the 1960s, we
brought the industry, we thought, kicking and screaming to accept
legislatively mandated warning label. Only after the fact did we learn
that the industry privately accepted this label as a good fortune
because it allowed them to defend themselves in court with the notion
that smokers assumed the risk because they read these labels. Only
recently, with the evidence that is more and more conclusive each day
of the addictive quality of cigarettes, has the industry begun to
respond.
Today we are here to ensure that the past is not repeated, the past
of addiction of young people to cigarettes and the past of a very
pliant Congress, not effectively regulating the tobacco industry. That
is why the HEALTHY Kids Act is so important. It represents a
comprehensive effort to ensure that our children are safe and the
public health is protected.
One of the important elements of this bill is a price increase of
$1.50 a pack. This is not in any way an attempt of retribution on the
industry. Rather, it recognizes the fact that a price increase is
probably the strongest deterrent there is to teenage smoking. Unlike
adult smokers who may already very well addicted, teenagers will
respond to price increases. A price increase is one sure way, perhaps
the best way, we can ensure that teenagers do not smoke.
The second aspect of the act is giving the FDA full authority over
tobacco products, all tobacco products. This proposal would not
condition their authority; it would give the FDA the authority, the
responsibility, the obligation to regulate tobacco as it regulates so
many other drugs and so many other products in our society.
This legislation also includes strong look-back penalties. The
HEALTHY Kids Act would set a goal of reducing teenage smoking rates by
67 percent in 10 years and would hold manufacturers accountable for
these tough goals by imposing 10-cent-a-pack penalties on the industry
across the board and 40-cent penalties on brand-specific products that
do not meet the targeted reductions. There would be no rebate. In the
proposal the industry negotiated with the Attorneys General, there
would be the possibility of a company receiving a rebate by just trying
hard. This legislation would require the goal be met, not simply the
effort be made. This would also include comprehensive anti-smoking
programs, through advertising, prevention programs, and other means
that would help ensure that children do not smoke. These program would
also give adults, if they wish to change, access to programs to make
sure they can make that transition from smoking to nonsmoking.
Because of the money that is generated, we will be able to commit
significant resources to programs that are extremely important,
programs that have been outlined so well by Senator Conrad: education,
child care, health resources.
Also, this legislation, importantly, does not curtail prospective
liability for the tobacco industry. It would settle the suits that have
been lodged by the State attorneys general. Also, it would settle
claims with respect to governmental entities, but it would allow
individual citizens who have been harmed and who will be harmed by
tobacco smoke to bring their case to court.
I believe this is a crucial part of the legislation, because without
this, the other mechanisms that we develop may well be undermined by
sophisticated corporate reorganizations by the industry, by challenges
to aspects of the law, and by many things which the tobacco companies
have done in the past to remake themselves to comply with Federal
statutes. Statutes which Congress thought would control their behavior
but which in many cases not only did not control their behavior but
gave the tobacco companies additional ammunition to defend themselves
against civil suits in the courts.
I believe that this liability issue is an important one and one that
distinguishes this legislation from others that have been introduced in
this Congress.
We here today have the opportunity to do what all Americans want us
to do, ensure that children do not have ready access to cigarettes,
ensure that the next generation of Americans is not addicted before
they become adults, ensure that the public health in this country is
protected, ensure that we are able to create an environment in which a
parent does not have to confront what must be one of the most harrowing
moments, the realization that a young son or a young daughter is
beginning to smoke and realizing also, as we do today, that that means
that this child will die prematurely.
No parent should have to endure that moment. No child should have to
be subject to the barrage of advertising,
[[Page S742]]
the barrage of influences which have forced that child to smoke
cigarettes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this
bill and to meet these goals. I look forward, as we all do, to the day
in which cigarette smoking is not something that we associate with the
youth of this country.
I yield my time.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just take a few moments this
afternoon to express my very warm appreciation to Senator Conrad for
the leadership that he has provided in bringing together a variety of
different views and offering on behalf of the families of this country
an absolutely superb proposal that is focused on how we are going to
reduce smoking for the young people of this country.
This bill isn't the perfect solution, but I daresay that if this
particular legislative proposal was enacted into law it would save the
lives of millions of Americans.
This has been a long process, Mr. President, since the first Surgeon
General pointed out the dangers of smoking. This has been a constant
effort over many, many years to try and address this issue in a
comprehensive and responsible way.
All of us take our hats off to the work that was done by the
attorneys general that resulted in the June 20 settlement. But the
legislation Senator Conrad has introduced today is really a very, very
comprehensive proposal that, in many respects, may be the most
important legislative undertaking that we will have in this Congress.
Senator Conrad and the other members of the task force should be
commended in putting this proposal forward so early in the Congress. We
know we have maybe 90 days left in this session, but I daresay that our
time could not be more beneficially spent than in the debate and the
discussion of this legislation.
I join with those in hoping that we can get thoughtful consideration
of this legislation in the committee on the floor of the Senate. It
incorporates the principles that have been identified by the public
health community and those who have studied this issue over a long
period of time which are most important in reducing smoking:
No. 1, raising the cost of cigarettes in a substantial way over a
short period of time. In addition, the counteradvertising measures are
very, very important. Those two measures in tandem can make a dramatic
difference in the number of young people who will smoke in the future.
The strong FDA measures will also make sure the Agency will have the
power and the authority to regulate nicotine and the other additives in
cigarettes.
I think the attention that was given in the secondhand smoking
proposals and also in recognizing our responsibilities of promoting
cigarettes overseas are very thoughtful suggestions in these areas.
I want to add that I believe it is so important that the revenues
that are raised from this proposal will give a substantial boost to
programs that affect the children of this country. A very substantial
part of the financial resources that are gained when this legislation
is enacted will be focused on the children who have been the focus of
the tobacco industry for over a long, long period of time. I commend
the Senator and the task force for that commitment to the nation's
children.
Secondly, there is an equally strong commitment towards supporting
the biomedical research which offers such extraordinary opportunities
for breakthroughs, not only in children's diseases but in other medical
conditions such as cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's
Disease, and mental illness.
This legislation can make a major difference in the public health of
the nation by reducing youth smoking. It can also make a major
difference to the children of this nation in focusing resources to make
their lives more hopeful in the future. And it can make a major
difference in terms of the biomedical research opportunities at NIH
which offer extraordinary hope in finding treatments for some of the
nation's most severe medical conditions.
For all these reasons, this legislation should go forward. As Senator
Conrad has pointed out, he welcomes the chance for others to join in
strong support of this legislation, but certainly it is the challenge
that is laid out here. Others will have views. We hope they will come
forward.
What we have heard so far is a deafening silence. I don't think the
American people are going to tolerate a silence in blind opposition to
what has been a very thoughtful, a very comprehensive, and a very
detailed response to something that is of central importance to every
family in this country.
I commend the Senator from North Dakota for all of his work and
indicate a great desire to work closely with him and the others to make
sure this legislation becomes law.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy. He has been an
outstanding member of this task force team. No member of the task force
contributed more to the work of this group than Senator Kennedy. He has
played an absolutely key role in the development of this legislation,
through his own efforts and the efforts of his outstanding staff. He
has been a leader for a lifetime on these issues, and I extend my
deepest personal appreciation to him for his assistance and support.
I would also like to recognize Senator Baucus, who is on the floor.
Senator Baucus who is an original cosponsor of this bill has been
enormously helpful as well. He is a member of the Senate Finance
Committee and has a special understanding of the financial aspects of
this legislation. I thank Senator Baucus for his commitment and his
leadership as well.
Let me conclude by thanking my staff who have worked very long hours
to produce this legislation: Bob Van Heuvelen, my policy director and
chief counsel; Tom Mahr who is the person on my staff who heads up all
of the health issues who has worked incredibly hard and with great
skill to craft this legislation; Monica Boudjouk who has spent many a
long evening helping us to put together the many details of the
proposal before us; and Mark Harsch, a fellow on my staff who has been
enormously helpful as well.
I thank them all for their contributions, as well as the staff of the
other task force members who put a great deal of time and effort into
working to produce this bill. I thank them all.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is much too
kind in his compliments of this Senator. The real credit goes to the
Senator from North Dakota. We have seen many task forces appointed by
various leaders on both sides of the aisle. I think we know that most
task forces basically do their work. They meet, they have several
meetings, and are earnest in trying to come up with a good solution
assigned to them by the leader.
In this case, the Senator from North Dakota added new meaning to the
definition of task force. First of all, they tasked; they worked very
hard. I have not seen any effort since the days I have been in the
Senate where a task force, a group worked so hard at so many meetings,
called in so many outside experts in such a wide variety of fields to
make sure they came up with a very solid, comprehensive, near bullet-
proof proposal in an area that is as complicated as this, whether it is
taxation issues, whether it is health issues, whether it is judicial
issues, whatever they may be.
All of us who have any knowledge of the degree to which the Senator
from North Dakota put this group together salute him. I have never seen
anybody work as hard, as diligently and come up with such a fine
product as the Senator from North Dakota. I hope that future task
forces use his as a model, because if they do, the people of our
country will be very, very well served, just as the Senator from North
Dakota's task force has served America with his efforts and his work.
He has done the best job of any Senator I have ever seen on any kind of
task force or group effort trying to come up with a solution to a very
complicated problem. Again, I salute him.
[[Page S743]]
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters of
support for the Healthy Kids Act be submitted into the Record following
my remarks.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Joint Statement of Drs. Koop and Kessler on the Conrad Task Force Bill
``We have been working steadfastly with Republican and
Democratic legislators to help fashion comprehensive tobacco
legislation that will have the net effect of reducing the
number of people who smoke and fundamentally changing the way
the tobacco industry does business without granting them
immunity or special concessions.
``The principles in the Conrad task force legislation track
closely with the public health principles and goals outlined
in the report of the Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy and
Public Health. It is a good step in a legislative process
that we hope results in concrete, comprehensive public health
measures to reduce the harm from smoking.
``We look forward to working with Sen. Conrad and all other
members of the Congress to achieve these important public
health goals.''
____
Statement of Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, State of
Minnesota
Re: Senator Kent Conrad's Healthy Kids Act, Wednesday,
February 11, 1998
I commend Senator Conrad for his leadership of the Senate
Democratic Tobacco Task Force in its efforts to address the
number one public health issue of our day. The Healthy Kids
Act, proposed by Senator Conrad today, is a monumental step
forward in our efforts to advance public health and protest
future generations of kids.
Senator Conrad's bill offers the best hope yet for saving
our children from tobacco addiction, disease and death. It's
a common sense approach that will reduce youth smoking rates
dramatically and hold the tobacco industry accountable for
results.
The bill's strong financial penalties against the industry
for continuing to sell to kids creates a powerful economic
incentive to reform this industry's conduct. And by giving
the FDA full authority and oversight over the health hazards
of tobacco, the tobacco industry's manipulation of nicotine
to keep smokers addicted will finally come to an end.
This bill stands in stark contrast to the sweetheart deal
proposed by the tobacco industry last summer. and it's
because Senator Conrad and the Task Force asked the right
question. Instead of asking ``what will the industry
accept,'' Senator Conrad asked ``what is the right policy for
the nation.'' And the result is a bill that gets it right for
our children without giving this outlaw industry any special
immunity that no other business in America enjoys.
____
National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC, February 11, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: The National Association of Counties
(NACo) is pleased to support your bill, the Healthy Kids Act.
Not only does the legislation recognize the important health
responsibilities counties assume in the nation's
intergovernmental system, it also acknowledges the
responsibilities they have for enforcing tobacco control
ordinances. The bill is a very strong step forward for public
health.
As we understand it, the Healthy Kids Act recognizes the
unique and substantial tobacco-related health care costs
counties incur separate from the states' costs. As you know,
counties provide health care to individuals who have no
private or federally subsidized insurance, such as Medicaid.
Counties provide uncompensated care under general medical
assistance programs; through their health facilities; and/or
make payments to other facilities. Many also contribute
directly to the non-federal share of Medicaid. A number of
local governments filed suit against the tobacco industry
prior to the June 1997 proposed settlement using these facts
as a basis for part of their arguments.
We are also pleased to understand that county tobacco laws
and enforcement activities would not be preempted by federal
law under the bill. Counties must continue to be able to
enact and enforce, with locally-determined remedies, local
tobacco ordinances and penalties which are stronger than
state or federal law.
Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. NACo
looks forward to working with you to advance and refine the
Healthy Kids Act.
Very Truly Yours,
Randy Johnson,
President, NACo,
Hennepin County Commissioner.
____
American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, February 11, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: The American Public Health Association
(APHA), consisting of more than 50,000 public health
professionals dedicated to advancing the nation's health,
commends you for developing a comprehensive tobacco bill that
is a significant step forward toward protecting public
health, especially our nation's children and adolescents.
Your legislation addresses many priority issues for APHA
and the public health community and we recognize that in
these areas your bill provides stronger than the proposed
settlement and many other current tobacco proposals in the
Senate. APHA is particularly pleased with the following
aspects of your tobacco bill:
Reaffirmation of FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products,
especially the codification of the tobacco-related
regulations promulgated this summer by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services;
Preservation of state and local authority to impose
stronger requirements, prohibitions, and other measures to
control tobacco;
Creation of a national tobacco surveillance and evaluation
program at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
to monitor patterns of tobacco use and assess the
effectiveness of tobacco control efforts.
Requirement that tobacco control initiatives and programs
funded under this bill utilize proven and effective
methodologies;
Recognition that certain subpopulations, such as women and
minorities, are disproportionately affected by tobacco
products and calling for research to be conducted to study
different effects of tobacco use on these groups;
Assistance to tobacco growers, their families, and
communities;
Creation of an international code-of-conduct for tobacco
companies to help protect children and adults in other
countries from the dangers of tobacco products;
Support for international tobacco control efforts,
including the funding of bilateral and multilateral
assistance and the creation of a non-governmental
organization to work with other NGOs abroad on tobacco
control;
Ban on the use of taxpayer money to help promote U.S.
tobacco products overseas;
Health care assistance to uninsured and underinsured
individuals with financial hardship who suffer from tobacco-
related illnesses and conditions;
Strengthen look-back provisions to ensure that tobacco
companies are held accountable if adolescent smoking rates do
not decrease;
No special legal protections for tobacco companies.
As you work with your Senate colleagues on moving tobacco
legislation, we urge you to consider strengthening the public
health title of the bill. Specifically, APHA advocates
stronger involvement of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and state and local health departments in the
myriad public health activities funded under this title,
increased funding for the public health initiatives under
this title, inclusion of additional public health tobacco use
prevention and reduction initiatives such as environmental
tobacco smoke education programs and research, and other
public health and prevention focused efforts.
We are committed to working with you and your Senate
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to ensure that the
final tobacco control legislative vehicle is the strongest
possible national tobacco policy. We appreciate your efforts
to ensure the protection and promotion of public health and
offer our assistance as you continue to work on this issue of
critical global public health significance.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Levinson, MD, DPA,
Associate Executive Director,
Programs and Policy.
____
American Lung Association,
Washington, DC, February 11, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: The American Lung Association is
pleased to endorse your tough tobacco legislation--The
Healthy Kids Act. This is the legislation the American people
have been demanding. It is not a deal for the tobacco
industry. It is a promise to our children. We are grateful
that you have made your legislative priority public health,
not saving the tobacco industry.
Americans oppose special deals for Big Tobacco. This
legislation reflects that sentiment and does not create
unprecedented special protections for the tobacco industry.
Americans know that in their own communities they can pass
even stronger public health laws than those passed at the
federal level. This bill respects the rights of state and
local governments to continue to pass strong measures.
This bill promises to create a solid national tobacco
policy that will improve health. The American Lung
Association believes that your approach will succeed.
Public opinion polling conducted recently for the American
Lung Association and its medical section, the American
Thoracic Society, found that voters overwhelmingly support
(65% to 30%) the $1.50 per pack fee on cigarettes. Voters
also support stiff penalties on tobacco companies if they
continue to sell to our children (54% support a per pack
penalty of $0.50 or more compared to 28% who want no
penalty). The electorate opposes special protections for the
tobacco industry (55% to 32%). Nearly seven out of ten voters
(69% to 33%) want the tobacco companies to follow the same
rules on marketing to children overseas as they do in the
U.S. It is clear that your bill is in sync with the will of
the American people.
The American Lung Association hopes that Congress will
follow your lead--keep this
[[Page S744]]
promise to our children--and enact the Healthy Kids Act into
law.
Sincerely,
John R. Garrison,
CEO and Managing Director.
____
Statement of the ENACT Coalition Regarding the Introduction of The
Healthy Kids Act
(February 11, 1998) The ENACT coalition of major public
health organizations applauds today's introduction of the
Healthy Kids Act by Senator Conrad and his co-sponsors. We
support a strong comprehensive approach and welcome this
bill.
The Healthy Kids Act encompasses the key policies that
ENACT has stated must be included in any effective tobacco
control legislation. The bill contains strong and effective
provisions regarding FDA authority over tobacco sales,
manufacturing and advertising; significant price increases to
deter use by kids; effective ``look-back'' penalties if sales
to youth don't decrease; a vigorous crackdown on the illegal
sale of tobacco to minors; protections from secondhand smoke;
disclosure of tobacco industry documents; assistance to
tobacco farmers; and support for efforts to reduce tobacco
use internationally.
ENACT believes that only a comprehensive bill that meets
our minimum criteria can adequately address the complex
problem of tobacco use and reduce the number of kids who
start using tobacco, and the number of adults who die each
year.
We expect a number of additional proposals to be introduced
in the House and Senate in the coming weeks. We will evaluate
each of them, and those already introduced, for their
adherence to the public health principles we have set forth.
ENACT is committed to working with Senator Conrad and with
Members of Congress from both parties to enact a
comprehensive, bi-partisan, well-funded and sustainable
tobacco control policy.
ENACT coalition members (February 11, 1998)
Allergy and Asthma Network--Mothers of Asthmatics, Inc.
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Academy of Family Physicians.
American Academy of Pediatrics.
American Association for Respiratory Care.
American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin.
American Cancer Society.
American College of Cardiology.
American College of Chest Physicians.
American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine.
American College of Physicians.
American College of Preventive Medicine.
American Heart Association.
American Medical Association.
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association.
American Society of Anesthesiologists.
American Society of Clinical Oncology.
American Society of Internal Medicine.
Association of American Medical Colleges.
Association of Black Cardiologists, Inc.
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.
Association of Schools of Public Health.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
College on Problems of Drug Dependence.
Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists.
Family Voices.
The HMO Group.
Interreligious Coalition on Smoking OR Health.
Latino Council on Alcohol & Tobacco.
National Association of Children's Hospitals.
National Association of County and City Health Officials.
National Association of Local Boards of Health.
National Hispanic Medical Association.
Oncology Nursing Society.
Partnership for Prevention.
Society for Public Health Education.
The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.
The Society of Behavioral Medicine.
Summit Health Coalition.
A number of the nation's major public health organizations
have formed ENACT (Effective National Action to Control
Tobacco). This growing coalition has pledged to work with the
Congress, the Administration, the public health community and
the American people to pass comprehensive, sustainable,
effective, well-funded national tobacco control legislation.
____
Statement by the Coalition for Workers' Health Care Funds Supporting
the Senate Democratic Task Force ``Healthy Kids'' Bill
The Coalition for Workers' Health Care Funds represents
some 2,500 union sponsored, multiemployer health and welfare
funds which have brought class action law suits against the
tobacco companies seeking reimbursement for their health care
costs of tobacco-related diseases.
The Coalition believes that the legislation introduced by
Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Tom Daschle on behalf of the
Senate Democratic Tobacco Task Force is both sound and
reasonable. It represents good public health policy, while at
the same time protecting the civil justice rights of the
multi-employer health & welfare community and others with
claims against the tobacco companies.
We are particularly pleased that the legislation includes
an adjustment assistance program for those tobacco workers
who might be adversely effected by the legislation, and we
encourage the sponsors to further develop this important
program. Such assistance for workers is essential in light of
the fact that for the past 18 years, the tobacco companies
have engaged in a systematic corporate policy to downsize the
workforce without assistance for its workers.
According to the ``Statistical Abstract of the Unite States
1997'' the tobacco industry has reduced its total employment
by over 40% since 1980; from 69,000 in 1980 to 41,000 in
1996. Moreover, the ``Abstract'' projects that by 2005 the
industry will have further reduced its U.S. employment to
26,000, for an overall reduction since 1980 of 62.4%.
Absolutely none of this workforce reduction has been due to a
profit decline for the industry since, again according to the
``Abstract'' the annual value of the domestic product has
remained constant at about $35 billion. It is also no secret
that the U.S. tobacco manufactures have been moving
production facilities overseas. All of this occurred long
before any ``Tobacco settlement'' was ever negotiated or
anticipated. It is the direct result of the same corporate
strategy that we have witnessed in industry after industry;
from machine tools and electrical equipment to textiles and
semi-conductors. In their effort to maximize profits American
corporations have closed manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
and moved to countries with the lowest wages and least labor
protections.
Employment in the Tobacco Industry
In its effort to enact federal legislation to immunize
itself from effective legal action, the tobacco industry has
engaged in an attempt to economically ``blackmail'' the
workers employed in the tobacco industry. The industry has
argued that unless the tobacco deal, with immunity, is
enacted that it will be forced to shut-down its operations in
the United States and move production overseas.
The fact of the matter is that over the last 18 years, the
industry has dramatically reduced employment by 40% and
intends to continue this trend in the future.
The tobacco industry employment figures reproduced below
are from the ``Statistical Abstract of the United States
1997'', the ultimate source of which is the industry itself.
All Employees--all products:
1980.........................................................69,000
1990.........................................................49,000
1996.........................................................41,000
2005-(proj.).................................................26,000
Production Employees--all products:
1980.........................................................54,000
1990.........................................................36,000
1996.........................................................31,000
All Employees--cigarettes:
1980.........................................................46,000
1990.........................................................35,000
1996.........................................................28,000
Production Employees--cigarettes:
1980.........................................................35,000
1990.........................................................26,000
1996.........................................................21,000
Notes:
1. These figures were prepared long before the announced ``Tobacco
Settlement''.
2. Less than half of all tobacco production workers are represented by
labor unions.
3. The Union sponsored labor-management health & welfare funds which
have brought suit against the tobacco companies represent 30 million
union workers, retirees and their families.
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997, p. 416 & p.
425.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to speak in strong support of
the HEALTHY Kids Act, which was introduced by Senator Conrad. Senator
Conrad chaired our tobacco task force, on which I served as vice
chairman, and I thought, as did most on our side, that he did an
incredibly thorough job in researching the issues and hearing from the
various affected parties.
Mr. President, this bill today reflects the consensus of our task
force. It is the vision of the Senate Democrats and has cosponsors from
all sectors of the Democratic Party. Although some of us differ on
certain specific points, all of us who are cosponsoring this
legislation agree that this bill contains the right approach to
tackling the devastating health problems that come from smoking
cigarettes.
At the heart of this proposal is a per pack price increase of $1.50.
This price increase will be phased in over three years and then indexed
to inflation to maintain a deterrent effect on youth smoking.
I am particularly pleased, Mr. President, with this aspect of the
HEALTHY Kids Act because it was adopted from a bill I introduced last
year, the Public Health and Education Resource Act, which is S. 1343.
I believe now--as I did then--that if we are serious about reducing
teen smoking, we have to increase the price swiftly and dramatically.
It seems to have the most deterrent effect of all measures on youth
because when the price goes up that far they cannot afford to pick up
the habit, for which we are grateful.
[[Page S745]]
This bill also includes much of the bill that Senator Kennedy
sponsored, and that I had the opportunity to support as a cosponsor,
again representing the views of several of our Members to be included
in this consensus package.
The focus of any tobacco legislation must be on improving the health
of future generations of Americans, and this bill accomplishes that
very clearly. In addition to funding various programs that will reduce
teen smoking and benefit the well-being of children, it provides
unfettered FDA jurisdiction. As the President has stated many times,
full FDA power over these deadly products is essential.
Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee I am also
pleased that this bill is consistent with the President's budget
proposal. Both approaches recognize that comprehensive tobacco
legislation requires a strong investment in America's children. Our
approach keeps children away from this addictive product, improves
their health, provides adequate child care and gives them a learning
environment that fosters health and knowledge and progress.
That is a real investment in our children, and that is the focus of
the Healthy Kids Act.
Mr. President, I often hear that we in Congress cannot pass any
legislation that the tobacco industry does not first agree to support.
They speak as if Big Tobacco has some sort of veto right over
legislation affecting their industry.
I must tell you. I fail to find in the Constitution of the United
States--or in any of the Senate rules--any provision that gives them
the right to veto legislation. The Congress not only has a right--but a
duty--to rein in on an industry that has been out of control targeting
our children for addiction and lying about the dangerous nature of
their products.
Mr. President, there has also been a great deal of talk about
providing special protection against liability to this industry. First
of all, one must question why in the world this industry, which has
engaged in more corporate misconduct than any other, deserves
unprecedented special protection from civil liability.
Secondly, this industry continues to this day to hide from the public
critical information about tobacco's effect on our health. Congress
shouldn't even consider limited civil liability protections until we
have full and absolute disclosure from the companies. It is time for
them to stop hiding behind false claims of privilege and come clean
with the American people.
Mr. President, this bill, the Healthy Kids Act, presents Congress
with a historic opportunity. I welcome, very sincerely, my friends from
the other side of the aisle to cosponsor this bill, to work with us, as
I know that they want to, to question perhaps the methodology or
process. But I hope that won't stand in the way. We both want to save
children's lives. We want to invest in their future. It has to be a
bipartisan goal. I expect that many of our friends on the Republican
side will join us at some point.
Mr. President, as can be expected in any omnibus legislation, some
Senators will disagree on specific provisions of the bill. In fact, I
have some reservations about certain provisions of this act, such as
the secondhand smoke restrictions, which I believe could be tougher.
But I ask all of my colleagues to keep their eye on the big picture--
reducing tobacco's seductive grip on our kids.
Their target--it is very clearly understood--is to get 3,000 kids a
day to start smoking because they know once you start it is hell to try
and stop. And we don't want to permit them to get a grip on our
children, on their lives, on their health, or on their habits.
So, Mr. President, I hope that we will be working together in a
bipartisan way. We will make this happen if we can possibly do so. And
I invite all of our colleagues to join us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to join Senator Conrad and my other colleagues in introducing the
HEALTHY Kids Act. I want to commend Senator Conrad, and his staff, for
their excellent work in formulating this legislation. I firmly believe
that this legislation represents the opportunity to prevent nicotine
addiction in children and youth.
The Congress has the truly historic opportunity this year to enact
comprehensive legislation that will reduce access to and consumption of
tobacco by our youth. Over the past few months, I have been part of the
task force that helped consider the numerous issues involved in
developing a comprehensive approach to address the public health issues
that surround youth and tobacco. The HEALTHY Kids Act gives us a
blueprint for reducing the terrible destruction that tobacco products
have caused.
The Senate has a compelling interest to address the various issues
raised by the tobacco settlement. The Office on Smoking and Health at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that
cigarettes kill more Americans that AIDS, alcohol, car accidents,
murders, suicides, drugs, and fires combined.
Additionally, As the smoke screen erected by the tobacco companies
begins to clear through numerous court proceedings, we now know what we
have suspected all along: The targeting of our children has been a well
planned, well orchestrated, and well financed conspiracy by these
companies.
We have all seen the statistics. The Institute of Medicine finds that
despite the market decline in adult smoking and the social disapproval
of smoking, an estimated 3,000 young people become regular smokers
every day. In my home state of New Mexico, roughly 33% of our youth in
grades 9 through 12, smoke. Indeed, Mr. President, nationally, the
prevalence of smoking by youth, has remained basically unchanged since
1980. If current tobacco use patterns in this nation persist, five
million children currently alive today will die prematurely from a
smoking related disease.
It is worth noting that lung cancer remains the leading cause of
cancer death in the United States. All cancers caused by cigarette
smoking can be prevented. Instead, according to CDC and Robert Wood
Johnson, 170,000 Americans will lose their lives to tobacco related
cancer this year. Preventing and reducing cigarette smoking are key to
reducing illness and death. We must act now.
There will be myriad reasons put forth as to why we cannot or should
not enact this legislation. There will be some who will say that
Congress should not act at all. We have the opportunity and the
obligation to enact legislation that will address the public health
problems caused by tobacco products. The HEALTHY Kids Act gives us the
chance to begin reversing the damage that has been done. It provides
the vehicle for leadership that will be necessary to save our children.
I hope that we will move, and move quickly without any more excuses, to
enact this legislation.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with several of
my colleagues in support of S. 1638, ``The Healthy Kids Act'', the
tobacco bill crafted by Senator Conrad and the Democratic Tobacco Task
Force.
As you have heard many of our colleagues say, 3000 kids start smoking
every day. One third of those will prematurely die from a tobacco-
related disease. In Nebraska alone, 38 out of 100 high school kids
currently smoke cigarettes and over 35,000 kids currently under the age
of 18 will die prematurely from tobacco-related diseases.
This is simply unacceptable. And the job has fallen upon Congress to
do something about it. Last summer, my colleagues and I were faced with
the daunting task of putting together comprehensive tobacco
legislation. Led by my very dedicated colleague Senator Conrad from
North Dakota, the Democratic Tobacco Task Force worked hard for nearly
eight months to draft a bill that put our children's health first. This
is exactly what The HEALTHY Kids Act does.
This bill puts the law on the side of our kids. Sometimes we pass
laws and are unsure of their impact. This time we can be certain: If we
pass this law it will save children's lives. Period.
Experts say that the way to get kids to quit smoking is to raise
prices on cigarettes. The HEALTHY Kids Act does this.
This bill is projected to collect $78 billion in total revenue over
the next five years. Among other things, this money will help improve
our children's
[[Page S746]]
health care, child care, and education; fund important medical
research; take care of the farmers that were left out of the settlement
negotiations; and some money will even go towards reducing the deficit
and saving social security--which could perhaps be the greatest gift we
could ever think about giving our children.
Mr. President, I close by saying that I look forward to working with
Mr. Conrad and others on passing this important legislation that
correctly puts our children first.
______
By Mr. COVERDELL:
S. 1639. A bill to amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1986 to cover Federal facilities; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the federal facilities community right-to-know act of 1998
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation--
The Federal Facilities Community Right-To-Know Act of 1998--which
provides that the federal government is held to the same reporting
requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Act (EPCRA) of 1986 as private entities. In 1986, Congress directed the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a national inventory
to inform the public about chemicals used and released in their
communities. Since enactment of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act, manufacturers have been required to keep extensive
records on how they use and store hazardous chemicals and report
releases of hundreds of hazardous chemicals annually. EPA compiles the
reported information into the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
The Toxic Release Inventory is a publicly available data base
containing specific chemical release and transfer information from
manufacturing facilities throughout the United States. The TRI is
intended to promote planning for chemical emergencies and to provide
information to the public regarding the presence and release of toxic
and hazardous chemicals in their communities.
In August 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12856, which
required Federal facilities to begin submitting TRI reports beginning
in calendar year 1994 activities. I commend President Clinton for
taking this action. However, this executive order does not have the
force of law and could be changed by a future Administration. The
National Governors Association's policy on federal facilities states
that ``Congress should ensure that federal and state ``right to know''
requirements apply to federal facilities.'' My legislation simply
amends the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act to cover
federal facilities. It is important for the Federal government to
protect the environment and its citizens from hazardous substances.
People living near federal facilities have the right to know what
hazardous substances are being released into the environment by these
facilities so they can better protect themselves and their children
from these potential threats. It is my strong belief that federal
facilities should be treated the same as private entities. My
legislation attempts to moves us closer towards that goal.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Grams):
S. 1640. A bill to designate the building of the United States Postal
Service located at East Kellogg Boulevard in Saint Paul, Minnesota, as
the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
THE EUGENE J. McCARTHY POST OFFICE BUILDING DESIGNATION ACT OF 1998
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my
colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, to introduce legislation which
would designate the U.S. Post Office Building in downtown St. Paul, MN,
as the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office Building.'' In doing so, we
join the entire Minnesota delegation in the U.S. House of
Representatives in honoring a man who is of great importance to our
state and our nation.
This building, which will bear the name of one of Minnesota's great
statesmen, stands in Minnesota's capitol, a city represented by Senator
McCarthy in the House and Senate for nearly a quarter of a century.
When the 4th district, and later all of Minnesota, sent Senator
McCarthy to Washington they sent a scholar as well as a legislator, and
his service to our state and this nation has not been restricted to his
tenure in Congress. He has touched lives as a teacher and author as
well.
Mr. President, I am proud to know Eugene McCarthy and to follow in
his footsteps as a Senator from Minnesota, as a progressive, and as a
great believer in grassroots democracy. He is a person who not only
articulated, but exercised, a politics of inclusion and who knows that
a candidate's success is best built upon a foundation of individuals.
While America has had many important leaders, very few have fought the
battles Senator McCarthy has fought, very few have shown the commitment
he has shown to effecting positive change for ordinary people, and very
few can match his record as a man of peace.
Mr. President, it is an honor to extend my state's, and my country's,
gratitude to Senator McCarthy with this designation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1640
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
(a) In General.--The building of the United States Postal
Service located at 180 East Kellogg Boulevard in Saint Paul,
Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Eugene J.
McCarthy Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office
Building''.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
S. 1641. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study
alternatives for establishing a national historic trail to commemorate
and interpret the history of women's rights in the United States; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE WOMEN'S RIGHTS NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL ACT
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 1848 was one of the busiest years of the
19th Century in Europe. Everywhere kings were abdicating, ministers
fleeing, mobs roving. In London, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels
composed a pamphlet entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party.
Revolution was all the rage. But the real revolution was taking place
in a small brick chapel in a village in upstate New York where people
had begun to think of a revolution unlike anything known--equal rights
for women.
The American movement for women's rights began in Waterloo, New York
nearly 150 years ago when five women met at the home of Jane and
Richard Hunt. There, Elizabeth Cady Stanton of Seneca Falls, Mary Ann
McClintock of Waterloo, Marta Coffin Wright of nearby Auburn, Lucretia
Coffin Mott of Philadelphia and Mrs. Hunt planned the first women's
rights convention held at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls. It was
also there that they wrote the ``Declaration of Sentiments,'' a
document which can certainly be regarded as the Magna Carta of the
women's movement. Modeled on our Declaration of Independence, the
``Declaration of Sentiments'' proclaimed that:
All men and women are created equal: That they are endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This unprecedented declaration called for broad societal changes
aimed at eliminating discriminatory restrictions on women in all their
spheres of life. A woman's right to a higher education, the right to
own property and the right to retain her own wages--all these and more
were proclaimed in this landmark document endorsed at the Seneca Falls
Convention on July 19 and 20, 1848.
Perhaps most importantly, the convention was the catalyst for the
19th Amendment. There, Elizabeth Cady
[[Page S747]]
Stanton made what was at the time a most radical proposal. She called
for extending the franchise to women.
Ameila Bloomer, publisher of Lily, the first prominent women's rights
newsletter, eloquently defended Stanton's call and articulated the
importance of the vote:
In this country there is one great tribunal by which all
theories must be tried, all principles tested, all measures
settled: and that tribunal is the ballot box. It is the
medium through which public opinion finally makes itself
heard. Deny to any class in the community the right to be
heard at the ballot-box and that class sinks at once into a
state of slavish dependence, of civil insignificance, which
nothing can save from becoming subjugation, oppression and
wrong.
It was fully 72 years before the Nation heeded their call for the
vote for women.
It took but 10 months in 1980, however, to establish a Women's Rights
Historic Park at Seneca Falls and Waterloo, commemorating this call.
Then-Senator Javits and I proposed a bill that created an historic park
within Seneca Falls to commemorate the early beginnings of the women's
movement and to recognize the important role Seneca Falls has played in
the movement. The park consists of five sites: the 1840's Greek Revival
home of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, organizer and leader of the women's
rights movement; the Wesleyan Chapel, where the First Women's Rights
Convention was held; Declaration Park with a 100 foot waterwall
engraved with the Declaration of Sentiments and the names of the
signers of Declaration; and the M'Clintock house, home of MaryAnn and
Thomas M'Clintock, where the Declaration was drafted.
On June 27 last, my friend and colleague, Senator D'Amato and I
introduced S. Con. Res. 35, a resolution that urges the United States
Postal Service to issue a commemorative postage stamp to celebrate the
150th anniversary of the Women's Rights Convention. It is only fitting
that a stamp be issued commemorating this historic anniversary and
highlighting the importance of continuing this struggle for equal
rights and opportunity for women in areas such as health care,
education, employment, and pay equity.
Today Senator D'Amato and I, in concert with Representative Louise M.
Slaughter of Rochester, introduce legislation which would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to study the development of a Women's Rights
Historic Trail stretching from Boston, Massachusetts to Buffalo, New
York.
Mr. President, the contributions made by women in that region are
many. This is hallowed ground that needs to be celebrated. It would
include such sites as the Susan B. Anthony House and voting place in
Rochester; the Women's Rights National Historical Park; the National
Women's Hall of Fame and the Elizabeth Cady Stanton House in Seneca
Falls; the Harriet Tubman House and memorial in Auburn; and the Eleanor
Roosevelt home in Hyde Park.
The women of Seneca Falls challenged America to social revolution
with a list of demands that touched upon every aspect of life. Testing
different approaches, the early women's rights leaders came to view the
ballot as the best way to challenge the system, but they did not limit
their efforts to this one issue. Fifty years after the convention,
women could claim property rights, employment and educational
opportunities, divorce and child custody laws, and increased social
freedoms. By the early 20th century, a coalition of suffragists,
temperance groups, reform-minded politicians, and women's social
welfare organizations mustered a successful push for the vote.
Today Congress honors Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along
with Susan B. Anthony, as revolutionary leaders of the women's movement
by placing a statue of them in the Capitol Rotunda next to statues of
other leaders in our Nation's history such as George Washington,
Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
An historic trail would be a living monument to women's history,
bringing to life the numerous pioneers so often left out of our
textbooks. In ``The Ladies of Seneca Falls: The Birth of the Women's
Rights Movement'', Miriam Gurko writes:
Most histories contain, if anything, only the briefest
allusion to the woman's rights movement in the nineteenth
century--perhaps no more than a sentence to include it in the
general upsurge of reform. Here and there the name of a
woman's rights leader might be mentioned, generally that of
Susan B. Anthony, sometimes Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The rest
might never have existed so far as the general run of
historical sources is concerned.
One of the most important social forces of our time is women's
struggle to achieve equality, and, as such, it is incumbent upon us to
pay tribute to its many heroes.
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. 1641
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 ``Women's Rights National
Historic Trail Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL TO
COMMEMORATE AND INTERPRET HISTORY OF WOMEN'S
RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the National Park Service (referred
to in this section as the ``Secretary''), shall conduct a
study of alternatives for establishing a national historic
trail commemorating and interpreting the history of women's
rights in the United States.
(b) Matters To Be Considered.--The study under subsection
(a) shall include--
(1) consideration of the establishment of a new unit of the
National Park System;
(2) consideration of the establishment of various
appropriate designations for routes and sites relating to the
history of women's rights in the United States, and
alternative means to link those sites, including a corridor
between Buffalo, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts;
(3) recommendations for cooperative arrangements with State
and local governments, local historical organizations, and
other entities; and
(4) cost estimates for the alternatives.
(c) Study Process.--The Secretary shall--
(1) conduct the study with public involvement and in
consultation with State and local officials, scholarly and
other interested organizations, and individuals;
(2) complete the study as expeditiously as practicable
after the date on which funds are made available for the
study; and
(3) on completion of the study, submit to the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the
findings and recommendations of the study.
______
By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1642. A bill to improve the effectiveness and performance of
Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial
assistance application and reporting requirements, and improve the
delivery of services to the public; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
the federal financial assistance management improvement act
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal
Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998--legislation
designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal
financial assistance and grant-in-aid programs.
According to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
there are over 600 different Federal grant programs to state and local
governments and other service providers. Not only is that a large
number of programs in the aggregate, we also have an abundance of
separate grant programs even in areas where only one general purpose is
being served. For example, in the budget subfunction of social services
alone, there are over 80 different Federal grant programs. In
elementary and secondary education, there are a similar number of
Federal programs.
Almost all of these different grant programs serve worthy goals and
purposes. However, they inevitably carry with them separate redtape,
regulations, and procedures that frustrate those at the state, local
and nonprofit level who must coordinate the services and carry out the
responsibilities in all these separate programs. Furthermore, in many
of these grant programs, ``getting out the money'' is the primary
emphasis. Administrative performance and efficiency are a secondary
emphasis, or in some cases not emphasized at all, so we have little
understanding at any level of government how well the
[[Page S748]]
programs are actually working. Part of this problem stems from the fact
that the money passes through 3 sometimes 4 different sets of hands
before it reaches its intended beneficiaries. So it's hard to know
where responsibility lies when it comes to making sure that the money
is spent efficiently, properly and in a way to maximize the goals and
objectives of the underlying program.
We've been working for several years in the Governmental Affairs
Committee on ways to cut Federal redtape while improving performance.
We tried to reduce Federal burdens with enactment of the Paperwork
Reduction Act and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, while strengthening the
effectiveness of Federal programs with the Government Performance
Results Act.
This bill builds on those initiatives. It requires that Federal
agencies develop plans that, among other things: establish uniform
applications for related grant programs; develop common rules for
Federal requirements that cut across multiple grant programs; and,
emphasize use of electronic reporting via the Internet. Agencies would
have 18 months to develop their plans, with OMB overseeing their
development. They would work closely with state and local governments
and the nonprofit community in the setting of performance measures to
achieve the bill's goals. The bill sunsets in 5 years following a
review by the National Academy of Public Administration.
Americans want government services to work better. But they also want
government to live within its means, to balance its books. In other
words, they want more cost-effective government, and that's at all
levels. I believe this bill helps lead us in that direction. I'm
pleased that Chairman Thompson, along with Senators Levin, Lieberman,
and Akaka, have joined me cosponsoring the bill and I look forward to
considering it in the Governmental Affairs Committee.
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. 1642
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Assistance
Management Improvement Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) there are over 600 different Federal financial
assistance programs to implement domestic policy;
(2) while the assistance described in paragraph (1) has
been directed at critical problems, some Federal
administrative requirements may be duplicative, burdensome or
conflicting, thus impeding cost-effective delivery of
services at the local level;
(3) State, local, and tribal governments and private,
nonprofit organizations are dealing with increasingly complex
problems that require the delivery and coordination of many
kinds of services; and
(4) streamlining and simplification of Federal financial
assistance administrative procedures and reporting
requirements will improve the delivery of services to the
public.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal
financial assistance programs;
(2) simplify Federal financial assistance application and
reporting requirements;
(3) improve the delivery of services to the public; and
(4) facilitate greater coordination among those responsible
for delivering such services.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Common rule.--The term ``common rule'' means a
government-wide uniform rule for any generally applicable
requirement established to achieve national policy objectives
that applies to multiple Federal financial assistance
programs across Federal agencies.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(3) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any
agency as defined under section 551(1) of title 5, United
States Code.
(4) Federal financial assistance program.--The term
``Federal financial assistance program'' means a domestic
assistance program (as defined under section 6101(4) of title
31, United States Code) under which financial assistance is
available, directly or indirectly, to a State, local, or
tribal government or a qualified organization to carry out
activities consistent with national policy goals.
(5) Local government.--The term ``local government''
means--
(A) a political subdivision of a State that is a unit of
general local government (as defined under section 6501(10)
of title 31, United States Code);
(B) any combination of political subdivisions described in
subparagraph (A); or
(C) a local educational agency as defined under section
14101(18) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801(18)).
(6) Qualified organization.--The term ``qualified
organization'' means a private, nonprofit organization
described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
and the Virgin Islands.
(8) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government''
means the governing entity of an Indian tribe, as that term
is defined in the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR.
(a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with agency
heads, shall direct, coordinate, and assist Federal agencies
in establishing--
(1) a uniform application, or set of uniform applications,
to be used by an applicant to apply for assistance from
multiple Federal financial assistance programs that serve
similar purposes and are administered by different Federal
agencies;
(2) ways to streamline and simplify Federal financial
assistance administrative procedures and reporting
requirements for grantees;
(3) a uniform system wherein an applicant may apply for,
manage, and report on the use of, funding from multiple
Federal financial assistance programs across different
Federal agencies;
(4) a process for applicants to electronically apply for,
and report on the use of, funds from Federal financial
assistance programs;
(5) use of common rules for multiple Federal financial
assistance programs across different Federal agencies;
(6) improved interagency and intergovernmental coordination
of information collection and sharing of data pertaining to
Federal financial assistance programs, including the
development of a release form to be used by grantees to
facilitate the sharing of information across multiple Federal
financial assistance programs;
(7) a process to strengthen the information resources
management capacity of State, local, and tribal governments
and qualified organizations pertaining to the administration
of Federal financial assistance programs; and
(8) specific annual goals and objectives to further the
purposes of this Act.
(b) Actions Consistent With Statutory Requirements.--The
actions taken by the Director under subsection (a) shall be
consistent with statutory requirements relating to any
applicable Federal financial assistance program.
(c) Lead Agency and Working Groups.--The Director may
designate a lead agency to assist the Director in carrying
out the responsibilities under this section. The Director may
use interagency working groups to assist in carrying out such
responsibilities.
(d) Review of Plans and Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall--
(A) review agency plans and reports developed under section
6 for adequacy;
(B) monitor the annual performance of each agency toward
achieving the goals and objectives stated in the agency plan;
and
(C) ensure that each agency plan does not diminish
standards to measure performance and accountability of
financial assistance programs.
(2) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall report to Congress
on implementation of this section. Such a report may be
included as part of any of the general management reports
required under law.
(e) Exemptions.--
(1) In general.--The Director may exempt any Federal agency
from the requirements of this Act if the Director determines
that the agency does not have a significant number of Federal
financial assistance programs.
(2) Agencies exempted.--Not later than November 1 of each
fiscal year, the Director shall submit to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives--
(A) a list of each agency exempted under this subsection in
the preceding fiscal year; and
(B) an explanation for each such exemption.
(f) Guidance.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall issue guidance to
Federal agencies on implementation of the requirements of
this Act. Such guidance shall include a statement on the
common rules that the Director intends to review and
standardize under this Act.
SEC. 6. DUTIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, each Federal agency shall develop and
implement a plan that--
(1) streamlines and simplifies the application,
administrative, and reporting procedures for each financial
assistance program administered by the agency;
[[Page S749]]
(2) demonstrates active participation in the interagency
process required the applicable provisions of section 5(a);
(3) demonstrates agency use, or plans for use, of the
uniform application (or set of applications) and system
developed under section 5(a) (1) and (3);
(4) designates a lead agency official for carrying out the
responsibilities of the agency under this Act;
(5) allows applicants to electronically apply for, and
report on the use of, funds from the Federal financial
assistance program administered by the agency;
(6) strengthens the information resources management
capacity of State, local and tribal governments and qualified
organizations pertaining to the administration of the
financial assistance program administered by the agency; and
(7) in cooperation with State, local, and tribal
governments and qualified organizations, establishes specific
annual goals and objectives to further the purposes of this
Act and measure annual performance in achieving those goals
and objectives.
(b) Plan Consistent With Statutory Requirements.--Each plan
developed and implemented under this section shall be
consistent with statutory requirements relating to any
applicable Federal financial assistance program.
(c) Comment and Consultation on Agency Plans.--
(1) Comment.--Each Federal agency shall publish the plan
developed under subsection (a) in the Federal Register and
shall receive public comment on the plan through the Federal
Register and other means (including electronic means). To the
maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency shall hold
public hearings or related public forums on the plan.
(2) Consultation.--The lead official designated under
subsection (a)(4) shall consult regularly with
representatives of State, local and tribal governments and
qualified organizations during development of the plan.
Consultation with representatives of State, local, and tribal
governments shall be in accordance with section 204 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1534).
(d) Submission of Plan.--Each Federal agency shall submit
the plan developed under subsection (a) to the Director and
Congress and report annually thereafter on the implementation
of the plan and performance of the agency in meeting the
goals and objectives specified under subsection (a)(7). Such
a report may be included as part of any of the general
management reports required under law.
SEC. 7. EVALUATION.
(a) In General.--The Director (or the lead agency
designated under section 5(c)) shall contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration to evaluate the
effectiveness of this Act. Not later than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this Act the evaluation shall be
submitted to the lead agency, the Director, and Congress.
(b) Contents.--The evaluation under subsection (a) shall--
(1) assess the effectiveness of this Act in meeting the
purposes of this Act and make specific recommendations to
further the implementation of this Act;
(2) evaluate actual performance of each agency in achieving
the goals and objectives stated in agency plans; and
(3) assess the level of coordination and cooperation among
the Director, Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal
governments, and qualified organizations in implementing this
Act.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act and shall cease to be effective on and after 5 years
after such date of enactment.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 1643. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
delay for one year implementation of the per beneficiary limits under
the interim payment system to home health agencies and to provide for a
later base year for the purposes of calculating new payment rates under
the system; to the Committee on Finance.
medicare and home health care legislation
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the home health benefit available under
Medicare plays a significant role in allowing elderly beneficiaries to
remain in their homes and in their community. Those who use the home
health benefit are among the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries.
More than 40 percent have incomes below $10,000. One in three live
alone, and two-thirds are over age 75.
In recent years, the cost of the home health benefit has been one of
the fastest growing parts of Medicare. While the vast majority of this
growth is attributable to a legitimate increase in home health care as
patients are moved out of the hospital more quickly, some portion is
known to be due to fraud. As a result, Congress enacted provisions on
this spending as a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Unfortunately, it now appears that some of the restrictions will
operate in a way that penalizes providers unfairly and jeopardizes
their ability to continue to offer these vital services for the
elderly.
In order to address these issues, I am introducing legislation to
delay the effective date of one provision, and to change the base year
that will be used to calculate future home health payments. Congressman
McGovern is introducing similar legislation in the House of
Representatives.
The problem with the current law is especially serious in New
England. Home health agencies throughout the region generally provide
care for less cost than the national average. For example, the average
Medicare payment per home health visit in Massachusetts in 1995 was 19
percent below the national average. These programs are effective. They
provide high quality home health care and help people to remain in the
community and out of hospitals and nursing homes. And they do so in a
cost-efficient manner. Nevertheless, the Home & Health Care Association
of Massachusetts estimates that the provisions of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 could result in a loss of 1.5 million home health visits--a
20 percent reduction--this year. Under the Act, Massachusetts and other
states that provide high quality care efficiently and at lower rates
are at a disadvantage, whereas inefficient providers are permitted to
lock in higher rates.
One of the most questionable effects of the Act requires home health
agencies to comply with ``per beneficiary caps'' before the federal
government tells them what the caps are. The bill I am introducing
delays the effective date of the caps until October 1, 1998, to allow
time for agencies to adjust to forthcoming, essential guidance from the
Health Care Financing Administration.
In addition, this bill moves up the year--from 1994 to 1995--that
will be used to calculate payments for 1998 and beyond. This change
means that payments will more accurately reflect the type of home care
that is currently delivered.
The problem facing home health patients and agencies is substantial.
Congress should address this issue now, before home health agencies
that provide needed services are unfairly forced out of business, and
before senior citizens are forced to go without necessary care or leave
their homes for more expensive hospital care or nursing home care. The
provisions of the Balanced Budget Act should be modified to avoid these
unfortunate and unnecessary problems.
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. 1643
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DELAY OF PER BENEFICIARY LIMITS UNDER INTERIM
PAYMENT SYSTEM AND CHANGE OF BASE YEAR.
(a) Delay in Per Beneficiary Limits Under Interim Payment
System.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)), as amended by
section 4602 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended
in clauses (v) and (vi) by striking ``October 1, 1997,'' each
place it appears and inserting ``October 1, 1998,''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L)(vii) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)(vii)), as
added by section 4602(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,
is amended--
(A) by striking ``April 1, 1998,'' and inserting ``August
1, 1998,''; and
(B) by striking ``fiscal year 1998'' and inserting ``fiscal
year 1999''.
(b) Change in Base Year.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L)(v)(I) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)(v)(I)) is
amended by striking ``ending during fiscal year 1994'' each
place it appears and inserting ``ending during fiscal year
1995 or, at the election of the agency, calendar year 1995''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply as if included in the enactment of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation with
my colleague Senator Kennedy that will improve the implementation of
the interim payment system to home health agencies established under
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is imperative that we protect
access
[[Page S750]]
to care for our most vulnerable populations--the elderly and the
disabled. While I support the move to a prospective payment system for
home care under the Balanced Budget Act, the payment system designed
for the interim period is proving to be an intolerable burden for the
home health agencies that serve Vermont's Medicare beneficiaries.
This bill would do two things to remove the current threat to quality
home care. First, the bill delays the implementation of the interim
payment system for one year. This will minimize its impact on agencies
as a prospective payment system is put in place. Second, the base year
for establishing per patient limits will shift from the current
designation of fiscal year 1994, to either fiscal or calendar year
1995. Care rendered in 1995 is a better reflection of the current mix
of patients--and it captures the deterrent effect of Operation Restore
Trust on fraud and abuse in areas where cost was inflated.
My own State of Vermont is a good example of how the health care
system can work to provide for high quality care for Medicare
beneficiaries. Home health agencies are a critical link in the kind of
health system that extends care over a continuum of options and
settings. New technology and advances in medical practice permit
hospitals to discharge patients earlier. They give persons suffering
with acute or chronic illness the opportunity to receive care and live
their lives in familiar surroundings. Time and time again, Vermont's
home health agencies have proven their value by providing quality,
cost-effective services to these patients. Yet time and again, federal
policy seems to ensure that their good deeds should go punished.
Furthermore, Vermont home health agencies have been able to provide
quality service while consistently maintaining the lowest per capital
reimbursement rates for home care in the country. The average Medicare
payment per patient in Vermont is approximately $3,000 per year, one
third lower than the national average, and far less than in high costs
states where payments rise as high as $7,900 per patient per year. Now,
Vermont agencies face a interim payment system established under the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that is based on historical cost. Instead
of being rewarded for their good work, Vermont agencies will have a
much lower per patient limit under Medicare than agencies in high cost
areas. According to a January 7 article in the Wall Street Journal,
Vermont's 13 agencies could lose over $2 million next year by
continuing to do what they always have done--providing efficient and
essential services.
Since the impact of the interim payment system became apparent, I
have been in continuous contact with the Vermont Assembly of Home
Health Agencies; the Vermont Agency of Human Services; and directors,
trustees, employees, and patients of nearly every home health agency in
the state. I firmly believe we must act to guard the health and welfare
of a particularly vulnerable segment of the population. This
legislation will help ensure that our home health care infrastructure
is able to continue serving the patients that rely upon them.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr.
Hollings):
S. 1644. A bill to amend subpart 4 of part A of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding Grants to States for State
Student Incentives; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the leveraging educational assistance partnership act
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with my
Republican colleague on the Labor and Human Resources Committee,
Senator Susan Collins, as well as Senators Kennedy, Murray, Dodd,
Mikulski, Conrad, Levin, Akaka, Kerry, Johnson, Torricelli, Kerrey, and
Hollings to reform and reauthorize an important student aid program,
the State Student Incentive Grant program or SSIG.
Last fall, I was pleased to join forces with Senator Collins to lead
the fight to restore funding for SSIG on an 84 to 4 vote.
This program provides funding on the basis of a dollar for dollar
match to help states provide need-based financial aid in the form of
grants and community service work study awards to 700,000 students
nationwide, and 13,000 students from my home state of Rhode Island.
Grants are targeted to the neediest undergraduate and graduate
students.
As I noted last fall during the debate on the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations bill, many states would not have
established or maintained their need-based financial aid programs
without this important federal incentive. Moreover, students, searching
for sources of need-based grants to make their higher education dreams
a reality, have come to rely on SSIG.
Indeed, the importance of SSIG has increased over the years as
skyrocketing college costs have eroded the purchasing power of the Pell
Grant, and as the grant-loan imbalance widens. Twenty-three years ago,
80 percent of student aid came in the form of grants and 20 percent in
the form of loans. Today the opposite is true, and students face
significant debt upon graduation.
In addition, low-income students are still finding it particularly
hard to afford higher education. Less than 50% of high school graduates
with incomes under $22,000 go to college, while more than 80% of their
higher income counterparts pursue education beyond high school.
To address these trends and ensure that needy students have
alternatives to borrowing, SSIG must be strengthened during the
upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The legislation
we introduce today, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
(LEAP) Act, does this by reauthorizing and making significant reforms
to the SSIG program.
The LEAP Act provides states greater incentives and flexibility to
help needy students attend college. Our legislation creates a two-tier
grant program. Any funds appropriated over a trigger level of funding--
$35 million-- would require an increased state match of two new dollars
for every federal dollar. However, states would gain new flexibility to
use these funds for activities such as increasing grant amounts or
carrying out academic or merit scholarship programs, community service
programs, early intervention, mentorship, and career education
programs, secondary to postsecondary education transition programs, or
scholarship programs for students wishing to enter the teaching
profession.
These improvements restore the incentive nature of the program by
attracting more state funds for student aid and providing greater
flexibility for the use of these funds, while not disenfranchising
states that can only match according to the current 1-to-1 requirement.
The LEAP Act is supported by students, educators, and student aid
officials, including the National Association of State Student Grant
and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), the National Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the American Council on Education
(ACE), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities
(AASCU), the United States Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the
United States Student Association (USSA), and the National Association
of Graduate-Professional Students.
Mr. President, I believe we should help all our citizens achieve the
American Dream and ensure access to higher education, especially for
hard working families whose wages have not kept up with inflation. I
urge my colleagues to join us in this critical effort to strengthen
federal-state student aid partnerships and our commitment to America's
students.
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. 1644
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 ``Leveraging Educational
Assistance Partnership Act''.
[[Page S751]]
SEC. 2. LEVERAGING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 415A(b) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1993'' and inserting
``1999'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Reservation.--For any fiscal year for which the
amount appropriated under paragraph (1) exceeds $35,000,000,
the excess shall be available to carry out section 415E.''.
(b) Special Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
Program.--Subpart 4 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 415E as 415F; and
(2) by inserting after section 415D the following:
``SEC. 415E. SPECIAL LEVERAGING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--From amounts reserved under section
415A(b)(2) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall--
``(1) make allotments among States in the same manner as
the Secretary makes allotments among States under section
415B; and
``(2) award grants to States, from allotments under
paragraph (1), to enable the States to pay the Federal share
of the cost of the authorized activities described in
subsection (c).
``(b) Applicability Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in
this section, the provisions of this subpart which are not
inconsistent with this section shall apply to the program
authorized by this section.
``(c) Authorized Activities.--Each State receiving a grant
under this section may use the grant funds for--
``(1) increasing the dollar amount of grants awarded under
section 415B to eligible students who demonstrate financial
need;
``(2) carrying out transition programs from secondary
school to postsecondary education for eligible students who
demonstrate financial need;
``(3) carrying out community service programs for eligible
students who demonstrate financial need;
``(4) creating a scholarship program for eligible students
who demonstrate financial need and wish to enter teaching;
``(5) carrying out early intervention programs, mentoring
programs, and career education programs for eligible students
who demonstrate financial need; and
``(6) awarding merit or academic scholarships to eligible
students who demonstrate financial need.
``(d) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Each State
receiving a grant under this section for a fiscal year shall
provide the Secretary an assurance that the aggregate amount
expended per student or the aggregate expenditures by the
State, from funds derived from non-Federal sources, for the
authorized activities described in subsection (c) for the
preceding fiscal year were not less than the amount expended
per student or the aggregate expenditures by the State for
the activities for the second preceding fiscal year. The
Secretary may waive this subsection for good cause, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
authorized activities described in subsection (c) for any
fiscal year shall be 33\1/3\ percent.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Purpose.--Subsection (a) of section 415A of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c(a)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) Purpose of Subpart.--It is the purpose of this
subpart to make incentive grants available to States to
assist States in--
``(1) providing grants to--
``(A) eligible students attending institutions of higher
education or participating in programs of study abroad that
are approved for credit by institutions of higher education
at which such students are enrolled;
``(B) eligible students for campus-based community service
work-study; and
``(2) carrying out the activities described in section
415F.''.
(2) Allotment.--Section 415B(a)(1) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c-1(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``and not reserved under section 415A(b)(2)'' after
``415A(b)(1)''.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor
this important piece of legislation to help the very neediest of
individuals obtain a college degree.
One of the most important goals that we can accomplish as legislators
is to ensure that every American who is willing to work hard can go to
college and have a shot at the American Dream. Yet we know that the
cost of a college education is rising rapidly, and that can be an
inhibitor for potential students.
By reauthorizing and reforming State Student Incentive Grants, the
LEAP Act ensures that this important program continues to assist those
students who otherwise may not be able to pursue higher education.
Together with Pell grants they make it possible for low-income students
to reach their potential and in turn become productive contributors in
our increasingly knowledge-based economy.
This legislation restores to the SSIG program its incentive nature by
giving states a reason to increase their investment in it. Any funds
appropriated over $35 million would require an increased state match of
two new dollars for every federal dollar. In return greater flexibility
will be provided for the use of these extra funds. They can be used to
increase grant awards or for other worthy activities such as carrying
out academic or merit scholarship programs or career education
programs.
Nebraska has been supportive of the SSIG program and has shown that
support in its willingness to overmatch the federal contribution.
However, with the decrease in appropriations from $50 million for
fiscal year 1997 to $25 million for fiscal year 1998, the state will be
able to assist approximately 500 fewer students. Seventy-one percent of
Nebraska students who received an SSIG had a family income of $20,000
or less.
By lending further support to the SSIG program we can ensure that
these 500 students and thousands of students across the nation do not
fall between the cracks.
Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this bill today because it
represents a good bipartisan effort to increase educational
opportunities for those in greatest need of financial assistance. I
look forward to moving it through Congress.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Nickles, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Helms, Mr. Coats, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Enzi, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Faircloth, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Santorum, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr.
Bond, and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1645. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the
involvement of parents in abortion decisions; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
the child custody protection act of 1998
Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation
protecting the most important relationship of all: that of parents and
their children. All of us know that the family is the fundamental,
crucial and indispensable basis of our civilization. Without strong
families our children will grow up without role models, without a sound
knowledge of how they ought to behave and for what they ought to
strive. As a consequence, the data shows quite clearly that children
deprived of strong family lives are more likely to suffer from
depression, substance abuse, crime, violence, poverty and even suicide.
Yet, when it comes to one of the most important decisions in life,
Mr. President, children are being kept from the guidance of their
parents. I am talking, of course, about the decision whether or not to
have an abortion. The American people recognize how crucial it is for
minor children to involve their parents in this life-changing decision.
74 percent of Americans in a 1996 Gallup poll favored requiring minors
to get parental consent for an abortion. People quite reasonably
believe that parents should be involved in deciding whether their
daughter should undergo an abortion. As the Supreme Court noted in H.L.
v. Matheson, ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences
of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so
when the patient is immature.''
Convinced of the soundness of this reasoning, at least 22 states have
enacted laws requiring consent of or notification to at least one
parent, or authorization by a judge, before a minor can obtain an
abortion. Unfortunately, this wise policy is being undermined.
Thousands of children every year are taken across state lines by
people other than their parents to secure secret abortions. As we
speak, Mr. President, abortion providers are taking out large
advertisements in the Yellow Pages in cities like Harrisburg and
Scranton, Pennsylvania, trumpeting the fact that their clinics, across
the Pennsylvania state line, do not require parental notification as
Pennsylvania
[[Page S752]]
does. In essence, these abortion providers are encouraging people to
circumvent Pennsylvania's parental notification law by crossing the
border into New Jersey, New York or Maryland for a secret abortion.
And thousands of times every year this suggestion is taken up by non-
related adults who want to circumvent the law. One example of this
conduct made headlines recently. The case involved an 18 year old
Pennsylvania man who got his 12 year old neighbor pregnant.
Pennsylvania law requires parental consent prior to an abortion on a
minor. To circumvent this law, Rosa Hartford, mother of the 18 year
old, secretly took the girl to an abortion clinic in New York, a state
with no parental notification requirement. Her actions discovered, Mrs.
Hartford, whose son pled guilty to two counts of statutory rape, was
convicted of interfering with the custody of a child.
The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CLRP), a prominent
proabortion legal defense organization, appealed Mrs. Hartford's
conviction on the grounds that she merely ``assisted a woman to
exercise her constitutional rights'' and as such was herself protected
from prosecution by the Constitution.
Mr. President, this reasoning cannot stand. To say that, because the
court in Roe v. Wade declared most abortions constitutionally protected
during the first trimester, that therefore minors have an absolute
right to abortion without so much as notifying their parents, and that
third parties--whatever their motives--have the right to secretly
transport them across state lines for a secret abortion, is to stand
constitutional protections on their head. It is to strip children to
the natural protection of their parents.
For the sake of our children and our families, this must stop. We
must uphold the law and uphold the family tie. That is why I am
introducing the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation is
simple and straightforward. It will make it a federal offense to
transport a minor across state lines with intent to avoid the
application of a state law requiring parental involvement in a minor's
abortion, or judicial waiver of such a requirement.
Children must receive parental consent for even minor surgical
procedures, Mr. President. The profound, lasting physical and
psychological effects of abortion demand that we help states guarantee
parental involvement in the abortion decision. That means, at a
minimum, seeing to it that outside parties cannot circumvent state
parental notification and consent laws with impunity.
America is in the midst of a profound debate over the nature and
status of abortion. But, even as many of us disagree over a number of
crucial issues, we all should be able to agree that duly enacted laws
must be upheld. Those who would undermine these laws in the name of
unfettered abortion on demand damage the rule of law by subverting
legitimate statutes. They also undercut our Constitutional liberties by
stretching them beyond all rational bounds and using them to sap
parental rights and family ties.
We can no more afford to allow state laws to be flouted than we can
afford to allow family ties to be further undermined. For the sake of
our families and our rule of law, I urge my colleagues to defend both
by supporting the Child Custody Protection Act.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I rise as a cosponsor of the Child
Custody Protection Act sponsored by my colleague, Senator Spencer
Abraham, to whom I am grateful for introducing this important
legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to make it a crime to
transport a child across state lines if this circumvents state law
requiring parental involvement or a judicial waiver for a minor to
obtain an abortion.
In a well-publicized case in Pennsylvania, a 12-year-old girl became
pregnant after a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old man. As
parental consent is required under Pennsylvania law before a minor can
receive an abortion, the man's mother took the pregnant girl to New
York for an abortion, where there is no such parental involvement law.
The baby was aborted. The girl's mother did not consent to her daughter
having an abortion; in fact, she did not even know her daughter was
pregnant. Unfortunately, parents and guardians have no clear recourse
when another adult circumvents the law of the state where the parent
and child live by transporting a child to another state.
Twenty-two states have laws that require either notification or
consent of a parent before a minor child receives an abortion.
Currently, in my State of Ohio, a parent or guardian must be notified
before a child receives an abortion. However, the State Legislature has
recently passed a law requiring both parental consent and a face-to-
face meeting with the doctor performing the abortion at least twenty-
four hours before the procedure. Clearly, the citizens of Ohio have a
compelling interest in making sure that parents are involved in a
minor's decision to have an abortion, and that women have a full
opportunity to consider the medical implications of their decision to
abort an unborn child.
The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding the rights
of parents is completely abrogated by the ability of strangers to
surreptitiously transport children to another state to obtain a
surgical or drug-induced abortion. By introducing this bill, we are
sending a clear message that Roe v. Wade does not confer a ``right'' on
strangers to take one's minor daughter across state lines to obtain an
abortion when the involvement of a parent or a court is required. In
H.L. v. Matheson, the Supreme Court correctly stated, ``the medical,
emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious
and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is
immature.''
In my view that strangers should be barred from circumventing the
rights of parents to be involved in life and death decisions faced by
their children. I believe the vast majority of Americans will never
want to relegate the well-being of our children to a situation where
life-altering decisions are made without the guidance and support of
caring parents.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Bumpers):
S. 1646. A bill to repeal a provision of law preventing donation by
the Secretary of the Navy of the two remaining Iowa-class battleships
listed on the Naval Vessel Register and related requirements; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
THE HISTORIC BATTLESHIP PRESERVATION ACT
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
repeal a 1996 law that requires the Navy to maintain two antiquated
battleships in its reserves, even though they will never again see even
one more day of battle. This provision requires the Navy to maintain
two Iowa-class battleships as mobilization assets, even though the Navy
will never again rely on them to protect American interests.
The Iowa-class battleships were commissioned during World War II.
They were built at the request of President Franklin Roosevelt to be
the American Navy's fastest battleship, and their 16-inch guns were
designed to pummel our adversaries' shores. There is no doubt that
these battleships are of significant historical importance to the
American military heritage. They represent America's pride in its Navy.
They symbolize our admiration for those who worked so hard to build and
serve aboard our battleships.
In 1995, the Navy determined that all four of the World War II era
Iowa-class battleships in its arsenal--the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey,
USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin--were no longer essential to our
national defense. Subsequently, the Navy struck these four ships from
the Naval Vessel Register. The laws governing the disposal of ships
stricken from the Register allow the Navy to donate these ships to
states, local communities, and non-profits for display as memorials and
museums. Thus, in 1995, the Navy was set to begin the process of
donating all four ships.
But the Senate Armed Services Committee disagreed with the Navy's
decision to release these ships, the Committee included a provision in
the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act mandating that the Navy
maintain at least two of the Iowa-class battleships on the Naval Vessel
Register. The Navy subsequently chose the USS New Jersey and the USS
Wisconsin to comply
[[Page S753]]
with this provision. The bill I am introducing today would repeal this
requirement, enabling the Navy to once again strike these ships from
the Register and make them available for donation to interested
communities.
Mr. President, I hope the members of this distinguished body will
approve my proposal to repeal this law. It makes sense from a national
defense perspective. Navy Secretary Dalton has said that the Navy has
no plans to reactivate these ships. In a recent letter to the
Appropriations Committee, he wrote, ``the Navy does not intend to
return the ships to service. . .'' They will never again fire their 16-
inch guns to support an amphibious landing or operation ashore. They
will never again serve as a platform for surface fire-support. Instead,
they will only continue to sit, mothballed at Naval ports, awaiting a
call to duty that they will never hear.
This bill also makes sense from a fiscal perspective. According to
Navy estimates, the cost of maintaining these ships is approximately
$200,000 per ship per year. To date, the Navy has already spent close
to $1 million to mothball ships that will never again be reactivated
for purposes of national defense. I see no sense in the federal
government's paying for the Navy to keep ships ready for a war in which
it will never call them to serve. The American taxpayer deserves a
better deal.
Although these ships have been deactivated for good, they can still
continue to be of immense public benefit. On the eve of the twenty-
first century, many of our nation's waterfront cities are struggling to
resurrect their economies. The federal government spends millions each
year on projects to help revitalize blighted waterfront communities.
Since the laws governing the disposal of former Navy assets allow their
donation, we are presented with a unique opportunity to contribute to
the economic development of our cities--at no further cost to the
federal government. Many of our communities want to compete to berth a
ship on their shores, as a museum and memorial, to anchor a waterfront
development project. But the 1996 law is depriving these communities of
a chance to undergo major revitalization efforts.
The citizens of New Jersey recognized the economic development
potential of these battleships many years ago. My constituents have
been preparing for the return of the USS New Jersey as the only Iowa-
class battleship which may be berthed as an educational museum and
memorial in her namesake state. Tens of thousands of volunteers have
devoted countless hours to this long-standing, state-wide project. The
New Jersey legislature created the Battleship New Jersey Commission,
which has undertaken an ambitious fundraising effort to obtain the USS
New Jersey. To date, the Commission has secured approximately $3
million for this effort through sales of a ``Battleship New Jersey''
license plate, a state income tax check-off, and private donations. But
New Jersey's efforts are hamstrung by the 1996 law requiring the Navy
to maintain the Iowa-class battleships on the Naval Vessel Register.
Repealing this law will have a three-fold public benefit. First and
most obvious, we will no longer need to provide funding in our defense
budget for ships that will never be reactivated. This alone warrants
the support of my proposal. Second, we will contribute to the economic
development of our cities at no further cost to the federal government.
And third, we will enable generations of Americans to honor the history
of our battleships by facilitating their display as memorials and
museums.
Forcing the Navy to keep the Iowa-class battleships ready for war is
the equivalent of forcing NASA to keep the Apollo rockets ready to
blast off into space. As we all know, the Apollo project was undertaken
to send Americans to the moon. Will we ever want to send an American to
the moon again? Probably--but not in an Apollo rocket. Even though
advances in technology have rendered the Apollos relics of the American
determination to succeed, their preservation at locations throughout
the country allows the public to admire and appreciate their legacy.
And NASA doesn't have to keep paying for them.
Mr. President, I look forward to working with the members of the
Armed Services Committee to pass this bill. It is good for the American
taxpayers and our national defense, and I hope my colleagues will join
me in this effort.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1646
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 ``Historic Battleship
Preservation Act''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUED LISTING OF TWO
IOWA-CLASS BATTLESHIPS ON THE NAVAL VESSEL
REGISTER.
Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421) is
repealed.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Lautenberg
in introducing legislation that will make the dream of bringing the
battleship U.S.S. New Jersey home to New Jersey a reality. I want to
thank Senator Lautenberg for his hard work and commitment to this
issue, and look forward to working with him to ensure that this symbol
of freedom returns to her namesake-state in the near future.
The U.S.S. New Jersey is one of the most notable battleships in the
Navy's history. She has been protecting and defending democracy since
World War II in almost every region of the world. Launched on December
7, 1942, one year after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, the ship
proceeded to the Pacific where she was involved in many historic
campaigns, including the battles for the Marshalls, Marianas,
Philippines, Iwo Jimo and Okinawa. A particular highlight of the New
Jersey's career was service as flagship for Commander Third Fleet,
Admiral ``Bull'' Halsey, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October
1944.
Once the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the New Jersey settled into a
peacetime routine, and was decommissioned in 1948. The ship was
recommissioned in 1950 for the Korean war, in 1968 for Vietnam, and
again in 1982 when former President Reagan ordered the re-activation of
all four Iowa-class battleships as part of a massive naval buildup. In
February 1991, because of end to the Cold War, another victory which
she helped to secure, the New Jersey was decommissioned for a final
time and is now in Bremerton, Washington.
Following the removal of the U.S.S. New Jersey from the Naval Vessel
Register, the New Jersey legislature created the Battleship New Jersey
Commission, which applied for donation of the ship to the State of New
Jersey. The Commission, and tens of thousands of volunteers, have
undertaken a massive fundraising effort to pay for the costs of
transporting the U.S.S. New Jersey home, and have already secured
approximately $3 million for this effort. Together with the people of
our state, the Commission has been actively preparing for the return of
the U.S.S. New Jersey as the only Iowa-class battleship which may be
berthed as an educational museum and memorial in her namesake state.
None of this hard work and sacrifice will make a difference though,
without the repeal of Section 1011 of the fiscal year 1996 Defense
Authorization Act, which requires the Navy to maintain at least two of
the Iowa-class battleships that have been stricken from the Naval
Vessel Register. This provision was included to ensure that the Navy
would have the necessary firepower to support Marine Corps' amphibious
assaults and operations ashore. In accordance with this requirement,
the Navy is currently maintaining the U.S.S. New Jersey and the U.S.S.
Wisconsin and neither ship is available for distribution to the states.
However, the Navy does not want nor do they need these ships. It is
my understanding that the Navy can effectively support the Marines
through the use of other platforms, and does not require the U.S.S. New
Jersey for this important task. Secretary Dalton has said that the Navy
has no plans to reactivate these proud ships, and is forced to spend
$200,000 per ship, per year to mothball ships that will never again be
reactivated for the purposes of national defense.
Senator Lautenberg and I have also sent letters to Secretary Dalton
and
[[Page S754]]
the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding this matter, but have
decided that the most effective way to proceed is with a legislative
remedy. Our bill would eliminate Section 1011, and remove one of the
last obstacles preventing the U.S.S. New Jersey from making the long
journey home to our state.
During New Jersey's final decommissioning ceremony, her last
commanding officer, Captain Robert C. Peniston remarked, ``Rest well,
yet sleep lightly; and hear the call if again sounded, to provide
firepower for freedom.'' It is only just that the U.S.S. New Jersey
rest well in the welcome waters off the coast of her namesake state,
and enjoy the company of the people that she fought so hard to protect
throughout her time in the active duty fleet.
America is profoundly thankful for the service of the U.S.S. New
Jersey and the patriotism of the courageous men and women who served
aboard her. For the reasons I stand today to recognize the Battleship
New Jersey Commission, and the generations of Americans who went to war
with the U.S.S. New Jersey. I am proud to offer this legislation with
Senator Lautenberg.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Kempthorne, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg,
Ms. Collins, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Kennedy) (by request):
S. 1647. A bill to reauthorize and make reforms to programs
authorized by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The economic development partnership act of 1998
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
reauthorize programs within the Economic Development Administration. It
is with great pleasure that I am joined by my colleagues, Senators
Snowe, Lieberman, Kempthorne, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Lautenberg,
Collins, Johnson, and Kennedy.
Mr. President, programs under the jurisdiction of the Economic
Development Administration have not been reauthorized for almost two
decades. Despite the uncertainty and instability this has created, EDA
has become the cornerstone for efforts to strengthen and diversify the
economies of our nation's communities.
Since its inception in 1965, the EDA has established an impressive
track record of helping communities help themselves. These
``bootstrap'' efforts have allowed communities to meet economic
challenges in a variety of ways--making public works improvements to
attract new businesses and providing technical assistance and planning
grants that allow a community to plan for their future for example.
In my home state of Montana, EDA has been a powerful force in
responding to the changing economic conditions in communities that have
relied on one industry--only to see that industry shut down and move
away. EDA's planning and public works assistance has allowed these
communities to attract new companies, retain companies already in place
and diversify their economies.
EDA has also been instrumental in responding to and assisting areas
affected by natural disasters. In Florida and Louisiana, EDA was there
to help businesses affected by the devastation of Hurricane Andrew. And
EDA is still working with those areas of the Midwest devastated by the
disastrous floods of 1993 and those areas recently impacted by floods
in the Pacific Northwest.
The programs within the EDA have become even more critical to
Congress' efforts to alleviate and address job losses due to the
closure and realignment of military bases around the country.
The EDA's programs are effective tools that are used on the local
level--working hand-in-hand with local governments and businesses to
develop future economic investment strategies. By acting as a catalyst,
economic development funds are used to attract significant private
contributions and support.
Despite efforts to dismantle the EDA, the agency has matured in its
approach to local economic development efforts. But the lack of
authorization has not allowed Congress to make necessary changes to the
statute and mission of the EDA. As with any program, there are some
areas that are working well and other areas that need to be refined.
The lack of authorization has left some aspects of EDA's programs
outdated or unnecessary. That is why I am introducing this bill today--
a bill to streamline and advance EDA's successful programs.
Mr. President, our country is faced with many challenges. Many of our
communities are in economic transition and need to strengthen the
diversity of their economies. We need to reauthorize EDA. It is high
time we recognize the important role that EDA plays in the future of
this country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be
printed in the Congressional Record, along with a brief section-by-
section.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1647
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Economic
Development Partnership Act of 1998''.
(b) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, the provisions of this Act and the amendments made
by this Act shall take effect as determined by the Secretary
of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary), but
not later than three months after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965.
The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3131 et seq.) is amended by striking all after the
first section and inserting the following:
``SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) the maintenance of the national economy at a high
level is vital to the best interests of the United States,
but that some of our regions, counties, and communities are
suffering substantial and persistent unemployment and
underemployment that cause hardship to many individuals and
their families, and waste invaluable human resources;
``(2) to overcome this problem the Federal Government, in
cooperation with the States, should help areas and regions of
substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment
to take effective steps in planning and financing their
public works and economic development;
``(3) Federal financial assistance, including grants for
public works and development facilities to communities,
industries, enterprises, and individuals in areas needing
development should enable such areas to help themselves
achieve lasting improvement and enhance the domestic
prosperity by the establishment of stable and diversified
local economies, sustainable development, and improved local
conditions, if such assistance is preceded by and consistent
with sound, long-range economic planning; and
``(4) under the provisions of this Act, new employment
opportunities should be created by developing and expanding
new and existing public works and other facilities and
resources rather than by merely transferring jobs from one
area of the United States to another, and by supporting firms
and industries which add to the growth of the nation's
economy through improved technology, increased exports, and
the supply of goods and services to satisfy unmet demand.
``(b) Declaration.--Congress declares that, in furtherance
of maintaining the national economy at a high level--
``(1) the assistance authorized by this Act should be made
available to both rural and urban areas;
``(2) such assistance should be made available for planning
for economic development prior to the actual occurrences of
economic distress in order to avoid such condition; and
``(3) Such assistance should be used for long-term economic
rehabilitation in areas where long-term economic
deterioration has occurred or is taking place.
``TITLE I--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS COOPERATION AND
COORDINATION
``SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERSHIPS.
``(a) In General.--In providing assistance under this Act,
the Secretary shall cooperate with States and other entities
to assure that, consistent with national objectives, Federal
programs are compatible with and further the objectives of
State, regional and local economic development plans and
comprehensive economic development strategies.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
such technical assistance to States, local governmental
subdivisions of States, sub-State regional organizations
(including organizations which cross State boundaries, and
multi-State regional organizations as the Secretary
determines may be necessary or desirable to alleviate
economic distress, encourage and support public-private
partnerships for the formation and improvement of economic
development strategies which promote the growth of the
national economy, stimulate modernization
[[Page S755]]
and technological advances in the generation and
commercialization of goods and services, and enhance the
effectiveness of American firms in the global economy.
``(c) Intergovernmental Review.--The Secretary shall
prescribe regulations which will assure that appropriate
State and local governmental authorities have been given a
reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon proposed
projects which the Secretary determines may have a
significant direct impact on the economy of the area.
``(d) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
a cooperative agreement with any two or more adjoining
States, or an organization thereof, in support of effective
economic development. Each such agreement shall provide for
suitable participation by other governmental and
nongovernmental parties representative of significant
interests in and perspectives on economic development in the
area.
``SEC. 102. COOPERATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
``Each Federal department and agency, in accordance with
applicable laws and within the limits of available funds,
shall exercise its powers, duties and functions, and shall
cooperate with the Secretary in such manner as will assist
the Secretary in carrying out the objectives of this Act.
``SEC. 103. COORDINATION.
``The Secretary shall actively coordinate with other
Federal programs, States, economic development districts, and
other appropriate planning and development organizations the
activities relating to the requirements for comprehensive
economic development strategies and making grants under this
Act.
``SEC. 104. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
``The Secretary may appoint a National Public Advisory
Committee on Regional Economic Development which shall
consist of twenty-five members and shall be composed of
representatives of labor, management, agriculture, State and
local governments, Federal agencies, and the public in
general. From the members appointed to such Committee the
Secretary shall designate a Chairman. Such Committee, or any
duly established subcommittee thereof, shall from time to
time make recommendations to the Secretary relative to the
carrying out of the Secretary's duties under this Act,
including the coordination of activities as provided in
section 103. Such Committee shall hold not less than two
meetings during each calendar year, and shall be governed by
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
``TITLE II--GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
``SEC. 201. PUBLIC WORKS GRANTS.
``(a) Upon the application of any eligible recipient the
Secretary may make direct grants for acquisition or
development of land improvements for public works, public
service, or development facility usage, and the acquisition,
design and engineering, construction, rehabilitation,
alteration, expansion, or improvement of such facilities,
including related machinery and equipment.
``(b) The Secretary may provide assistance under this
section only if the Secretary finds that--
``(1) the project for which financial assistance is sought
will directly or indirectly--
``(A) tend to improve the opportunities, in the area where
such project is or will be located, for the successful
establishment or expansion of industrial or commercial plants
or facilities;
``(B) otherwise assist in the creation of additional long-
term employment opportunities of such area;
``(C) primarily benefit the long-term unemployed and
members of low-income families; or
``(D) in the case of projects within areas described in
section 302(a)(8), the project will enhance the economic
growth potential of the area or result in additional long-
term employment opportunities commensurate with the amount of
Federal financial assistance requested;
``(2) the project for which a grant is requested will
fulfill a pressing need of the area, or part thereof, in
which it is, or will be, located; and
``(3) the area for which a project is to be undertaken has
a satisfactory comprehensive economic development strategy as
provided by section 303 and such project is consistent with
such strategy.
``(c) In the case of an area described in section
302(a)(4), the Secretary may provide assistance only if the
Secretary finds that the project to be undertaken will
provide immediate useful work to unemployed and underemployed
persons in that area.
``(d) Not more than 15 per centum of the appropriations
made pursuant to this section may be expended in any one
State.
``SEC. 202. CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASES.
``In any case where a grant (including a supplemental
grant) has been made by the Secretary under this title or
made, before the effective date of the Economic Development
Partnership Act of 1998, under title I of this act, as in
effect before such effective date, for a construction project
and after such grant has been made but before completion of
the project, the cost of such project based upon the designs
and specifications which were the basis of the grant has been
increased because of increases in costs, the amount of such
grant may be increased by an amount equal to the percentage
increase, as determined by the Secretary, in such costs, but
in no event shall the percentage of the Federal share of such
project exceed that originally provided for in such grant.
``SEC. 203. PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
``(a) Upon the application of any eligible recipient the
Secretary may make direct grants for economic development
planning and the administrative expenses of organizations
undertaking such planning.
``(b) The planning for cities, other political
subdivisions, Indian tribes, and sub-State planning and
development organizations (including areas described in
section 302(a) and economic development districts) assisted
under this title shall include systematic efforts to reduce
unemployment and increase incomes.
``(c) The planning shall be a continuous process involving
public officials and private citizens in analyzing local
economies, defining development goals, determining project
opportunities and formulating and implementing a development
program.
``(d) The planning assistance authorized under this title
shall be used in conjunction with any other available Federal
planning assistance to assure adequate and effective planning
and economical use of funds.
``(e) Any State plan prepared with assistance under this
section shall be prepared cooperatively by the State, its
political subdivisions, and the economic development
districts located in whole or in part within such State, as a
comprehensive economic development strategy. Upon completion
of any such plan, the State shall (1) certify to the
Secretary that in the preparation of the State plan, the
local and economic development district plans were considered
and, to the fullest extent possible, the State plan is
consistent with the local and economic development district
plans, and (2) identify any inconsistencies between the State
plan and the local and economic development district plans,
with the justification for each inconsistency. Any overall
State economic development planning shall be a part of a
comprehensive planning process that shall consider the
provisions of public works to stimulate and channel
development, economic opportunities and choices for
individuals, to support sound land use, to foster effective
transportation access, to promote sustainable development, to
enhance and protect the environment including the
conservation and preservation of open spaces and
environmental quality, to provide public services, and to
balance physical and human resources through the management
and control of physical development. Each State receiving
assistance for the preparation of a plan according to the
provisions of this subsection shall submit to the Secretary
an annual report on the planning process assisted under this
subsection.
``SEC. 204. COST SHARING.
``Subject to section 205, the amount of any direct grant
under this title for any project shall not exceed 50 percent
of the cost of such project. In determining the amount of the
non-Federal share of costs or expenses, the Secretary shall
give due consideration to all contributions both in cash
and in kind, fairly evaluated, including contributions of
space, equipment, and services.
``SEC. 205. SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--Upon the application of any eligible
recipient, the Secretary may make a supplementary grant for a
project for which the applicant is eligible but, because of
its economic situation, for which it cannot supply the
required matching share. Included therein may be
supplementary grants made to enable the States and other
entities within areas described in section 302(a) to take
maximum advantage of designated Federal grant-in-aid programs
(as defined in subsection (b)(4) of this section), direct
grants-in-aid authorized under this title, and Federal grant-
in-aid programs authorized by the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (68 Stat. 666), and the 11 watersheds
authorized by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58
Stat. 887).
``(b) Requirements Applicable to Supplementary Grants.--
``(1) Amount of supplementary grants.--The amount of any
supplementary grant under this title for any project shall
not exceed the applicable percentage established by
regulations promulgated by the Secretary, but in no event
shall the non-Federal share of the aggregate cost of any such
project (including assumptions of debt) be less than 20
percent of such cost, except as provided in subsection
(b)(6).
``(2) Form of supplementary grants.--Supplementary grants
shall be made by the Secretary, in accordance with such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, by increasing the
amounts of direct grants authorized under this title or by
the payment of funds appropriated under this act to the heads
of the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the
Federal Government responsible for the administration of the
applicable Federal programs.
``(3) Federal share limitations specified in other laws.--
Notwithstanding any requirement as to the amount or sources
of non-Federal funds that may otherwise be applicable to the
Federal program involved, funds provided under this
subsection may be used for the purpose of increasing the
Federal contribution to specific projects in areas described
in section 302(a) under such programs above the fixed maximum
portion of the cost of such project otherwise authorized by
the applicable law.
[[Page S756]]
``(4) Designated federal grant-in-aid programs defined.--In
this section, the term `designated Federal grant-in-aid
programs' means such existing or future Federal grant-in-aid
programs assisting in the construction or equipping of
facilities as the Secretary may, in furtherance of the
purposes of this Act, designate as eligible for allocation of
funds under this section.
``(5) Consideration of relative need in determining
amount.--In determining the amount of any supplementary grant
available to any project under this title, the Secretary
shall take into consideration the relative needs of the area
and the nature of the project to be assisted.
``(6) Exceptions.--In the case of a grant to an Indian
tribe, the Secretary may reduce the non-Federal share below
the percentage specified in subsection (b)(1) or may waive
the non-Federal share. In the case of a grant to a State or a
political subdivision of a State which the Secretary
determines has exhausted its effective taxing and borrowing
capacity, or of a grant to a nonprofit organization which the
Secretary determines has exhausted its effective borrowing
capacity, the Secretary may reduce the non-Federal share
below the percentage specified in subsection (b)(1) or may
waive the non-Federal share for (i) a project in an area
described in section 302(a)(4), or (ii) a project the nature
of which the Secretary determines warrants the reduction or
waiver of the non-Federal share.
``SEC. 206. REGULATIONS TO ASSURE RELATIVE NEEDS ARE MET.
``The Secretary shall prescribe rules, regulations, and
procedures to carry out this title which will assure that
adequate consideration is given to the relative needs of
eligible areas. In prescribing such rules, regulations, and
procedures for assistance under section 201 the Secretary
shall consider among other relevant factors--
``(1) the severity of the rates of unemployment in the
eligible areas and the duration of such unemployment;
``(2) the income levels of families and the extent of
underemployment in eligible areas; and
``(3) the out-migration of population for eligible areas.
``SEC. 207. TRAINING, RESEARCH, & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Upon the application of any eligible recipient the
Secretary may make direct grants for training, research, and
technical assistance, including grants for program evaluation
and economic impact analyses, which would be useful in
alleviating or preventing conditions of excessive
unemployment or underemployment. Such assistance may include
project planning and feasibility studies, demonstrations of
innovative activities or strategic economic development
investments, management and operational assistance,
establishment of university centers, establishment of
business outreach centers, and studies evaluating the needs
of, and development potentialities for, economic growth of
areas which the Secretary finds have substantial need for
such assistance. The Secretary may waive the non-Federal
share in the case of a project under this section, without
regard to the provisions of section 204 or 205.
``(b) In carrying out the Secretary's duties under this
Act, the Secretary may provide research and technical
assistance through members of the Secretary's staff; the
payment of funds authorized for this section to departments
or agencies of the Federal Government; the employment of
private individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations, or
suitable institutions under contracts entered into for such
purposes; or the award of grants under this title.
``SEC. 208. RELOCATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES.
``Grants to eligible recipients shall include such amounts
as may be required to provide relocation assistance to
affected persons, as required by the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act 1970, as
amended.
``SEC. 209. ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT.
``(a) Upon the application of any eligible recipient the
Secretary may make direct grants for public facilities,
public services, business development (including a revolving
loan fund), planning, technical assistance, training, and
other assistance which demonstrably furthers the economic
adjustment objectives of this Act, including activities to
alleviate long-term economic deterioration, and sudden and
severe economic dislocations.
``(b) The Secretary may provide assistance under this
section only if the Secretary finds that--
``(1) the project will help the area meet a special need
arising from--
``(A) actual or threatened severe unemployment arising from
economic dislocation, including unemployment arising from
actions of the Federal Government or from compliance with
environmental requirements which remove economic activities
from a locality; or
``(B) economic adjustment problems resulting from severe
changes in economic conditions (including long-term economic
deterioration); and
``(2) the area for which a project is to be undertaken has
a satisfactory comprehensive economic development strategy as
provided by section 303 and such project is consistent with
such strategy. This subsection (b)(2) shall not apply to
planning projects.
``(c) Assistance under this section shall extend to
activities identified by communities impacted by military
base closures, defense contractor cutbacks, and Department of
Energy reductions, to help the communities diversify their
economies. Nothing in this section is intended to replace the
efforts of the economic adjustment program of the Department
of Defense.
``(d) Assistance under this section shall extend to post-
disaster activities in areas affected by natural and other
disasters.
``SEC. 210. DIRECT EXPENDITURE OR REDISTRIBUTION BY
RECIPIENT.
``Amounts from grants under section 209 of this title may
be used in direct expenditures by the eligible recipient or
through redistribution by the eligible recipient to public
and private entities in grants, loans, loan guarantees,
payments to reduce interest on loan guarantees, or other
appropriate assistance, but no grant shall be made by an
eligible recipient to a private profit-making entity.
``SEC. 211. CHANGED PROJECT CIRCUMSTANCES.
``In any case where a grant (including a supplemental
grant) has been made by the Secretary under this title (or
made under this Act, as in effect on the day before the
effective date of the Economic Development Partnership Act of
1998) for a project, and after such grant has been made but
before completion of the project, the purpose or scope of
such project which were the basis of the grant has changed,
the Secretary may approve the use of grant funds on such
changed project if the Secretary determines that such changed
project meets the requirements of this title and that such
changes are necessary to enhance economic development in the
area.
``SEC. 212. USE OF FUNDS IN PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED UNDER
PROJECTED COST.
``In any case where a grant (including a supplemental
grant) has been made by the Secretary under this title (or
made under this Act, as in effect on the day before the
effective date of the Economic Development Partnership Act of
1998) for a construction project, and after such grant has
been made but before completion of the project, the cost of
such project based upon the designs and specifications which
was the basis of the grant has decreased because of decreases
in costs, such underrun funds may be used to improve the
project either directly or indirectly as determined by the
Secretary.
``SEC. 213. BASE CLOSINGS AND REALIGNMENTS.
``(a) Location of Projects.--In any case in which the
Secretary determines a need for assistance under this title
due to the closure or realignment of a military or Department
of Energy installation, the Secretary may make such
assistance available for projects to be carried out on the
installation and for projects to be carried out in
communities adversely affected by the closure or realignment.
``(b) Interest in Property.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may provide to an eligible
recipient any assistance available under this Act for a
project to be carried out on a military or Department of
Energy installation that is closed or scheduled for closure
or realignment without requiring that the eligible recipient
have title to the property or a leasehold interest in the
property for any specified term.
``SEC. 214. PREVENTION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION.
``No financial assistance under this Act shall be extended
to any project when the result would be to increase the
production of goods, materials, or commodities, or the
availability of services or facilities, when there is not
sufficient demand for such goods, materials, commodities,
services, or facilities, to employ the efficient capacity of
existing competitive commercial or industrial enterprises.
``SEC. 215. REPORTS BY RECIPIENT.
``Reports to the Secretary shall be required of recipients
of assistance under this Act. Such reports shall be at such
intervals and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe
by regulation, not to exceed ten years from the time of
closeout of the assistance award, and shall contain an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the economic assistance
provided under this Act in meeting the need it was designed
to alleviate and the purposes of this Act.
``TITLE III--DEFINITIONS, ELIGIBILITY AND COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
``SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.
``In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the
following definitions apply:
``(a) Economic development district.--The term `economic
development district' refers to any area within the United
States composed of cooperating areas described in section
302(a) and, where appropriate, designated economic
development centers and neighboring counties or communities,
which has been designated by the Secretary as an economic
development district. Such term includes any economic
development district designated by the Secretary under
section 403 of this Act, as in effect on the day before the
effective date of the Economic Development Partnership Act of
1998.
``(b) Economic development center.--The term `economic
development center' refers to any area within the United
States which has been identified as an economic development
center in an approved comprehensive economic development
strategy and which has been designated by the Secretary as
eligible for financial assistance under this Act
[[Page S757]]
in accordance with the provisions of this section.
``(c) Eligible recipient.--The term `eligible recipient'
means an area described in section 302(a), an economic
development district designated under section 401, an Indian
tribe, a State, a city or other political subdivision of a
State or a consortium of such political subdivisions, an
institution of higher education or a consortium of such
institutions, or a public or private nonprofit organization
or association acting in cooperation with officials of such
political subdivisions. For grants made under section 207,
`eligible recipient' also includes private individuals and
for-profit organizations.
``(d) Grant.--The term `grant' includes cooperative
agreement, as that term is used in the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977.
``(e) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means an
Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village,
or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges
to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. section
479a-1.
``(f) State.--The terms `State', `States', and `United
States' include the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
``SEC. 302. AREA ELIGIBILITY.
``(a) Certification.--In order to be eligible for
assistance for activities described under section 201 or 209,
an applicant shall certify, as part of an application for
such assistance, that the project is located in an area which
on the date of submission of such application meets one or
more of the following criteria:
``(1) The area has a per capita income of 80 percent or
less of the national average.
``(2) The area has an unemployment rate one percent above
the national average percentage for the most recent 24-month
period for which statistics are available.
``(3) The area has experienced or is about to experience a
sudden economic dislocation resulting in job loss that is
significant both in terms of the number of jobs eliminated
and the effect upon the employment rate of the area.
``(4) The area is one in which the Secretary determines
that any activities authorized to be undertaken under section
201 or 209 will provide immediate useful work to unemployed
and underemployed persons in that area, and the area is a
community or neighborhood (defined without regard to
political or other subdivisions or boundaries) which the
Secretary determines has one or more of the following
conditions:
``(A) A large concentration of low-income persons;
``(B) Areas having substantial out-migration; or
``(C) Substantial unemployment.
``(5) The area has demonstrated long-term economic
deterioration.
``(6) The area has an unemployment rate, for the most
recent 12 month period for which statistics are available,
above a rate established by regulation as an indicator of
substantial unemployment during conditions of significantly
high national unemployment.
``(7) The area is one which the Secretary has determined
has experienced, or may reasonably be foreseen to be about to
experience, a special need to meet an expected rise in
unemployment, or other economic adjustment problems
(including those caused by any action or decision of the
Federal Government).
``(8) The area contains a population of 250,000 or less and
is identified in a comprehensive economic development
strategy as having growth potential and the ability to
alleviate distress within an economic development district.
``(9) The area is experiencing severe outmigration.
``(b) Documentation.--A certification made under subsection
(a) shall be supported by Federal data, when available or, in
the absence of recent Federal data, by data available through
the State government. Such documentation shall be accepted by
the Secretary unless the Secretary determines the
documentation to be inaccurate. The most recent statistics
available shall be used.
``(c) Special Rule.--An area which the Secretary determines
is eligible for assistance because it meets 1 or more of the
criteria of subsection (a)(4)--
``(1) shall not be subject to the requirements of sections
201(b) or 303; and
``(2) shall not be eligible to meet the requirement of
section 401(a)(1)(B).
``(d) Prior Designations.--Any designation of a
redevelopment area made before the effective date of the
Economic Development Partnership Act of 1998 shall not be
effective after such effective date.
``SEC. 303. COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide assistance
under section 201 or 209 (except for section 209 planning) to
an applicant for a project only if the applicant submits to
the Secretary, as part of an application for such assistance,
evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of a comprehensive
economic development strategy which--
``(1) identifies the economic development problems to be
addressed using such assistance;
``(2) identifies past, present, and projected future
economic development investments in the area receiving such
assistance and public and private participants and sources of
funding for such investments; and
``(3) sets forth a strategy for addressing the economic
problems identified pursuant to paragraph (a) and describes
how the strategy will solve such problems.
``(b) Other Plan.--The Secretary may accept as a
comprehensive economic development strategy a satisfactory
plan prepared under another Federally supported program.
``TITLE IV--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
``SEC. 401. DESIGNATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
``(a) In General.--In order that economic development
projects of broader geographic significance may be planned
and carried out, the Secretary may--
``(1) designate appropriate `economic development
districts' within the United States with the concurrence of
the States in which such districts will be wholly or
partially located, if--
``(A) the proposed district is of sufficient size or
population, and contains sufficient resources, to foster
economic development on a scale involving more than a single
area described in section 302(a);
``(B) the proposed district contains at least 1 area
described in section 302(a);
``(C) the proposed district contains 1 or more areas
described in section 302(a) or economic development centers
identified in an approved district comprehensive economic
development strategy as having sufficient size and potential
to foster the economic growth activities necessary to
alleviate the distress of the areas described in section
302(a) within the district; and
``(D) the proposed district has a district comprehensive
economic development strategy which includes sustainable
development, adequate land use and transportation planning
and contains a specific program for district cooperation,
self-help, and public investment and is approved by the State
or States affected and by the Secretary;
``(2) designate as `economic development centers', in
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary shall
prescribe, such areas as the Secretary may deem appropriate,
if--
``(A) the proposed center has been identified and included
in an approved district comprehensive economic development
strategy and recommended by the State or States affected for
such special designation;
``(B) the proposed center is geographically and
economically so related to the district that its economic
growth may reasonably be expected to contribute significantly
to the alleviation of distress in the areas described in
section 302(a) of the district; and
``(C) the proposed center does not have a population in
excess of 250,000 according to the most recent Federal
census; and
``(3) provide financial assistance in accordance with the
criteria of this Act, except as may be herein otherwise
provided, for projects in economic development centers
designated under subsection (a)(2), if--
``(A) the project will further the objectives of the
comprehensive economic development strategy of the district
in which it is to be located;
``(B) the project will enhance the economic growth
potential of the district or result in additional long-term
employment opportunities commensurate with the amount of
Federal financial assistance requested; and
``(C) the amount of Federal financial assistance requested
is reasonably related to the size, population, and economic
needs of the district.
``(b) Authorities.--The Secretary may, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(1) invite the several States to draw up proposed
economic development district boundaries and to identify
potential economic development centers;
``(2) cooperate with the several States--
``(A) in sponsoring and assisting district economic
planning and development groups; and
``(B) in assisting such district groups to formulate
district comprehensive economic development strategies; and
``(3) encourage participation by appropriate local
governmental authorities in such economic development
districts.
``SEC. 402. TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION.
``The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe standards for
the termination or modification of economic development
districts and economic development centers designated under
the authority of section 401.
``SEC. 403. BONUS.
``Subject to the 20 per centum non-Federal share required
for any project by subsection 205(b)(1) of this Act, the
Secretary is authorized to increase the amount of grant
assistance authorized by sections 204 and 205 for projects
within designated economic development districts by an amount
not to exceed 10 per centum of the aggregate cost of such
project, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary
shall prescribe if--
(1) the project applicant is actively participating in the
economic development activities of the district; and
(2) the project is consistent with an approved district
comprehensive economic development strategy.
[[Page S758]]
``SEC 404. STRATEGY PROVIDED TO APPALACHIAN REGIONAL
COMMISSION.
``Each economic development district designated by the
Secretary under this title shall provide that a copy of the
district comprehensive economic development strategy be
furnished to the Appalachian Regional Commission established
under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, if
any part of such district is within the Appalachian region.
``SEC. 405. PARTS NOT WITHIN AREAS DESCRIBED IN SECTION
302(A).
``The Secretary is authorized to provide the financial
assistance which is available to an area described in section
302(a) under this Act to those parts of an economic
development district which are not within an area described
in section 302(a), when such assistance will be of a
substantial direct benefit to an area described in section
302(a) within such district. Such financial assistance shall
be provided in the same manner and to the same extent as is
provided in this Act for an area described in section 302(a).
``TITLE V--ADMINISTRATION
``SEC. 501. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
``The Secretary will administer this Act with the
assistance of an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Development to be appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Economic Development will perform such functions
as the Secretary may prescribe and will serve as the
administrator of the Economic Development Administration
within the Department of Commerce.
``SEC. 502. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE.
``It shall be a duty of the Secretary in administering this
Act--
``(a) to serve as a central information clearinghouse on
matters relating to economic development, economic,
adjustment, disaster recovery, and defense conversion
programs and activities of the Federal and State governments,
including political subdivisions of the States;
``(b) to help potential and actual applicants for economic
development, economic adjustment, disaster recovery, and
defense conversion assistance under Federal, State, and local
laws in locating and applying for such assistance, including
financial and technical assistance; and
``(c) to aid areas described in section 302(a) and other
areas by furnishing to interested individuals, communities,
industries, and enterprises within such areas any technical
information, market research, or other forms of assistance,
information, or advice which would be useful in alleviating
or preventing conditions of excessive unemployment or
underemployment within such areas.
``SEC. 503. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER PERSONS AND AGENCIES.
``(a) Consultation on Problems Relating to Employment.--The
Secretary is authorized from time to time to call together
and confer with any persons, including representatives of
labor, management, agriculture, and government, who can
assist in meeting the problems of area and regional
unemployment or underemployment.
``(b) Consultation on Administration of Act.--The Secretary
may make provisions for such consultation with interested
departments and agencies as the Secretary may deem
appropriate in the performance of the functions vested in
the Secretary by this Act.
``SEC. 504. ADMINISTRATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE.
``No Federal assistance shall be approved under this Act
unless the Secretary is satisfied that the project for which
Federal assistance is granted will be properly and
efficiently administered, operated, and maintained.
``SEC. 505. FIRMS DESIRING FEDERAL CONTRACTS.
``The Secretary may furnish the procurement divisions of
the various departments, agencies, and other
instrumentalities of the Federal Government with a list
containing the names and addresses of business firms which
are located in areas of high economic distress and which are
desirous of obtaining Government contracts for the furnishing
of supplies or services, and designating the supplies and
services such firms are engaged in providing.
``SEC. 506. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5, U.S.C.
``Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking `Administrator for Economic Development.'
``TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
``SEC. 601. POWERS OF SECRETARY.
``(a) In General.--In performing the Secretary's duties
under this Act, the Secretary is authorized to--
``(1) adopt, alter, and use a seal, which shall be
judicially noticed;
``(2) subject to the civil-service and classification laws,
select, employ, appoint, and fix the compensation of such
personnel as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act;
``(3) hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and
places, and take such testimony, as the Secretary may deem
advisable;
``(4) request directly from any executive department,
bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent
establishment, or instrumentality information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics needed to carry out the purposes of
this Act; and each department, bureau, agency, board,
commission, office, establishment, or instrumentality is
authorized to furnish such information, suggestions,
estimates, and statistics directly to the Secretary;
``(5) consistent with the Debt Collection Improvement Act
of 1996, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
assign or sell at public or private sale, or otherwise
dispose of for cash or credit, in the Secretary's discretion
and upon such terms and conditions and for such consideration
as the Secretary determines to be reasonable, any evidence of
debt, contract, claim, personal property, or security
assigned to or held by the Secretary in connection with
assistance extended under the Act, and collect or compromise
all obligations assigned to or held by the Secretary in
connection with such assistance until such time as such
obligations may be referred to the Attorney General for suit
or collection;
``(6) deal with, complete, renovate, improve, modernize,
insure, rent, or sell for cash or credit, upon such terms and
conditions and for such consideration as the Secretary
determines to be reasonable, any real or personal property
conveyed to or otherwise acquired by the Secretary in
connection with assistance extended under this Act;
``(7) consistent with the Debt Collection Improvement Act
of 1996, pursue to final collection, by way of compromise or
other administrative action, prior to reference to the
Attorney General, all claims against third parties assigned
to the Secretary in connection with assistance extended under
this Act;
``(8) acquire, in any lawful manner, any property (real,
personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible), whenever
necessary or appropriate in connection with assistance
extended under this Act;
``(9) in addition to any powers, functions, privileges, and
immunities otherwise vested in the Secretary, take any
action, including the procurement of the services of
attorneys by contract, determined by the Secretary to be
necessary or desirable in making, purchasing, servicing,
compromising, modifying, liquidating, or otherwise
administratively dealing with assets held in connection with
financial assistance extended under this Act;
``(10) employ experts and consultants or organizations as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
compensate individuals so employed, including travel time,
and allow them, while away from their homes or regular places
of business, travel expenses (including per diem in lieu of
subsistence) as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code, for persons in the Government service employed
intermittently, while so employed, except that contracts for
such employment may be renewed annually;
``(11) establish performance measures for grants and other
assistance provided under this Act, and use such performance
measures to evaluate the economic impact of economic
development assistance programs; the establishment and use of
such performance measures to be provided by the Secretary
through members of his staff, through the employment of
appropriate parties under contracts entered into for such
purposes, or through grants to such parties for such
purposes, using any funds made available by appropriations to
carry out this Act;
``(12) sue and be sued in any court of record of a State
having general jurisdiction or in any United States district
court, and jurisdiction is conferred upon such district court
to determine such controversies without regard to the amount
in controversy; but no attachment, injunction, garnishment,
or other similar process, mesne or final, shall be issued
against the Secretary or the Secretary's property; and
``(13) establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as
the Secretary considers appropriate in carrying out the
provisions of this Act.
``(b) Deficiency Judgments.--The authority under subsection
(a)(7) to pursue claims shall include the authority to obtain
deficiency judgments or otherwise in the case of mortgages
assigned to the Secretary.
``(c) Inapplicability of Certain Other Requirements.--
Section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
shall not apply to any contract of hazard insurance or to any
purchase or contract for services or supplies on account of
property obtained by the Secretary as a result of assistance
extended under this Act if the premium for the insurance or
the amount of the insurance does not exceed $1,000.
``(d) Property Interests.--The powers of the Secretary,
pursuant to this section, in relation to property acquired by
the Secretary in connection with assistance extended under
this Act, shall extend to property interests of the Secretary
in relation to projects approved under the Public Works and
Economic Development Act of 1965, title I of the Public Works
Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of 1974,
and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.
Property interests in connection with grants may be released,
in whole or in part, in the Secretary's discretion, after 20
years from the date of grant disbursement.
``(e) Powers of Conveyance and Execution.--The power to
convey and to execute, in the name of the Secretary, deeds of
conveyance, deeds of release, assignments and satisfactions
of mortgages, and any other written instrument relating to
real or personal property or any interest therein acquired by
the Secretary pursuant to the provisions of this Act may be
exercised by the Secretary, or by any officer or agent
appointed by the Secretary for such purpose,
[[Page S759]]
without the execution of any express delegation of power or
power of attorney.
``SEC. 602. MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS.
``The Secretary shall continue to implement and enforce the
provisions of section 712 of this Act, as in effect on the
day before the effective date of the Economic Development
Partnership Act of 1998.
``SEC. 603. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
``The Secretary shall transmit a comprehensive and detailed
annual report to Congress of the Secretary's activities under
this Act for each fiscal year beginning with the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999. Such report shall be printed and
shall be transmitted to Congress not later than July 1 of the
year following the fiscal year with respect to which such
report is made.
``SEC. 604. USE OF OTHER FACILITIES.
``(a) Delegation of Functions to Other Federal Departments
and Agencies.--The Secretary may delegate to the heads of
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government any
of the Secretary's functions, powers, and duties under this
Act as the Secretary may deem appropriate, and authorize the
redelegation of such functions, powers, and duties by the
heads of such departments and agencies.
``(b) Transfer Between Departments.--Funds authorized to be
appropriated under this Act may be transferred between
departments and agencies of the Government, if such funds are
used for the purposes for which they are specifically
authorized and appropriated.
``(c) Funds Transferred From Other Departments and
Agencies.--In order to carry out the objectives of this Act,
the Secretary may accept transfers of funds from other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government if the
funds are used for the purposes for which (and in accordance
with the terms under which) the funds are specifically
authorized and appropriated. Such transferred funds shall
remain available until expended, and may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriations under the heading
`salaries and expenses' by the Secretary to the extent
necessary to administer the program.
``SEC. 605. PENALTIES.
``(a) False Statements; Security Overvaluation.--Whoever
makes any statement knowing it to be false, or whoever
willfully overvalues any security, for the purpose
of obtaining for such person or for any applicant any
financial assistance under this Act or any extension of
such assistance by renewal, deferment or action, or
otherwise, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of
security for such assistance, or for the purpose of
influencing in any way the action of the Secretary or for
the purpose of obtaining money, property, or anything of
value, under this Act, shall be fined under title 18,
United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years,
or both.
``(b) Embezzlement and Fraud-Related Crimes.--Whoever,
being connected in any capacity with the Secretary in the
administration of this Act--
``(1) embezzles, abstracts, purloins, or willfully
misapplies any moneys, funds, securities, or other things of
value, whether belonging to such person or pledged or
otherwise entrusted to such person;
``(2) with intent to defraud the Secretary or any other
body politic or corporate, or any individual, or to deceive
any officer, auditor, or examiner, makes any false entry in
any book, report, or statement of or to the Secretary or
without being duly authorized draws any orders or issues,
puts forth, or assigns any note, debenture, bond, or other
obligation, or draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment,
or decree thereof;
``(3) with intent to defraud, participates or shares in or
receives directly or indirectly any money, profit, property,
or benefit through any transaction, loan, grant, commission,
contract, or any other act of the Secretary; or
``(4) gives any unauthorized information concerning any
future action or plan of the Secretary which might affect the
value of securities, or having such knowledge invests or
speculates, directly or indirectly, in the securities or
property of any company or corporation receiving loans,
grants, or other assistance from the Secretary, shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not
more than 5 years, or both.
``SEC. 606. EMPLOYMENT OF EXPEDITERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYEES.
``No financial assistance shall be extended by the
Secretary under this Act to any business enterprise unless
the owners, partners, or officers of such business
enterprise--
``(1) certify to the Secretary the names of any attorneys,
agents, and other persons engaged by or on behalf of such
business enterprise for the purpose of expediting
applications made to the Secretary for assistance of any
sort, under this Act, and the fees paid or to be paid to any
such person; and
``(2) execute an agreement binding such business
enterprise, for a period of 2 years after such assistance is
rendered by the Secretary to such business enterprise, to
refrain from employing, tendering any office or employment
to, or retaining for professional services, any person who,
on the date such assistance or any part thereof was rendered,
or within the 1-year period ending on such date, shall have
served as an officer, attorney, agent, or employee, occupying
a position or engaging in activities which the Secretary
determines involves discretion with respect to the granting
of assistance under this Act.
``SEC. 607. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS
FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; PUBLIC INSPECTION.
``(a) Maintenance of Record Required.--The Secretary shall
maintain as a permanent part of the records of the Department
of Commerce a list of applications approved for financial
assistance under this Act, which shall be kept available for
public inspection during the regular business hours of the
Department of Commerce.
``(b) Posting to List.--The following information shall be
posted in such list as soon as each application is approved:
``(1) The name of the applicant and, in the case of
corporate applications, the names of the officers and
directors thereof.
``(2) The amount and duration of the financial assistance
for which application is made.
``(3) The purposes for which the proceeds of the financial
assistance are to be used.
``SEC. 608. RECORDS AND AUDIT.
``(a) Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements.--Each
recipient of assistance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records
which fully disclose the amount and the disposition by such
recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost
of the project or undertaking in connection with which such
assistance is given or used, and the amount and nature of
that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking
supplied by other sources, and such other records as will
facilitate an effective audit.
``(b) Access to Books for Examination and Audit.--The
Secretary, the Inspector General of the Department of
Commerce, and the Comptroller General of the United States,
or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have
access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books,
documents, papers, and records of the recipient that are
pertinent to assistance received under this Act.
``SEC. 609. PROHIBITION AGAINST A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
WHICH MIGHT CAUSE DIMINUTION IN OTHER FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE.
``All financial and technical assistance authorized under
this Act shall be in addition to any Federal assistance
previously authorized, and no provision of this Act shall be
construed as authorizing or permitting any reduction or
diminution in the proportional amount of Federal assistance
which any State or other entity eligible under this Act would
otherwise be entitled to receive under the provisions of any
other Act.
``SEC. 610. ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICANTS' CERTIFICATIONS.
``The Secretary may accept, when deemed appropriate, the
applicants' certifications to meet the requirements of this
Act.
``TITLE VII--FUNDING
``SEC. 701. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $397,969,000 for fiscal year 1999 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002, such
sums to remain available until expended.
``SEC. 702. DEFENSE CONVERSION ACTIVITIES.
``In addition to the appropriations authorized by section
701, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this Act such sums as may be necessary to provide assistance
for defense conversion activities. Such funding may include
pilot projects for privatization and economic development
activities for closed or realigned military or Department of
Energy installations. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
``SEC. 703. DISASTER ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACTIVITIES.
In addition to the appropriations authorized by section
701, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this Act such sums as may be necessary to provide assistance
for disaster economic recovery activities. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.''
SEC. 3. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
(a) Existing Rights, Duties, and Obligations Not
Affected.--This Act shall not be construed as affecting the
validity of any right, duty, or obligation of the United
States or any other person arising under or pursuant to any
contract, loan, or other instrument or agreement which was in
effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.
(b) Continuation of Suits.--No action or other proceeding
commenced by or against any officer or employee of the
Economic Development Administration shall abate by reason of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) Liquidating Account.--The Economic Development
Revolving Fund hitherto established under section 203 of the
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 shall
continue to be available to the Secretary as a liquidating
account as defined under section 502 of the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 for payment of obligations and expenses in
connection with financial assistance extended under this Act,
said Act of 1965, the Area Redevelopment Act, and the Trade
Act of 1974.
(d) Administration.--The Secretary shall take such actions
as authorized before the effective date of this Act as
necessary or appropriate to administer and liquidate existing
grants, contracts, agreements, loans, obligations,
debentures, or guarantees heretofore made by the Secretary or
the Secretary's delegatee pursuant to provisions in effect
immediately prior to the effective date of this Act.
[[Page S760]]
____
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title; effective date
Act may be cited as the ``Economic Development Partnership
Act of 1997'', with an effective date not later than three
months after enactment.
Section 2. Reauthorization of Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965
Reenacts the Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965 (PWEDA), replacing everything after section 1 of that
act with Findings and the following seven titles:
Sec. 2. Findings and declaration
Includes Congressional findings and declaration of the need
for Federal assistance to distressed areas, as in PWEDA.
TITLE I--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
Sec. 101. Establishment of economic development partnerships
Directs cooperation with States and other entities,
including cooperative agreements with adjoining states;
technical assistance as appropriate; and intergovernmental
review of project proposals.
Sec. 102. Cooperation of Federal agencies
Directs other Federal department and agency to cooperate
with the Secretary in carrying out the objectives of this
Act, as in PWEDA.
Sec. 103. Coordination
Directs the Secretary to coordinate the activities under
this Act with other Federal programs, States, economic
development districts, and others, as in PWEDA.
Sec. 104. National Advisory Committee
The Secretary may appoint a broad-based 25-member National
Public Advisory Committee on Regional Economic Development to
make recommendations to the Secretary relative to carrying
out the Secretary's duties under this Act, as in PWEDA.
TITLE II--GRANTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 201. Public works grants
Provides authority to make grants for regular
infrastructure projects similar to those under PWEDA, and
adds authority to make grants for design and engineering
projects.
Sec. 202. Construction cost increases
Provides for increases in grant funding due to construction
cost increases, using essentially the same language as in
Title I of PWEDA.
Sec. 203. Planning and administrative expenses
Provides for grant assistance to political entities and
planning organizations using essentially the same language as
in Title III of PWEDA.
Sec. 204. Cost sharing
Establishes a 50 percent direct grant rate for projects
under this title and requirements for the non-Federal share,
as in PWEDA.
Sec. 205. Supplementary grants
Provides authority to supplement grants from designated
Federal grant-in-aid programs as well as authority to
supplement the 50 percent direct grant rate for eligible
projects under this Act of 1997. Similarly to PWEDA, grant
rate may be increased to 80 percent according to distress
criteria, and 100 percent in extraordinary situations.
Sec. 206. Regulations to assure relative needs are met
Directs the Secretary to prescribe rules, regulations, and
procedures to carry out this title which will assure that for
assistance under section 201 adequate consideration is given
to the relative needs of eligible areas, as in PWEDA.
Relevant factors are to include severity of unemployment and
underemployment, income levels, and outmigration of
population.
Sec. 207. Training, research and technical assistance
Provides authority to make direct grants for training,
research and technical assistance, including program
evaluation and economic impact analyses, as well as authority
to conduct research and technical assistance through staff,
through other Federal departments or agencies, or through
contracts or grants. Authority is similar to PWEDA's.
Sec. 208. Relocation of individuals and businesses
States that grants to eligible recipients must include
relocation assistance to affected persons, as required by the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Act of 1970, as amended.
Sec. 209. Economic adjustment
Provides authority, as in PWEDA, to make direct grants for
public facilities, public services, business development
(including a revolving loan fund), planning, technical
assistance, and training, including activities to alleviate
long-term economic deterioration, and sudden and severe
economic dislocations.
Sec. 210. Direct expenditure or redistribution by recipient
Provides, as in PWEDA, that amounts from grants under
section 209 of this title may be used in direct expenditures
or through redistribution to public and private entities in
grants, loans, loan guarantees, to reduce loan guarantee
interest, or other appropriate assistance, but no grant shall
be made by a recipient to a private profit-making entity.
Sec. 211. Changed project circumstances
Provides authority to approve changes in project scope.
Sec. 212. Use of funds in projects constructed under
projected cost
Provides that funds available because of construction
projects completed under cost may be used to further improve
the project, as determined by the Secretary.
Sec. 213. Base closings and realignments
Provides authority for assistance under this title due to
the closure or realignment of a military or Department of
Energy installation for projects to be carried out on such
installation or in communities adversely affected by the
closure or realignment.
Sec. 214. Prevention of unfair competition
Prohibits use of funds under this Act for any project
resulting in excess capacity using the same language in
section 702 of PWEDA.
Sec. 215. Reports by recipient
Requires reports from recipients of assistance containing
an evaluation of the effectiveness of the economic assistance
provided under this Act.
TITLE III--DEFINITIONS, ELIGIBILITY AND COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Sec. 301. Definitions
Defines eligible recipient as an area described in Section
302(a), an economic development district designated under
section 401, an Indian tribe, a State, a city or other
political subdivision (subdivision) of a State or a
consortium of such subdivisions, an institution of higher
education or a consortium of such institutions, or a public
or private nonprofit organization or association acting in
cooperation with officials of such subdivisions, and includes
private individuals and for-profit organizations for grants
under section 207. The terms economic development district,
economic development center, grant, Indian tribe, Secretary
and State are also defined.
Sec. 302. Area eligibility
Allows for self-certification by applicants seeking
assistance under section 201 or 209, that they meet one or
more of the nine distress criteria established; such
certification to be supported by Federal data, when available
or, in the absence of recent Federal data, by data available
through the State government. Such documentation shall be
accepted by the Secretary unless the Secretary determines the
documentation to be inaccurate. The most recent statistics
available shall be used. Area eligibility is similar to that
in PWEDA (however, determined at time of application, rather
than ``grandfathered''), but provides consistency across
programs, and simplifies process of determining eligibility.
Sec. 303. Comprehensive economic development strategy
Requires applicants for assistance under section 201 or 209
(except for planning) to prepare a comprehensive economic
development strategy, acceptable to the Secretary,
identifying problems to be addressed and the strategy for
addressing them. This is similar to overall economic
development program required for PWEDA public works grants,
or adjustment strategies required for PWEDA economic
adjustment grants. Provides that plan prepared under another
Federally supported program may be acceptable.
TITLE IV--ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Sec. 401. Designation of economic development districts and
economic development centers
Establishes criteria for the designation of economic
development districts and economic development centers, with
essentially the same language as in PWEDA.
Sec. 402. Termination or modification
Authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations describing
standards for terminating or modifying designated economic
development districts and economic development centers, as in
PWEDA.
Sec. 403. Bonus
Provides authority to increase the amount of grant
assistance authorized by sections 204 and 205 for projects
within designated economic development districts by an amount
not to exceed 10 per centum of the aggregate cost of any such
project, subject to minimum non-Federal share, if certain
requirements are met, as in PWEDA.
Sec. 404. Strategy provided to Appalachian Regional
Commission
As in PWEDA, requires that each economic development
district provide a copy of its comprehensive economic
development strategy to the Appalachian Regional Commission,
if any part of such proposed district is within the
Appalachian region.
Sec. 405. Parts not within areas described in section 302(a)
Establishes the authority to provide the financial
assistance to those parts of an economic development district
which are not within an area described in section 302(a),
when such assistance will be of a substantial direct benefit
to an area described in section 302(a) within such district,
as in PWEDA.
TITLE V--ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 501. Assistant Secretary for Economic Development
Provides that the Secretary will administer the Act with
the assistance of an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development to be appointed by the President by and
with the advice and consent of
[[Page S761]]
the Senate; such Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic
Development will serve as the administrator of the Economic
Development Administration.
Sec. 502. Economic development information clearinghouse
Establishes a central information clearinghouse on matters
relating to economic development, economic adjustment,
disaster recovery, and defense conversion programs and
activities of the Federal and State governments, including
political subdivisions of the States.
Sec. 503. Consultation with other persons and agencies
Authorizes the Secretary to confer with any persons,
including representatives of labor, management, agriculture,
and government, who can assist with the problems of area and
regional unemployment and underemployment, and to consult
with interested departments and agencies as deemed
appropriate in the performance of the functions vested in the
Secretary by this Act, as in PWEDA.
Sec. 504. Administration, operation, and maintenance
Requires finding that the project for which Federal
assistance is granted will be properly and efficiently
administered, operated, and maintained, using the same
language as in section 604 of PWEDA.
Sec. 505. Firms desiring Federal contracts
Provides, as in PWEDA, that the Secretary may furnish the
procurement divisions of the various departments, agencies,
and other instrumentalities of the Federal Government with a
list containing the names and addresses of business firms
which are located in areas of high economic distress and
which are desirous of obtaining Government contracts for the
furnishing of supplies or services.
Sec. 506. Amendment to title 5, U.S.C.
Amends Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, by
striking ``Administrator for Economic Development''.
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 601. Powers of Secretary
Provides numerous powers to the Secretary, substantially
similar to the authority under PWEDA, to carry out the
Secretary's duties under this Act, including but not limited
to those involving a seal, personnel, hearings, the taking of
appropriate actions concerning personal property, real
property, or evidence thereof, third party claims, the
establishment of performance measures for grants and other
assistance provided under this Act, and the establishment of
such rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary
considers appropriate in carrying out the provisions of this
Act. It includes authority for the Secretary to protect
Governmental interest in grant property and to release that
interest 20 years after disbursement.
Sec. 602. Maintenance of standards
Directs the Secretary to continue to implement and enforce
the provisions of section 712 of PWEDA.
Sec. 603. Annual report to Congress
Provides for one annual consolidated report to Congress on
the Secretary's activities under this Act, as required under
PWEDA.
Sec. 604. Use of other facilities
Substantially as in PWEDA, provides authority for the
Secretary to: delegate to the heads of other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government any of the Secretary's
functions, powers, and duties under this Act as deemed
appropriate and to authorize redelegation by such heads;
transfer funds between departments and agencies of the
Government, if such funds are used for the purposes for which
they are specifically authorized and appropriated; accept
transfers of funds from other departments and agencies of the
Federal Government if the funds are used for the purposes for
which such funds are specifically authorized and
appropriated.
Sec. 605. Penalties
Provides legal penalties using essentially the same
language as in section 710 of PWEDA.
Sec. 606. Employment of expediters and administrative
employees
Provides requirements concerning the employment of
expediters and administrative employees, as in section 711 of
PWEDA.
Sec. 607. Maintenance of records of approved applications for
financial assistance; public inspection
Directs the Secretary, as in PWEDA, to maintain as a
permanent part of the records of the Department of Commerce a
list of applications approved for financial assistance under
this Act and to make such records available for public
inspection during the regular business hours of the
Department of Commerce.
Sec. 608. Records and audit
Requires that recipients keep records and provide access
for audits using language similar to that in section 714 of
PWEDA.
Sec. 609. Prohibition against a statutory construction which
might cause diminution in other Federal assistance
As in PWEDA, provides that financial and technical
assistance authorized under this Act be in addition to any
Federal assistance previously authorized, and no provision of
this Act be construed as authorizing or permitting any
reduction or diminution in the proportional amount of Federal
assistance which an entity would otherwise receive.
Sec. 610. Acceptance of applicants' certifications
Provides authority for the Secretary to accept, when deemed
appropriate, the applicants' certifications to meet the
requirements of this Act.
TITLE VII--FUNDING
Sec. 701. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $343,028,000 for fiscal year 1998 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2002, such sums to remain available until expended.
Sec. 702. Defense conversion activities
In addition to the appropriations authorized by section
701, authorizes to be appropriated to carry out this Act such
sums as may be necessary to provide assistance for defense
conversion activities.
Sec. 703. Disaster economic recovery activities
In addition to the appropriations authorized by section
701, authorizes to be appropriated to carry out this Act such
sums as may be necessary to provide assistance for disaster
economic recovery activities.
Section 3. Savings provisions
Provides that existing rights, duties and obligations, and
pending suits, are not to be affected by this Act, and that
revolving fund established under section 203 of PWEDA is to
continue to be available as a liquidating account.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished
colleague from Montana, Senator Max Baucus, to introduce the ``Economic
Development Partnership Act of 1998''--a bill to reauthorize the
Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce. I
would first like to thank the ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Senator Baucus, for his ongoing
commitment to this vital agency, and would also like to thank the
bipartisan group of Senators who have joined us in sponsoring this
legislation.
Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of the EDA because--
although it is a small agency--its programs contribute significantly to
economic growth and job expansion. With only a modest annual
appropriation and a national staff of 258 dedicated public servants,
the EDA successfully assists communities across the nation who have
experienced economic distress. Economic distress that is not only
generated by economic downturns, but also by natural disasters--such as
storms and earthquakes--and un-natural disasters, such as military base
closings.
I am also pleased that, at a time when Congress is exercising much
needed fiscal discipline and performance-based budgeting is being
demanded from all agencies, the EDA has maintained its commitment to
providing a good return on the public dollar. Specifically, recent
studies of EDA's programs were performed by a consortia of
organizations including Rutgers University, the New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Columbia University, Princeton University, the National
Association of Regional Councils, and the University of Cincinnati. The
results of these studies were impressive, and clearly showed the value
and results of EDA investments in public works and defense conversion
activities. Specifically, for every every $1 million that EDA invests
in public works projects, 327 jobs are created or retained at a cost of
$3,058 per job; 15 construction jobs are created; $10 million in
private sector dollars are leveraged; and $10.13 million is added to
the local tax base. Based on these statistics, I believe it's safe to
say that EDA delivers a substantial ``bang for the buck''!
Even as these statistics speak to the value of EDA programs
nationally, I am pleased that the people of Maine don't need to hear
what is happening in other states to be convinced of the value of EDA--
they already know what this agency has meant to their towns and
communities. Over the past 32 years, the EDA has invested more than
$198 million in 606 projects across the state. Through public works,
technical assistance, planning, community investments, and revolving
loan fund programs, the EDA has established local partnerships in Maine
that have provided critical infrastructure development and other
economic incentives that have stimulated local growth, created jobs,
and generated revenue.
Not only has the EDA invested in many economic development projects
in Maine, but I can also personally attest to the value and importance
of
[[Page S762]]
these projects because I have seen the results that they deliver. For
example, as a result of EDA assistance in 1996, dormitories at the
Maine School of Science and Mathematics--a magnet school built at
former Loring Air Force Base--were built to house the school's
students. And in 1995, EDA assistance in Freeport, Maine prevented a
major health maintenance organization from relocating to another state.
That project alone not only saved 99 jobs, but also created an
additional 127 in the community.
Mr. President, I cite these success stories not only to credit the
agency for a job well done in my state, but to demonstrate to my
colleagues the types of assistance that have likely been provided to
their states as well. If my colleagues would review the cases of
economic distress that have occurred in their own states, I believe
they will find their own success stories that speak to the value of EDA
to their constituents.
Therefore, I would urge that my colleagues support the bill that
Senator Baucus and I are introducing today because it would reauthorize
the beneficial and critically-needed programs that have led to these
success stories for an additional five years. Perhaps most importantly,
it will keep the agency's successful programs intact, while
incorporating ideas and concepts for improvement that have received
increased attention and support in the Congress. For instance, many of
my colleagues would agree that to be truly successful, government
programs should proceed in partnership with local governments--and this
legislation will do just that by preserving the integrity of the
agency's traditional programs, while expanding and modifying them to
encompass the partnership concept.
The bill also contains new language that reflects some of the
activities that the agency has become more involved in over the past
few years, such as defense conversion and disaster assistance. From
Maine's perspective, these programs could not be buttressed soon enough
following the closing of Loring Air Force base in 1994, and the ice
storms that ravaged the state just weeks ago.
In addition, there are other provisions in this legislation that will
bring meaningful, positive changes to EDA's programs by increasing
program flexibility and heightening accountability. Ultimately, it is
these types of changes that will not only update an Act that has been
in need of reauthorization, but will also prepare this agency for the
economic needs and demands of our nation as we approach a new century.
Mr. President, the Economic Development Administration is a key
federal agency that promotes economic growth and development, and the
legislation we are offering today will ensure that these improved
programs will be available for the next five years. I urge my
colleagues to support this critically needed legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join as a sponsor of
the Economic Development Partnership Act of 1998, which will
reauthorize and extend the important work of the Economic Development
Administration in the Department of Commerce.
The Economic Development Administration was established in 1965 to
provide grants to help hard-pressed communities in all parts of the
country to deal more effectively with conditions of persistent
unemployment in economically distressed areas.
Over the past thirty years, EDA has helped generate new jobs, retain
existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in
economically distressed areas across the country. By making assistance
available to areas suffering high unemployment, low-income levels, or
sudden and severe economic emergencies, EDA provides local governments
with the resources to revitalize their communities, create jobs, and
plan for long-term growth.
In fulfilling its mission, EDA is guided by the basic principle that
distressed communities must be encouraged to plan and implement their
own economic development and revitalization strategies.
I commend Senator Baucus and the Clinton Administration for their
leadership on this important legislation, and I look forward to its
enactment.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1648. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act to provide for reductions in youth smoking, for
advancements in tobacco-related research, and the development of safer
tobacco products, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
preventing addiction of smoking teens act
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
with one principal aim: to put an end to teenage smoking. I am honored
to be joined by two other distinguished members of the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, Senator Collins, and Senator Enzi.
By now, we are all familiar with the grim statistics that tell the
story of youth smoking in our country--the thousands of children that
experiment with tobacco, the thousands that become addicted, and the
thousands who will die prematurely as a result.
For too long, the federal government has been of little assistance in
combating the number one preventable disease in this country. Apart
from the efforts of Surgeons General from Luther Terry to C. Everett
Koop, and sporadic efforts by Congress, the federal government has
barely acknowledged there's a problem.
The states, especially my home state of Vermont, have been leaders in
the effort to end teenage smoking. And last summer, the proposed
settlement by the Attorneys General ignited a whole new debate on this
issue by providing us with a template for action.
Eight months later, it is easy for us to minimize that
accomplishment, but by any fair appraisal the settlement was a
tremendously important step.
When the tobacco settlement was announced, some people thought it
might be only a few months before it would be ratified by Congress.
Today, people wonder whether it can be revived by Congress.
I am confident that we can and will reach agreement on a national
tobacco policy. But I am just as certain that we'll never do so if we
pursue a partisan approach.
Since the settlement, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources has
held four hearings on this subject, and across Capitol Hill dozens of
hearings have been held by other committees of jurisdiction.
Today we take the next important step in this process, by introducing
legislation that I hope will serve as the basis for a broad, bipartisan
approach to the three basic public health issues of a national tobacco
policy: prevention, safer products, and cessation.
If we can achieve a national tobacco policy, it could be the biggest
public health breakthrough ever achieved outside a lab.
The settlement has been criticized as being too weak by some, too
ambitious by others. I agree the settlement has flaws.
But I think we must never lose sight of the ultimate goal--what is
the best public health approach that we can enact to reduce teen
smoking?
I am less concerned about exacting the last measure of revenge for
the past actions of the tobacco companies than I am about ensuring the
future of the children who become addicted every day. We need to keep
our priorities straight.
It will take a broad, bipartisan consensus to pass tobacco
legislation. Right now, that consensus seems entirely absent and is in
danger of slipping into partisan grand standing over who loves kids and
hates tobacco.
That consensus can only come through compromise. There will be many
opportunities to derail legislation of this magnitude if it is only
supported by a slim majority. If we expect enactment, we must forge
broad agreement in the Congress.
The legislation we introduce today, called the Preventing Addiction
to Smoking Among Teens, or PAST Act, will enact and improve upon the
public health provisions of the tobacco settlement. It is not designed
to solve every question before us, rather, it addresses the public
health issues that are before the Labor Committee.
It is no longer feasible for tobacco to escape the same type of
regulation we require for foods and medicines. Our bill will give the
Food and Drug Administration every bit of authority it needs to
regulate tobacco products and their components. The tobacco industry
will have to turn over all of its
[[Page S763]]
health documents to the FDA. FDA will be able to reduce or eliminate
harmful ingredients or require safer technological improvements through
informal rulemaking to achieve overall public health benefits.
Of course, we will not achieve the public health benefits we seek
from mandating safer products if the resulting products are
unacceptable to consumers who can't quit smoking. Part of the process
for setting these standards will be consideration of just this
question.
We encourage the development of safer products subject to the same
type of scientific review for other FDA regulated products. And FDA can
propose, after ten years, the outright prohibition of cigarettes or
smokeless tobacco products.
But our bill will not permit FDA to ban cigarettes or smokeless
tobacco for adult usage on its own. That decision, in my opinion, is
one that should be made by Congress, not a single government agency.
Our bill adopts a comprehensive approach to preventing teens from
smoking, and helping people to quit who are already hooked. And
finally, our bill will provide for a coordinated regime to research the
many unanswered questions about tobacco, its effects on us, and how to
mitigate those effects.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of our bill be included at the
end of my remarks.
Next week, Senator Gregg and I will hold a hearing in New Hampshire
to listen to state and local concerns on tobacco issues within the
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. And
in a month, I hope to have found bipartisan support for my bill and to
have moved it through the committee.
Finally, I want to note that many of my colleagues are also working
on legislation to help move the discussion forward, and there are many
good ideas that deserve consideration. In particular, I look forward to
working with Senator Enzi on his proposal to establish a fund supported
by tobacco industry resources. This fund would be a sustainable way to
provide compensation for treating tobacco-related diseases, and could
also be used to pay for some of the prevention proposals I have
outlined in my bill
Even though we have much work to do before we decide the overall
architecture of tobacco policy, it is not at all too soon to begin
pouring the foundation. As in New England, we have a short building
season. If we are to clear the committees, combine our approaches,
clear the floor and conference, we must act now. I urge my colleagues
to give me their support, and greatly appreciate those who have already
done so.
We need to make teen smoking a thing of the past.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that bill summary be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill summary was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
The Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens (PAST) Act--Overview
Problem
Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in
the United States.
Smoking-related diseases kill 400,000 Americans each year.
82% of adult smokers began smoking when they were
teenager--people generally do not start smoking past the teen
years, making it imperative to prevent smoking among teens.
But the trend is going in the wrong direction: more kids
are smoking; 6,000 kids a day try a cigarette, and 3,000 of
those will become addicted; every day, 1,000 kids who start
smoking will eventually die prematurely due to smoking.
The PAST Act
Across the board, the provisions of the PAST Act are
tougher than those approved by the Attorneys General and
plaintiffs' attorneys in the June 20, 1997 proposed tobacco
settlement. The PAST Act:
Is a comprehensive public health approach to reduce youth
smoking, help people who want to quit, bring safer products
to the market, and provide for the research we need to
improve our understanding of addiction and how to prevent it.
Requires that tobacco settlement funds be used for tobacco-
related initiatives.
Provides for: Straightforward and effective authority for
FDA to regulate tobacco products; tough and enforceable
restrictions on youth access to tobacco products; evidence-
based prevention and cessation programs; research that will
help us understand why certain people become addicted to
tobacco products and provide science-based methods to prevent
addiction.
Summary of the Act
1. Regulation of Tobacco Products and Tobacco Product
Development
Purpose: To provide strong and effective Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over cigarettes,
smokeless tobacco products, and safer tobacco products.
Summary: No longer will the tobacco companies be exempt
from the type of regulation which ensures that our foods and
medicines are safe and properly labeled.
The PAST Act gives FDA regulatory authority to:
Oversee the manufacturing processes of tobacco products;
require elimination of tobacco product additives and
reductions in nicotine;
quickly and easily promulgate performance standards to
ensure that new and safer technology reaches consumers with
truthful information on health issues related to products;
regulate the content of product labels and advertising;
require tobacco companies to divulge all health-related
research on tobacco products and ingredients;
set national rules for product regulation while preserving
important state and local authorities to require tougher
requirements for youth access rules and point-of-sale
advertising;
periodically assess and improve the effectiveness of
tobacco product warning labels.
The PAST Act bans billboard advertising of tobacco
products, cartoon figure and human figures (like Joe Camel
and the Marlboro Man) and restricts in-store marketing.
The PAST Act does not preempt the ability of state or
localities to pass stricter laws on sale to minors or point-
of-sale advertising.
1. FDA Authority to Approve Reduced Risk Tobacco Products
and Require Reductions in Nicotine and Elimination of Tobacco
Product Hazards.
50 million Americans smoke. For those who can't quit as
soon as they'd like, we must both provide them with less
harmful alternatives to today's tobacco products and take
steps immediately to reduce the danger in existing tobacco
products. The PAST Act establishes science and public health-
based decision making at FDA to achieve these goals.
The PAST Act includes a program designed to encourage
tobacco companies to develop and market reduced risk tobacco
products. FDA authority over reduced risk tobacco products
requires that FDA approve specific ``reduced risk'' claims
manufacturers make. In addition, manufacturers must notify
FDA of any reduced risk technology they develop or acquire.
FDA is to require tobacco companies to conduct the same
type of high quality scientific studies expected of drug and
device companies to demonstrate that a new tobacco product
carries a ``reduced risk.'' FDA will take into account the
effect of the product on overall public health concerns
including whether fewer people will quit smoking as a result
of its availability. FDA will require both short-term and
long-term studies to ensure that the products have a positive
public health effect. FDA can revoke the approval to market
the product if the studies do not support the health claims
or if the studies are not completed in a timely manner.
In addition, if FDA determines that a particular reduced
risk technology is less hazardous it may: require disclosure
of the safer technology; prohibit the use of technology that
is superseded by the new technology, or; require that
manufacturers stop selling tobacco products that do not
incorporate such technology.
In addition to reviewing reduced risk products, FDA has
authority to mandate the elimination of hazardous components
of tobacco products and reduce nicotine levels to achieve
overall public health benefits. Before requiring changes to
tobacco products, FDA will employ a notice and comment
rulemaking proces--the same as that used for drugs and
devices. FDA is not! required to prove that a black market
will not result.
2. FDA Authority to Regulate Product Labels, Warnings,
Advertising, and Marketing.
The PAST Act will enact: new warning labels, and the
flexibility for the Secretary to change the labels;
restrictions on labeling and advertising of tobacco products;
restrictions on advertising in non-adult media and
glamorization of tobacco; bans on non-tobacco items and event
sponsorship.
The PAST Act does not prevent states and localities from
enacting tougher laws on youth access and point-of-sale
cigarette advertising and marketing.
II. National Efforts to Reduce Youth Smoking
Purpose: To provide all the essential ingredients for
comprehensive and effective programs to reduce youth smoking.
Summary: The PAST Act sets high but achievable goals to
reduce youth smoking. To ensure that the tobacco
manufacturers partner with communities to achieve these
goals, the PAST Act exacts tough penalties on the industry if
goals are not met. Further, unlike the June 20 proposed
tobacco settlement, and some other bills that have been
introduced, the PAST Act does not permit the penalties to be
capped, and it ensures that the penalties are calculated
accurately.
The PAST Act entrusts the states with the necessary
resources from the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund for local
anti-tobacco
[[Page S764]]
programs that will effectively: restrict the sale of tobacco
products to minors; prevent youth smoking; assure that people
who want to quit smoking can get proven cessation treatment.
The PAST Act gives the Office on Smoking and Health of
Centers for Disease Control the resources to provide
oversight and technical help to state and local authorities,
thus guaranteeing that the latest and most effective
strategies to prevent and stop smoking can be employed.
The PAST Act provides funds for research to help us
understand addiction to tobacco products, and to ensure that
the results of this research are swiftly incorporated into
community-based programs.
The PAST Act establishes an innovative and far-reaching
national public health promotion and health education
campaign on the dangers of smoking.
1. Required Reduction in Underage Use of Tobacco Products.
Purpose: To promote an immediate reduction in the number of
underage consumers of tobacco products by imposing financial
surcharges dramatically stiffer than the June 20 proposed
tobacco settlement on participating manufacturers if underage
tobacco-use reduction targets are not met.
If the targets are not met, surcharges will be imposed on
manufacturers, and for each 5 percentage points short of the
target, the surcharge on manufacturers increases
substantially.
Cigarettes: for the first 5 percentage points for which the
rate of youth smoking falls short of the target: the product
of $80,000,000 and the number of applicable percentage
points; for 6 to 10 percentage points short of the goal: the
product of $400,000,000 and the number of applicable
percentage points; for 11 or more percentage points short of
the goal: the product of $500,000,000 and the number of
applicable percentage points.
Smokeless Tobacco Products: for the first 5 percentage
points for which the rate of youth smokeless tobacco use
falls short of the target: the product of $15,000,000 and the
number of applicable percentage points; for 6 to 10
percentage points short of the goal: the product of
$30,000,000 and the number of applicable percentage points;
for 11 or more percentage points short of the goal: the
product of $45,000,000 and the number of applicable
percentage points.
Targets for reduction of tobacco product use in individuals
under 18:
Cigarettes: 30 percent in the fifth and sixth years; 50
percent in the seventh, eighth and ninth years; 60 percent in
the tenth and subsequent years.
Smokeless tobacco: 25 percent in the fifth and sixth years;
35 percent in the seventh, eighth and ninth years; 45 percent
in the tenth and subsequent years.
2. Restrictions on Access to Tobacco Products.
Purpose: To ensure that strict state laws are passed and
enforced that will prohibit the sale and distribution of
tobacco products to minors, and to provide civil penalties to
minors who purchase or smoke tobacco products.
State laws must include the following provisions, and may
include stricter provisions:
At least 90% of minors attempts to purchase must be
unsuccessful; requirement of a state or local license to sell
tobacco products; a prohibition on sale of cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco to individuals under 18 years of age; the
following requirements for distribution:
The licensee must verify age through a government issued
photo identification; no verification is required for any
individual who is at least 27 years of age; no direct access
to tobacco products; face-to-face exchange for purchase; no
out-of-package sale of tobacco products; no special marketing
rules for adult only stores; minors may not purchase or
consume tobacco products. States may enforce this provision
through civil penalties, including a written warning, a
possible fine of up to $150 for repeated offenses, or other
civil penalties determined appropriate by the state.
3. State and Community Action Programs.
Purpose: To promote the development of state and community
action programs designed to educate the public on addiction
and the hazards of tobacco use, and to promote prevention and
cessation of the use of tobacco products.
Funds will be available to each state from the Tobacco
Settlement Trust Fund after approval of a state plan. Funding
increases from $145,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999
and 2000 to $440,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
State and local initiatives may include: evidence-based
programs to prevent tobacco use and promote cessation; health
education and promotion efforts relating to tobacco use;
public policy initiatives to prevent tobacco use and promote
cessation; evidence-based programs in schools to prevent and
reduce tobacco use and addiction.
4. Tobacco Use Cessation Programs.
Purpose: to help addicted individuals who want to quit.
Funding allocated to the states from the Tobacco Settlement
Trust Fund: $1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999
through 2002; $1,500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2003 through 2008.
Programs to be funded may include: evidence-based programs
designed to assist individuals to stop their use of tobacco
products; training for health care providers in cessation
intervention methods; efforts to encourage health plans and
insurers to provide coverage for evidence-based tobacco use
cessation treatment.
5. Research Initiatives to Prevent Tobacco Addiction.
Purpose: To promote tobacco-related research strategies.
The Institute of Medicine will perform an independent study
to provide recommendations for tobacco-related research.
Tobacco-related research at CDC, NIH, and AHCPR will include
investigation of: surveillance and epidemiology of tobacco
use; prevention of tobacco use; the science of addiction;
cessation strategies.
An interagency council will ensure that: the research
strategy is implemented, and that it is modified to take into
account new findings; new developments are disseminated to
states and communities.
6. National Public Health Education Campaign.
Purpose: To provide for a national public health promotion
and health education campaign designed to reduce the use of
tobacco products.
III. Standards to Reduce Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco
Smoke
The PAST Act will require OSHA to promulgate within 12
months a final rule relating to indoor air quality in
industrial and nonindustrial indoor and enclosed work
environments.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Senators Jeffords and Enzi in introducing the Preventing Addiction to
Smoking Among Teens Act.
Tobacco is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States,
accounting for more than 400,000 deaths a year and more than $50
billion in health care costs. Clearly the single most effective thing
we can do to improve our Nation's health and control health care costs
is to stop smoking.
While recent headlines detailing the settlement of multimillion
dollar lawsuits against the tobacco industry might delude us into
thinking that we are winning the war against tobacco, the facts tell a
far different story. Despite extensive public health campaigns linking
smoking to heart disease and cancer, smoking rates are actually going
up, particularly among our young people. Tragically, addiction is
increasingly a ``teen-onset'' disease: in fact, Mr. President, 90
percent of all smokers began smoking before age 21,
What is particularly alarming is that children, especially girls, are
smoking at younger and younger ages. Smoking is at a 19-year high among
high school seniors and has increased over 35 percent among eighth
graders and 43 percent among tenth graders over the last 7 years.
Moreover, of the 3,000 teens who enter the ranks of ``regular
smokers'' every day, one-third will die tobacco-related deaths. Mr.
President, I am very proud of many of the accomplishments and
achievements of my great State of Maine, but there is one area where we
do need to do much, much better. The sad fact is that my State of Maine
has the dubious distinction of having the highest smoking rate among
people age 18 to 34 in the entire United States. In Maine, almost 40
percent of high school students smoke. They purchase 1.4 million packs
of cigarettes illegally each year. If this trend continues, more than
31,000 young people in Maine currently under the age of 18 will die
prematurely from tobacco-related diseases. If we are to put an end to
this tragic yet preventable epidemic, we must accelerate our efforts
not only to help more smokers to quit, but also to discourage young
people from ever lighting up in the first place.
The Preventing Addiction to Smoking Among Teens Act, which we are
introducing today, adopts a comprehensive approach to prevent teens
from smoking and builds upon and improves the public health components
of the tobacco settlement announced last summer. It is not designed to
deal with every question and every issue raised by the settlement.
Rather, it focuses on what I believe should be the prime goal of any
tobacco settlement, and that is to reduce teen smoking.
Among its provisions, this legislation gives clear and comprehensive
authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products and their components.
The tobacco industry will have to turn over all--all--of its documents
to the FDA related to cigarette research and health, and the FDA will
be able to require the companies to reduce or to eliminate harmful
ingredients or to require safer technological improvements through
informal rulemaking. Moreover, after 10 years, the FDA could can
propose an outright ban on
[[Page S765]]
cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products. However, should such a
prohibition be required or undertaken, it would require congressional
approval. I think that is appropriate. I think that a decision of that
magnitude should come back to Congress.
In my judgment, these provisions represent a marked improvement over
last summer's proposed tobacco settlement. The settlement has been
criticized for requiring the Food and Drug Administration to go through
an arduous formal rulemaking process. Moreoever, unlike the tobacco
settlement, our bill does not require the FDA to prove the absence of a
black market--which critics have rightly pointed out would be
impossible--in order to regulate a product. Finally, to provide the
resources necessary for their expanded regulatory powers, the bill
requires the FDA to assess a ``user fee'' of $100 million annually on
all manufacturers selling FDA-regulated tobacco products in the United
States.
The bill also incorporates very important recommendations on
combating teenage smoking. It calls for strong warning labels. It calls
for a ban on vending machine sales that make tobacco products so
available to teenagers, it would ban outdoor advertising and the brand-
name sponsorship of sporting events, and it would prohibit the use of
images like Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man.
It also, Mr. President, holds the tobacco companies accountable by
imposing stiff financial penalties if the smoking rate among children
does not decline by 30 percent in 5 years, 50 percent in 7 years, and
60 percent in 10 years. Moreover, under our bill, there is no cap on
penalties, and the price goes up the more the companies miss the
targets. These are very important, tough new improvements over the
proposed settlement.
Our bill incorporates strong measures to ensure that restrictions on
youth access to tobacco products are tough and enforceable. It promotes
the development of State and community action programs designed to
educate the public on addiction and the hazards of tobacco use and to
promote the prevention and the cessation of cigarette smoking.
It calls for a national public education campaign to deglamorize the
use of tobacco products and to discourage young kids from smoking. And
finally, it calls for a comprehensive tobacco related research program
to study the nature of addiction, the effects of nicotine on the body,
and how to change behavior, particularly that of children and teens.
Mr. President, I believe that the legislation we are introducing
today can serve as a basis for broad, bipartisan support to deal with
the public health issues that should serve as the foundation for any
national health policy in this area.
I look forward to working with Chairman Jeffords, Senator Enzi, and
my other colleagues on the Labor Committee as Congress deals with this
important issue.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of
legislation offered by my esteemed colleague from Vermont, Senator
Jeffords. I appreciate his steady commitment to improving our nation's
public health--especially as it relates to the pending global tobacco
settlement. I, too, believe that we have an opportunity to dramatically
affect the number of current and future smokers through education,
research and regulation of tobacco products. It is my belief that the
Prevention Addiction to Smoking Among Teens, or PAST Act, is a
significant component that accomplishes just that.
The PAST Act is the first piece of legislation fashioned after the
global tobacco settlement--reflecting the resolution's public health
aspects. I commend the Senator and his staff for working with me on
remedying a number of outstanding issues in this bill. I look forward
to working closely with my colleague on tightening this legislation as
it works its way through the mix.
I do wish to share my thoughts on a number of issues in the global
settlement that must not be overlooked. In addition, I would point out
that a handful of these issues relating to public health are already
addressed in the PAST Act. First, I believe the settlement fails to
complement FDA's regulatory role by tapping the expertise of other
federal agencies with relative jurisdiction. Second, the look-back
provisions prescribed by the global settlement are only geared toward
our nation's youth and don't apply to smokers above the age of 18.
Third, the settlement focuses largely on reimbursing Medicaid
expenditures and ignores enormous Medicare expenditures for smoking
related illnesses. Finally, the settlement's overall compensation
mechanism fails to address long-term smoking attributed illnesses. In
light of these and other inherent difficulties, I am reluctant to
embrace the entire global settlement with open arms. We are accepting
revenues for past problems and insuring the future without
compensation.
Let me first share my concerns regarding the FDA's role. The global
settlement would delegate all regulatory authority of tobacco products
to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including advertising and
education. Although I favor FDA being the key regulatory agency of
tobacco products, I do not believe the agency needs an annual
allocation of $300 million to carry out its obligations--that's nearly
10 times what the FDA requested to enforce its original tobacco rule
and one-third the agency's total annual budget. Such funding for one
agency could not only foster regulatory abuses, but also stretch FDA's
internal resources while simultaneously compounding Congress' oversight
responsibilities. Such an approach is nothing more than a blueprint for
yet another big government bureaucracy incapable of meeting its alleged
purpose. I believe Senator Jeffords has acknowledged this predicament
in the PAST Act. Rather than allotting $300 million each year for the
FDA, the agency would receive $100 million, while other federal
agencies with jurisdiction would receive $135 million, with the
remaining $65 million going to the states for enforcement. This is a
very fairminded approach and we largely avoid an unfunded federal
mandate.
Second, the look-back provisions included in the global settlement
were written to be applicable to our nation's youth--ages 18 and under.
As a result, Senator Jeffords' bill only addresses the admirable
objective of reducing underage smoking. While I have no problem with
setting strict goals for reducing underage tobacco use, I firmly
believe that the global settlement and any subsequent legislation
should not overlook the need to reduce the overall impact of smoking
related illnesses. We must be careful not to lend pride of being an
adult to smoking. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' commitment to
strengthening this section of the PAST Act.
Third, the global settlement fails to address Medicare smoking-
attributable expenditures by focusing all of its attention on
reimbursing states for Medicaid expenditures. This is a substantial
financial oversight in my opinion. In 1995, the Health Care Financing
Administration spent $176.9 billion in Medicare payments. Medicare
outlays for fiscal 1996 are estimated to be $193.9 billion.
Conservatively assuming that only 5 percent of those expenditures were
smoking related, the average Medicare expenditures attributable to
smoking during 1995-1996 would still amount to $9.3 billion per year,
thereby bringing the twenty-five year total to $192.3 billion. This is
an astronomical sum that deserves consideration.
Finally, the global settlement's reimbursement structure is dubious
at best. It is my belief that Senator Jeffords' legislation must
receive a sound, long-term financial commitment from the tobacco
industry. Under the current settlement, tobacco companies would pay an
initial $10 billion, and make annual payments starting at $8.5 billion
in the first year and increases to $15 billion in the fifth year of the
settlement. While the total estimated payments over 25 years would be
$368.5 billion, there is no guarantee under the settlement's structure
that the total amount would be collected. Economic conditions could
change or tobacco companies could be driven out of business leaving the
federal government holding an enormous tab for a very expensive
regulatory scheme. Moreover, a large portion of the global settlement
total may not even go to reimburse government for the costs of
cigarette smoking. The money is designed to fund everything from
underage smoking cessation campaigns to
[[Page S766]]
potentially large civil damage awards. The scope of expenditures under
the global settlement is too broad and the reimbursement mechanism is
too incomplete to warrant Congressional approval.
In the coming weeks, I will continue to advocate an alternative
reimbursement mechanism that not only caters to the PAST Act, but
compensates for smoking attributed illnesses under the Medicare program
as well. Two principles lie at the heart of this alternative approach.
First, nonsmoking taxpayers should not be expected to continue footing
the bill for what are largely self-induced illnesses. Second, Congress
must ensure that the actual compensation fund is solvent for years to
come. To these ends, I believe we should give serious thought to a new
industry-based approach in which the government determines the costs
caused by the manufacturer's product, and then requires the
manufacturer and smoker to pay for these costs. Such a program would
entirely eliminate smoking-attributed reimbursements from Medicaid and
Medicare.
A ``Smoker's Compensation Fund'' of this type could be modeled on the
Worker's Compensation Funds already in existence in the states. The
proceeds for this fund would come from the tobacco industry, and
ultimately from smokers themselves in the form of higher cigarette
prices. The tobacco industry's annual contributions to the fund could
be tied to the number of occurrences of smoking illnesses--the greater
the occurrences, the larger the contribution. Using Worker's
Compensation as a model, a rolling multi-year average could form the
basis of annual premiums to individuals suffering from smoking-
attributed illnesses. This would create an economic incentive for the
tobacco companies to take actions to reduce tobacco-related illnesses,
thereby driving down the number of smokers over the long-term--a true
look-back policy.
Moreover, an industry-based approach would not allow tobacco
companies to walk away from long-term smoking attributed illnesses
through a total $368.5 billion payment over a 25 year period. Instead,
it would administratively make the tobacco companies and the smokers
themselves responsible for paying for the medical care of individuals
with smoking-related illnesses indefinitely. I believe that the
Smoker's Compensation Fund concept would be the best vehicle to provide
long-term financial coverage not only for the Medicaid and Medicare
programs and smokers of all ages, but for the public health provisions
outlined in Senator Jeffords' bill being introduced today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
______
By Mr. FORD:
S. 1649. A bill to exempt disabled individuals from being required to
enroll with a managed care entity under the medicaid program; to the
Committee on Finance.
medicaid managed care exemption for disabled individuals
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to exempt
certain disabled individuals from mandated managed care coverage under
Medicaid. During consideration of last year's budget legislation, this
issue arose but was not addressed in a satisfactory manner. That
legislation provided a broad grant of authority to states to require
individuals eligible for Medicaid to enroll in managed care plans.
Prior to this change, states were required to obtain waivers from the
federal government in order to initiate such cost savings measures
which would shift large portions of their Medicaid populations into
managed care.
However, states have generally not been interested in shifting
certain categories of individuals into managed care, such as
individuals in nursing homes or special needs children. In fact, last
year's legislation specifically exempted certain categories of special
needs children under age nineteen.
Mr. President, I believe for certain categories of individuals it
does not make sense to limit this exemption to individuals under age
nineteen. For example, mentally retarded individuals receiving Medicaid
benefits do not enter into a new health care category once they reach
their nineteenth birthday. I believe limiting the exemption for such
individuals is arbitrary and unwise policy. My legislation would simply
remove the age limitation for severely disabled individuals.
I want to express my thanks to the Voice of the Retarded for their
leadership on this issue and their willingness to bring it to my
attention. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this
legislation from that organization be inserted into the Record. I also
want to thank Louise Underwood, a constituent of mine who has been a
tireless advocate over the years for the rights of mentally retarded
and other disabled individuals. It is my hope that this straightforward
correction to last year's legislation will be viewed as
noncontroversial, and can be enacted into law in the months ahead.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Voice of the Retarded,
February 3, 1998.
Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: On behalf of all members of Voice of the
Retarded (VOR) nationwide, I wish to thank you for your long-
standing attention to the many intense needs of society's
most-impaired people. More than any other public figure, you
have consistently championed the causes of those who cannot
speak for themselves. We, their family members and only
spokespersons, are eternally grateful to you.
We come once again to seek your assistance in correcting
what seems to have been an unintentional oversight in the
language of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
As you know, the ability of traditional managed care models
to meet the unique health care requirements of people with
disabilities is uncertain. Congress recognized this when it
exempted SSI-eligible special needs children from mandatory
managed care provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
This exemption reconciled the states' interest in maintaining
cost control and flexibility in program management with the
disability community's concern that managed care would
negatively impact access to appropriate specialized health
care.
It is our belief that age is an arbitrary, artificial
barrier to the provision of health care services. Mental
retardation is a life-long impairment that does not disappear
at age 19. We, therefore, respectfully request that you
support corrective legislation to ensure that adults with
mental retardation can receive the specialized health care
that they need throughout their lives unimpaired by managed
care.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Polly Spare,
President.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 1662. A bill to authorize the Navajo Indian irrigation project to
use power allocated to it from the Colorado River storage project for
on-farm uses; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
navajo indian irrigation project legislation
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will mean a great deal to the future economic development of the
Navajo Nation and to the people in the Four Corners Region of New
Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado.
Mr. President, we are truly fortunate today to have one of the lowest
national unemployment rates in recent memory. Unfortunately, the
administration's economic juggernaut has not been felt everywhere.
While national unemployment rates are below five percent, in my state
of New Mexico, unemployment remains stuck at 8%. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, New Mexico has the second highest
unemployment rate in the country, right behind the District of
Columbia.
Regrettably, one of the nation's highest unemployment rates is on the
Navajo Indian Reservation, where unemployment is a staggering 50%. The
unemployment rate in neighboring San Juan County is 12%, which is more
than twice the national average. These statistics should be deeply
troubling to all senators. Clearly, there is no region in this country
in greater need of targeted economic development. Creating jobs is
precisely the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today.
In a nutshell, this bill allows the Navajo Nation's Indian Irrigation
Project to use a portion of its existing allocation of federal electric
power to help spur economic development and to create good jobs in the
region.
Mr. President, in 1962 Congress authorized the construction and
operation of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. The project has
blossomed into a 60,000 acre agricultural enterprise growing potatoes,
beans, alfalfa,
[[Page S767]]
wheat, corn and livestock with annual revenues of $36 million. Today,
the ``Navajo Pride'' brand name is a hallmark of agricultural quality
nationwide. The Tribe's own Navajo Agricultural Products Industry
(NAPI) operates this successful all-Indian project. NAPI has a full-
time staff of 300. The workforce swells to 1,200 during the summer
growing season.
In the 1962 legislation, Congress authorized the Bureau of
Reclamation to reserve eighty-seven megawatts of electric power for use
by the project. It is clear from the original authorization that the
primary purpose of the project was to deliver water for the development
of farming and allied industries. The reserved electric power is
currently used to pump water to the project and to provide the water
pressure needed for irrigation. The original plans called for the use
of gravity-fed irrigation; however, the irrigation method was later
changed to a more efficient electric-powered center-pivot system.
Unfortunately, Congress had not foreseen these improvements and did not
specifically authorize the use of federal power to run irrigation
sprinklers. In a letter to me dated November 5, 1997, Commissioner
Martinez of the Bureau of Reclamation stated that Congress had not
provided the bureau with sufficient authority to allow NAPI to use its
existing allocation of electric power for anything other than water
pumping. Congress simply failed to authorize the use of federal power
to run the sprinklers or for processing of the products grown there.
The legislation I am introducing would allow NAPI to use its existing
power allocation to run the project's irrigation sprinklers or
factories on the reservation that process the agricultural products.
This legislation does not increase the amount of power allocated to
NAPI--nobody's allocation of electric power is reduced or affected in
any way. Moreover, the change would have no cost or other impact on
taxpayers.
This legislation is a simple technical change. It clarifies existing
congressional language. Moreover, because this is an all-Indian project
established by Congress to benefit the Navajo Nation, this legislation
does not create a precedent that would apply to any other irrigation
project.
This bill has the support of the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition,
the Republican Governor of the state of New Mexico and the nearby
cities, counties, and electric utility companies support this change
because they recognize the economic benefits for the entire Four
Corners Region. I would particularly like to acknowledge the City of
Farmington and Republican Mayor Thomas C. Taylor for support of the
project as reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City
and NAPI. In addition, the State of New Mexico has supported this
effort with a grant to study water issues and by permitting the Navajo
Nation to use state bonding capacity.
Mr. President, Congress must not delay action to help reduce the
unacceptable unemployment rates on the Navajo Reservation. This bill is
an important step toward creating hundreds of year-round jobs and
spurring economic development in San Juan County and the rest of the
Four Corners Region. I urge the Chairman of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee to schedule a hearing on this worthy legislation at
the earliest possible date.
I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the bill included in the
Record along with a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the
City of Farmington and the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry. I
also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record letters supporting
this legislation from the Bureau of Reclamation; Governor Johnson, the
Cities of Farmington and Bloomfield, New Mexico; San Juan County, New
Mexico; and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1662
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Navajo Indian irrigation project (in this section
referred to as the ``irrigation project'') was authorized for
construction and operation as a participating project of the
Colorado River storage project by the Act of June 13, 1962,
Public Law 87-483, pursuant to plans approved by the
Secretary of the Interior on October 16, 1957;
(2) the irrigation project is an all-Indian irrigation
project authorized for the primary purpose of delivering
water to develop farming and allied industries that benefit
the Navajo Nation;
(3) the Bureau of Reclamation has reserved 87 megawatts of
power and associated energy from the Colorado River storage
project for current and future use on the irrigation project,
but currently not more than 25 megawatts of power is being
used because the project is only partially completed; while
the initial and subsequent plans and authorizing legislation
for the irrigation project allow power to be used to deliver
water to the irrigation project by canals and to lift water
to heights sufficient to pressurize the sprinkler delivery
system, clarification is necessary to approve the use of
power for on-farm uses such as for powering center-pivot
irrigation systems or for related agricultural industry
purposes; and
(4) the irrigation project is of vital economic importance
to the Navajo Nation, and substantial economic development
for the Four Corners Region and the Navajo Nation could be
realized if a portion of the 87 megawatt power allocation
were made available by the Bureau of Reclamation for powering
center-pivot irrigation systems and for related agricultural
industry purposes.
SEC. 2. USE OF POWER.
The first section of the Act of June 13, 1962 (Public Law
87-483; 76 Stat. 96) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Navajo Indian irrigation project may use its
allocation of 87 megawatts of power from the Colorado River
storage project for water delivery, on-farm production, and
related agricultural industry purposes.''.
____
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry and City of Farmington--
Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding (Agreement), between the
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI) and the City of
Farmington (City), New Mexico, sometimes referred to as the
Parties, sets forth the terms and conditions to clarify
conflicting interests in delivery of electrical service to
the Navajo Agricultural Products Industry.
Whereas, NAPI seeks the support of the City for the use of
Other Priority Use Power for the development of the proposed
french fry factory which will require a legislated Change in
Purpose; and
Whereas, the City of Farmington recognizes and agrees with
NAPI that the development of the french fry factory will have
positive economic impact for the Navajo Nation, the City and
San Juan County; that the french fry factory will create over
600 jobs; and, that it will require the development of three
additional agricultural blocks which will have an important
and positive long range influence on the economic development
of the region; and
Whereas, NAPI's General Manager Lorenzo Bates and the
City's Mayor Thomas C. Taylor met on November 21, 1997, to
resolve outstanding issues which have arisen regarding NAPI's
legislative request for a Change in Purpose of NAPI's
Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Project Use Power
allocation.
Therefore, as a result of the meeting the Parties agree as
follows:
1. NAPI agrees to continue to utilize electric power
provided by the City for its center pivots located in the
City's service area;
2. The use and amount of such service to the center pivots
shall remain similar to the amount used by NAPI at the
signing of this Agreement and shall continue until the City
implements customer choice in its service area;
3. This Agreement will be applicable and bind any person,
corporation, or entity which may purchase or acquire through
any means the Farmington Electric Utility System (FEUS).
In consideration of NAPI's promises and covenants, the City
agrees as follows:
1. To support NAPI's request for a legislative Change in
Purpose of a remaining portion of their eighty-seven
megawatts (87 mW) of CRSP allocation of federal power to be
used to supply electricity to the proposed french fry plant;
2. To provide additional support through letters,
communications and action which will facilitate the
development of the french fry factory and is not
contradictory to policy decisions the City has made; and
3. To review the FEUS rates for electric service within the
next two years and make an effort to offer competitive rates
for center pivot operations.
By this acknowledgment, the Parties agree to abide by the
terms of this Agreement.
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry.
City of Farmington.
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation,
Washington, DC, November 5, 1997.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Thank you for your May 8, 1997,
letter co-signed by the New Mexico and Arizona Congressional
delegation, regarding the use of Federal power for the Navajo
Agricultural Products Industry's (NAPI) center pivot
irrigation system and industrial uses. The Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) has no express authority to
[[Page S768]]
allow the use of project power for these proposed on-farm
uses. Although Reclamation might have implicit authority
which would allow for the use of project power in the manner
requested, such an interpretation would not be consistent
with the past instances of Reclamation practice. While we
will continue to review the matter, given the lack of express
authority, legislation to resolve the matter conclusively and
expeditiously may be appropriate.
The sale of Federal power from a Reclamation project is
governed by general Federal Reclamation law and authorizing
acts for specific projects. Reclamation may provide power
only for the uses authorized by Congress. Power is sold
either as project power at the project,\1\ or for other uses,
on or off the project (non-project power). The Navajo Indian
Irrigation Project (NIIP) was authorized for construction and
operation as a participating project of CRSP by Public Law
87-483 passed on June 13, 1962, pursuant to plans approved by
the Secretary of the Interior on October 16, 1957. Although
NIIP is an Indian irrigation project, it is subject to
Federal Reclamation law as provided by Section 4 of the
Colorado River Storage Project Act of April 11, 1956. The
planning and authorization documents, along with subsequent
planning reports, indicate that project power was intended to
accommodate delivery of water to the farm by canals and by
lifting water to heights sufficient to pressurize the
sprinkler irrigation delivery system. No specific indication
is made that project power would be available to run center
pivot irrigation systems or for on-farm municipal and
industrial uses, however, it is clear that the primary
purpose of the project is to deliver water for the
development of farming and allied industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are two types of project power, ``project use
power'' and ``priority use power.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation has reserved 87 Megawatts (MW) of project power
from the CRSP for current and future use on the NIIP for
authorized purposes. Although as you point out in your May 8,
1997, letter, the terms of the 1990 interagency agreement and
revisions agreed to by the Western Area Power Administration,
Reclamation, and NAPI provide that NAPI can use other
Priority Use Power for sprinkler irrigation and industrial
uses, specific Congressional authority for such uses does not
exist and therefore legislation making such authority clear
would be appropriate. As development of NIIP continues, there
are increasing opportunities for application of various
conservation measures with attendant energy saving. With
specific Congressional authorization, we believe that overall
power usage, including the proposed on-farm uses can be
accommodated within the present 87 MW allocation.
If you desire to discuss these matters further, please
contact Arlo Allen at (801) 524-3612.
Sincerely,
Eluid L. Martinez,
Commissioner.
____
Office of the Governor,
State Capitol,
Santa Fe, NM, February 11, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici: It is with
pleasure that I give my support to the Navajo Agricultural
Products Industry French Fry Plant. This project offers great
opportunities for self-sufficiency and economic development
for the Navajo Nation, City of Farmington, San Juan County
and the State of New Mexico, as well as the Navajo
Agricultural Product Industry. The creation of up to 500
plant jobs and another 100 farming jobs will benefit the
community and the state. We commend everyone involved for the
collaboration between state, federal, local and tribal
agencies to make the french fry project a reality.
The Department of Economic Development has been heavily
involved in this project for several years and spearheaded
the effort to pass a new law to allow Nations, Tribes and
Pueblos access to the New Mexico Finance Authority bonding
capacity. I supported and signed into law this piece of
legislation. The New Mexico Department of Environment also
gave a grant to the Navajo Nation of $200,000 to study water
issues for the french fry factory. The funding for the study
came through the State Legislature with my full support In
1997, the New Mexico Legislature and my administration worked
to pass legislation to further assist the Navajo Nation
recruit the french fry factory to NAPI.
Sincerely,
Gary E. Johnson,
Governor.
____
City of Farmington,
Office of the Mayor,
Farmington, NM, February 10, 1998.
Mr. LoRenzo Bates,
General Manager, Navajo Agricultural Products Industry,
Farmington, NM.
Dear Mr. Bates: Based upon information received from the
Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI), the Navajo
Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) and Senator Bingaman's
office, the City of Farmington (City) understands that the
location of the proposed french fry plant will straddle the
area served by NTUA and the City of Farmington's electric
utility. Furthermore, our understanding is that the
electricity required for the french fry plant will be
provided from resources available to NAPI under the
Interagency Agreement among NAPI and the US Department of
Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US Department of
Interior--Bureau of Reclamation and the US Department of
Energy--Western Area Power Administration, Colorado River
Storage Project and that NTUA proposes to build the
transmission/distribution system necessary to deliver such
resources to NAPI.
In order for NAPI to have access to the resources under the
Agreement referred to above, it is necessary to have
legislation introduced which will provide for a change in
purpose for the use of the project power. Senator Bingaman's
office is intending to introduce that legislation in the
Senate during the latter part of February, 1998. The City of
Farmington, in accordance with the Memorandum of
Understanding between NAPI and the City dated December 10,
1997, supports NAPI's request for a legislative Change in
Purpose of a remaining portion of the eighty-seven megawatts
(87mW) of CRSP allocation of federal power to be used to
supply electricity to the proposed french fry plant.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Taylor,
Mayor.
City of Farmington,
Office of the Mayor,
Farmington, NM, January 8, 1998.
LoRenzo Bates,
General Manager, NAPI, Farmington, NM.
Dear LoRenzo: The City of Farmington supports and
encourages the development of the potato processing facility
at NAPI. This project has the potential of creating numerous
job opportunities for a large, unemployed segment of the
population. In the City's application to the Empowerment
Zone/Enterprise Community program we attempted to focus on
job creation in areas south of our city where residents live
far below the poverty standards. This project is the best
opportunity for Navajo employment in that area.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Taylor,
Mayor.
____
City of Bloomfield,
Bloomfield, NM, February 6, 1998.
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Navajo Agricultural Products Industry (NAPI)--Potato
Processing Plant
Dear Senator Bingaman: The City of Bloomfield has been
supportive of NAPI since its inception and in particularly
supportive of its efforts to develop a ``potato processing
plant''. We understand that Legislation is being prepared to
allow NAPI to utilize WAPA Power for the plant and other
purposes. We therefore, request your support of this
Legislation.
As you are well aware, the Navajo Nation has a 49%
unemployment rate on the reservation, therefore we feel that
the development of the potato processing plant is of utmost
importance to the Navajo Nation, San Juan County and the City
of Bloomfield.
On behalf of myself and the City Council I would like to
reaffirm the City's support for what can only be an economic
benefit to all the citizens in Northwest New Mexico.
Sincerely,
Sam Mohler,
Mayor.
____
San Juan County,
Aztec, NM, February 6, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Navajo Agriculture Products Industry (NAPI)--Potato
Processing Plant
Dear Senator Bingaman: San Juan County has been supportive
of the NAPI's ``Potato Processing Plant'' since its
inception. On numerous occasions we have met with Mr. Lorenzo
Bates of NAPI and our legislative delegation to attempt to
bring this project to fruition.
The Navajo Nation has a 49% unemployment rate on the
Reservation and because of this, we feel that the Potato
Processing Plant is of upmost importance to the County.
On behalf of myself and the San Juan County Commission, I
would like to reaffirm the County's support for what I feel
will be an economic benefit to all the citizens in San Juan
County.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Tony Atkinson,
County Manager.
____
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority,
Fort Defiance, AZ, February 10, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Navajo Indian Irrigation Project On Farm Use of Colorado
River Storage Project Power
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Navajo Tribal Utility Authority,
the public agency and enterprise of the Navajo Nation which
provides power and energy to consumers within the Navajo
Indian Reservation, has been advised of the possibility of
legislation which would authorize the use of an existing
allocation of 87 megawatts of Colorado River Storage Project
Power for certain on farm uses, including center pivot
sprinkler irrigation and for processing agricultural products
for consumer use.
[[Page S769]]
The Utility Authority supports the proposed legislation
which clarifies the availability of this power for on farm
uses. The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project has for many years
been delayed in its completion and the allocation of power,
originally made on the basis of a flood irrigation
arrangement, may not be totally used for many, many years.
Since the promised benefits for agreement to share water
shortages have not materialized as expected, it seems
appropriate to suggest that, in some small measure, passage
of this legislation would attempt to address the many delays
which have consistently plagued the Navajo Indian Irrigation
Project.
The Authority recognizes that the initial allocations of
``project use'' power to the Irrigation Project did not
specifically mention sprinkler irrigation by center pivot
methods nor the development of municipal or industrial uses
on the farm. However, these activities must have been
contemplated within the plan for the development of a 110,000
acre irrigation farm for the Navajo Nation.
As the current serving utility for a substantial portion of
the Irrigation Project, the Authority supports enactment of
the legislation by the Congress.
Very truly yours,
Malcolm P. Dalton,
General Manager.
____________________