[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2296-S2308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1797. A bill to reduce tobacco use by Native Americans and to make 
the proposed tobacco settlement applicable to tobacco-related 
activities on Indian lands; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


  the reduction in tobacco use and regulation of tobacco products in 
                       indian country act of 1998

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
``Reduction in Tobacco Use and Regulation of Tobacco Products in Indian 
Country Act of 1998''.
  After many hard months of negotiations between the states Attorneys 
General, class action plaintiffs, and the tobacco representatives, in 
June, 1997, a proposed settlement was agreed to.
  The proposed agreement tries to accomplish a number of goals: 
avoiding costly and lengthy lawsuits that will enrich the trial 
lawyers; creating a multi-billion pot of money to be used by the states 
and the tribes for tobacco-related health problems; and implementing a 
comprehensive set of advertising limits that the companies would agree 
to voluntarily.
  In reviewing the proposed settlement agreement, the objective of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs was to review the matters under its 
jurisdiction and make recommendations on how to implement that 
agreement on Indian lands.
  After two Committee hearings I am confident that as to the Indian 
issues, we have crafted a bill that addresses the concerns of both the 
tribes and the parties that seek enactment of the proposed agreement.
  In its hearings the Committee heard testimony on the use of tobacco 
products by Native Americans and how the proposed tobacco settlement 
would impact tobacco-related activities on Indian lands.
  Even though smoking is on the decline in other segments of American 
society, available statistics show that smoking and use of smokeless 
tobacco in Native American communities is at crisis levels. The 
percentage of Native American kids who use tobacco is breathtaking--in 
some parts of the country 80% of Indian high school students use 
tobacco products.
  Further, the health problems Native Americans face such as alcoholism 
and diabetes are compounded by the use of tobacco products. Vigorous 
efforts need to be made at the federal and tribal levels to prohibit 
access to tobacco and reduce youth smoking in Native communities.
  After hearing the concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed 
settlement by Indian tribal leaders, state Attorneys General, federal 
health and legal experts, and Indian legal scholars, a bill was crafted 
which addresses the major issues involved in tobacco regulation on 
Indian lands.
  The legislation I am introducing today includes legal protections for 
traditional and ceremonial uses of tobacco by tribal members; respects 
tribal sovereignty and authority to make and enforce laws on Indian 
lands; includes a commitment to provide the necessary licensing and 
enforcement funding to tribal governments that is consistent with 
allocations the states will receive; and a commitment to ensure 
sufficient funding to treat tobacco-related illnesses and reduce the 
epidemic of tobacco abuse in Indian country.
  I am hopeful that if a comprehensive agreement is enacted, the 
principles and provisions contained in this bill are included to make 
the agreement applicable to tobacco-related activities on Indian lands, 
to protect the traditional use of tobacco by Native Americans, and 
preserve tribal authority to make and enforce laws to govern 
themselves.
  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. 1797

       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 ``Reduction in Tobacco Use and 
     Regulation of Tobacco Products in Indian Country Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Native Americans have used tobacco products for 
     recreational, ceremonial, and traditional purposes for 
     centuries;
       (2) the sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, and use 
     of tobacco products are activities substantially affecting 
     commerce among the States and the Indian tribes and, as such, 
     have a substantial effect on the economy of the United 
     States;
       (3) the sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, and use 
     of tobacco products are activities substantially affecting 
     commerce by virtue of the health care-related and other costs 
     that Federal, State, and tribal governmental authorities have 
     incurred because of the usage of tobacco products;
       (4) the sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, and use 
     of tobacco products on Indian lands are activities which 
     materially and substantially affect the health and welfare of 
     members of Indian tribes and tribal organizations;
       (5) the use of tobacco products is a serious ad growing 
     public health problem, with impacts on the health and well-
     being of Native Americans;
       (6) the use of tobacco products in Native communities is 
     particularly serious with staggering rates of smoking in 
     Native American communities;
       (7) enhancing existing legal mechanisms for the protection 
     of public health are inadequate to deal effectively with the 
     use of tobacco products; and
       (8) enhancing prevention, research, and treatment resources 
     with respect to tobacco will allow Indian tribes to address 
     more effectively the problems associated with the use of 
     tobacco products.
       (b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) provide for the implementation of any national tobacco 
     legislation with respect to the regulation of tobacco 
     products and other tobacco-related activities on Indian 
     lands;

[[Page S2297]]

       (2) recognize the historic Native American traditional and 
     ceremonial use of tobacco products, and to preserve and 
     protect the cultural, religious, and ceremonial uses of 
     tobacco by members of Indian tribes;
       (3) recognize and respect Indian tribal sovereignty and 
     tribal authority to make and enforce laws regarding the 
     regulation of tobacco distributors and tobacco products on 
     Indian lands;
       (4) ensure that the necessary funding is made available to 
     tribal governments for licensing and enforcement of tobacco 
     distributors and tobacco products on Indian lands;
       (5) ensure that the necessary funding is made available to 
     tribal governments to treat tobacco-related illnesses and 
     alleviate the epidemic of tobacco abuse by Native Americans;
       (6) reduce the marketing of tobacco products to, and reduce 
     the rate of smoking by, young Native Americans; and
       (7) decrease tobacco use by Native Americans by encouraging 
     public education and smoking cessation programs.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commerce.--The term ``commerce'' means--
       (A) commerce between any State, Indian tribe, or tribal 
     organization, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Mariana 
     Islands, or any territory or possession of the United States;
       (B) commerce between points in any State, Indian tribe, or 
     tribal organization, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, America 
     Samoa, the Mariana Islands, or any territory or possession of 
     the United States; and
       (C) commerce wholly within the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American 
     Samoa, the Mariana Islands, or any territory or possession of 
     the United States.
       (2) Consent decree.--The term ``consent decree'' means a 
     consent decree executed by a 1 or more participating 
     manufacturers and a State or an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization pursuant to the provisions of any Act enacted in 
     order to give effect to the national tobacco settlement 
     agreement of June 20, 1997.
       (3) Court.--The term ``court'' means any judicial or agency 
     court, forum, or tribunal within the United States, including 
     any Federal, State, or tribal court.
       (4) Distributor.--The term ``distributor'' means any person 
     who furthers the distribution of tobacco or tobacco products, 
     whether domestic or imported, at any point from the original 
     place of manufacture to the person who sells or distributes 
     the product to individuals for second consumption. Such term 
     shall not include common carriers.
       (5) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``Indian country'' by section 1151 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and includes lands under the 
     jurisdiction of an Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       (6) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self 
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (7) Manufacturer.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``manufacturer'' means--
       (i) a person who directly (not through a subsidiary or 
     affiliate) manufactures tobacco products for sale in the 
     United States;
       (ii) a successor or assign of a person described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (iii) an entity established by a person described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (iv) an entity to which a person described in subparagraph 
     (A) directly or indirectly makes a fraudulent conveyance 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, or any Act to amend 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et 
     seq.) in order to give effect to the national tobacco 
     settlement agreement of June 20, 1997, or a transfer that 
     would otherwise be voidable under chapter 7 of title 11, 
     United States Code, but only to the extent of the interest or 
     obligation transferred.
       (B) Limitation.--The term ``manufacturer'' shall not 
     include a parent or affiliate of a person who manufactures 
     tobacco products unless such parent or affiliate itself is a 
     person described in subparagraphs (A).
       (8) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, or any other business or legal 
     entity.
       (9) Point of sale.--The term ``point of sale'' means any 
     location at which an individual can purchase or otherwise 
     obtain tobacco products for personal, non-traditional 
     consumption.
       (10) Retailer.--The term ``retailer'' means any person who 
     sells tobacco products to individuals for personal 
     consumption, or who operates a facility where vending 
     machines or self-service displays are permitted.
       (11) Sale.--The term ``sale'' includes the selling, 
     providing samples of, or otherwise making tobacco products 
     available for personal consumption in any place or location 
     as permitted under law.
       (12) Secretary.--Unless otherwise provided, the term 
     ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.
       (13) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, America Samoa, the Mariana Islands, 
     or any territory or possession of the United States. Such 
     term also includes any political subdivision of any State.
       (14) Tobacco.--The term ``tobacco'' means tobacco in its 
     unmanufactured form.
       (15) Tobacco product.--The term ``tobacco product'' means 
     cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.
       (16) Tobacco trust fund.--The term ``tobacco trust fund'' 
     means any national tobacco settlement trust fund established 
     under any Act enacted in order to give effect to the national 
     tobacco settlement agreement of June 20, 1997.
       (17) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization'' 
     has the meaning given such term in section 4(e) of the Indian 
     Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     45Ob(e)).
       (18) Voluntary cooperative agreement.--The term ``voluntary 
     cooperative agreement'' means any agreement, contract, 
     compact, memorandum of understanding, or similar agreement.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF TOBACCO-RELATED PROVISIONS TO NATIVE 
                   AMERICANS.

       (a) In General.--The provisions of any Act enacted in order 
     to give effect to the national tobacco settlement agreement 
     of June 20, 1997 shall apply to the manufacture, 
     distribution, or sale of tobacco or tobacco products within 
     the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations or on lands 
     within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization.
       (b) Traditional Use Exception.--
       (1) In general.--In recognition of the religious, 
     ceremonial, and traditional uses of tobacco and tobacco 
     products by Indian tribes and the members of such tribes, 
     nothing in this Act (or any Act enacted to give effect to the 
     national tobacco settlement agreement of June 20, 1997) shall 
     be construed to infringe upon the right of such tribes or 
     members of such tribes to acquire, possess, use, or transfer 
     any tobacco or tobacco products for such purposes.
       (2) Application of provisions.--Paragraph (1) shall apply 
     only to those quantities of tobacco or tobacco products 
     necessary to fulfill the religious, ceremonial, or 
     traditional purposes of an Indian tribe or the members of 
     such tribe, and shall not be construed to permit the general 
     marketing of tobacco or tobacco products in a manner that is 
     not in compliance with chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act.
       (3) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act (or any Act enacted to 
     give effect to the national tobacco settlement agreement of 
     June 20, 1997) shall be construed to permit an Indian tribe 
     or member of such a tribe to acquire, possess, use, or 
     transfer any tobacco or tobacco product in violation of 
     section 2341 of title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
     the transportation of contraband cigarettes.
       (c) Payments to Tobacco Trust Fund.--Any Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization that engages in the manufacture of 
     tobacco products shall be subject to liability for any fee 
     payments that are levied on other manufacturers for purposes 
     of any tobacco trust fund. Any Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization that does not pay such fees shall be considered 
     a nonparticipating manufacturer and shall be subject to 
     surcharges made applicable to such nonparticipating 
     manufacturers under any Act enacted to give effect to the 
     national tobacco settlement agreement of June 20, 1997).
       (d) Application of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Interior, shall promulgate regulations to 
     provide for the waiver of any requirement of the Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) with respect to 
     tobacco products manufactured, distributed, or sold within 
     the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations or on lands 
     within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe as appropriate to 
     comply with this section.
       (2) Jurisdiction.--With respect to tobacco-related 
     activities that take place within the exterior boundaries of 
     Indian reservations or on lands within the jurisdiction of an 
     Indian tribe, the responsibility for enforcing the 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 
     vested in--
       (A) the Indian tribe or the tribal organization involved;
       (B) the State within which the lands of the Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization are located, pursuant to a voluntary 
     cooperative agreement entered into by the State and the 
     Indian tribe or tribal organization; or
       (C) the Secretary.
       (3) Eligibility for assistance.--Under the regulations 
     promulgated under paragraph (1), the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     provide assistance to an Indian tribe or tribal organization 
     in meeting and enforcing the requirements under such 
     regulations if--
       (A) the tribe or tribal organization has a governing body 
     that has powers and carries out duties that are similar to 
     the powers and duties of State or local governments;
       (B) the functions to be exercised through the use of such 
     assistance relate to activities conducted within the exterior 
     boundaries of Indian reservations or on lands within the 
     jurisdiction of the tribe or tribal organization involved; 
     and
       (C) the tribe or tribal organization is reasonably expected 
     to be capable of carrying out the functions required by the 
     Secretary.
       (4) Determinations.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     on which an Indian tribe or tribal organization submits an 
     application for assistance under paragraph (3), the Secretary 
     shall make a determination concerning the eligibility of such 
     tribe or organization for such assistance.

[[Page S2298]]

       (5) Implementation by the secretary.--If the Secretary 
     determines that the Indian tribe or tribal organization is 
     not willing or not qualified to administer the requirements 
     of the regulations promulgated under this subsection, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, shall implement and enforce such regulations on 
     behalf of the tribe or tribal organization.
       (6) Deficient applications; opportunity to cure.--If the 
     Secretary determines under paragraph (4) that a tribe is not 
     eligible for assistance under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) submit to such tribe or organization, in writing, a 
     statement of the reasons for such determination; and
       (B) shall assist such tribe in overcoming any deficiencies 
     that resulted in the determination of ineligibility.

     After an opportunity to review and cure such deficiencies, 
     the tribe or organization may re-apply to the Secretary for 
     assistance under this subsection.
       (e) Retail Licensing Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The requirements of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), or any Act 
     enacted in order to give effect to the national tobacco 
     settlement agreement of June 20, 1997, with respect to the 
     licensing of tobacco retailers shall apply to retailers that 
     sell tobacco or tobacco products within the exterior 
     boundaries of Indian reservations or on lands within the 
     jurisdiction of an Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       (2) Minimum federal standards.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to authorize an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization to implement a tribal tobacco product licensing 
     program within Indian reservations or on lands within the 
     jurisdiction of an Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       (B) Model state law.--The terms, conditions, and standards 
     contained in the model State law contained in any Act enacted 
     to give effect to the national tobacco settlement agreement 
     of June 20, 1997 shall constitute the minimum Federal 
     regulations that an Indian tribe or tribal organization must 
     enact in order to assume responsibility for the licensing and 
     regulation or tobacco-related activities conducted within the 
     exterior boundaries of Indian reservations or on lands within 
     the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       (C) Waiver.--An Indian tribe or tribal organization shall 
     have the same right to apply for waiver and modification of 
     the law described in subparagraph (B) as a State pursuant to 
     the Act involved.
       (3) Implementation by the secretary.--If the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, determines 
     that the Indian tribe or tribal organization is not qualified 
     to administer the relevant requirements of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) or any Act 
     enacted in order to give effect to the national tobacco 
     settlement agreement of June 20, 1997, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     implement such requirements on behalf of the Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization.
       (f) Eligibility for Public Health Payments.--
       (1) Grant.--
       (A) In general.--For each fiscal year the Secretary shall 
     award a grant to each Indian tribe or tribal organization 
     that has an approved anti-smoking plan for the fiscal year 
     involved under paragraph (2) in an amount equal to the amount 
     determined under paragraph (3).
       (B) Reduction in state amounts.--With respect to any State 
     in which the service area or areas of an Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization that receives a grant under subparagraph 
     (A) are located, the Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     otherwise payable to such State, under any Act enacted in 
     order to give effect to the national tobacco settlement 
     agreement of June 20, 1997, by the amount of such grant.
       (2) Tribal plans.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     paragraph (1), an Indian tribe or tribal organization shall 
     prepare and submit to the Secretary an anti-smoking plan and 
     shall otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (e). The 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations providing for the form 
     and content of anti-smoking plans to be submitted under this 
     paragraph.
       (3) Amount determined.--Except as provided in this 
     subsection, the amount of any grant for which an Indian tribe 
     or tribal organization is eligible under paragraph (1) shall 
     be determined by the Secretary based on the product of--
       (A) the ratio of the total number of individual residing on 
     or in such tribe's or tribal organization's reservation, 
     jurisdictional lands, or the active user population, relative 
     to the total population of the State involved; and
       (B) the amount allocated to the State for such public 
     health purposes.
       (4) Use.--Amounts provided to a tribe or tribal 
     organization under this subsection shall be used to reimburse 
     the tribe for smoking-related health expenditures, to further 
     the purposes of this Act or any Act enacted in order to give 
     effect to the national tobacco settlement agreement of June 
     20, 1997, and in accordance with a tribal anti-smoking plan 
     approved by the Secretary. Indian tribes and tribal 
     organizations shall have the flexibility to utilize such 
     amounts to meet the unique health care needs of persons 
     within their service populations within the context of tribal 
     health programs if such programs meet the fundamental Federal 
     goals and purposes of Federal Indian health care law and 
     policy.
       (5) Reallotment.--Amounts set aside and not expended under 
     this subsection shall be reallotted among other eligible 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
       (g) Obligations of Manufacturers.--Manufacturers 
     participating in, or covered under this Act or any Act 
     enacted in order to give effect to the national tobacco 
     settlement agreement of June 20, 1997 shall not engage in any 
     activity on lands within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe 
     or tribal organization that is prohibited by this Act or such 
     other Act.
       (h) Use of Trust Fund Payments.--Amounts made available 
     from the tobacco trust fund pursuant to any Indian health 
     provisions of any Act enacted in order to give effect to the 
     national tobacco settlement agreement of June 20, 1997 shall 
     be provided to the Indian Health Service and, through the 
     provisions of the Indian Self Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b et seq.) to Indian tribes or 
     tribal organizations to be used to reduce tobacco 
     consumption, promote smoking cessation, and to fund related 
     activities including--
       (1) clinic and facility design, construction, repair, 
     renovation, maintenance, and improvement;
       (2) health care provider services and equipment;
       (3) domestic and community sanitation associated with 
     clinic and facility construction and improvement;
       (4) inpatient and outpatient services; and
       (5) other programs and services which have as their goal 
     raising the health status of Indians.
       (i) Preemption.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, nothing in this Act of any Act enacted in order to 
     give effect to the national tobacco settlement agreement of 
     June 20, 1997, shall be construed to prohibit an Indian tribe 
     or tribal organization from imposing requirements, 
     prohibitions, penalties, or other measures to further the 
     purposes of this Act that are in addition to the 
     requirements, prohibitions, or penalties required by this Act 
     or such other Act.
       (2) Public exposure to smoke.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to preempt or otherwise affect any Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization rule or practice that provides greater 
     protections from the health hazards of environmental tobacco 
     smoke.
       (3) Native americans.--A State may not impose obligations 
     or requirements relating to the application of this Act or 
     any other Act enacted in order to give effect to the national 
     tobacco settlement agreement of June 20, 1997, to Indian 
     tribes and tribal organizations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1798. A bill to provide for an alternative penalty procedure for 
States that fail to meet Federal child support data processing 
requirements; to the Committee on Finance.


             THE CHILD SUPPORT PENALTY FAIRNESS ACT OF 1998

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, the Child 
Support Penalty Fairness Act of 1998. Similar to the House passed Child 
Support Performance and Incentive Act, this legislation decreases 
penalties for states who didn't make the October 1997 child support 
enforcement system deadline but this legislation provides exemptions 
for those counties, such as Los Angeles county, that made the deadline 
even if the state didn't.

  This legislation decreases the overall penalties to 4% of the child 
support administrative funds in the first year, and doubles the 
percentage of penalties each year, capping it at 20% by the fourth 
year. Additionally, if the state becomes certified during the year, 75% 
of the penalties would be forgiven for that fiscal year. The penalty 
structure in this legislation is the same as Clay Shaw's bill, HR3130, 
which passed the House of Representatives two weeks ago and awaits 
consideration in the Senate Finance Committee.
  The current penalties for not having the child support enforcement 
system up and running are enormous. States would be penalized all their 
TANF (AFDC) funding and their child support administration funds for 
the year.
  The total loss in TANF funds and child support administrative funds 
from the 14 states amount to over $8 billion annually and for 
California, the penalty would be $3.7 billion in TANF funds and $300 
million in child support administrative funds annually.
  What is unique about this legislation is that in addition to lowering 
penalties, it exempts from the penalties those counties who had their 
own certifiable systems prior to October 31, 1997.
  All of us agree that for states who did not make the deadline, they 
should be held accountable. But for those

[[Page S2299]]

states who have county based child support systems where individual 
counties could have been certified by HHS independently, it is unfair 
to penalize the counties with the state.
  For California, 25% or $75 million of the penalty will be borne by LA 
County, the largest county in the nation serving 550,000 families and 
whose program is larger than 42 other states. Despite the fact that LA 
County completed its system by the October 1997 deadline and could be 
certified as recognized by HHS in its March 2, 1998 proposed rules, LA 
County will be penalized along with the rest of California.
  This is unfair and wrong. As I propose in my legislation, when 
counties have met the system requirement by building their own system 
with separate HHS funding, their portion should be exempted from the 
total penalties imposed on a state.
  Mr. President, I know there is bi-partisan support for my proposal 
which is similar to Clay Shaw's bill which passed the House. My 
proposal differs from Shaw's bill in that it exempts penalties for 
those counties who met all the requirements and completed their child 
support enforcement system before the October 1997 deadline. This 
provision is critical for many states whose counties have done their 
job but will suffer enormous penalties because the state as a whole 
have failed.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the memorandum of 
understanding, and excerpts from 42 CFR Part 307 be printed into the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1798

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

     SECTION. 1. ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE FOR CHILD SUPPORT 
                   DATA PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 455(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 655(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4)(A) If--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that a State plan under 
     section 454 would (in the absence of this paragraph) be 
     disapproved for the failure of the State to comply with 
     section 454(24)(A), and that the State has made and is 
     continuing to make a good faith effort to so comply; and
       ``(ii) the State has submitted to the Secretary a 
     corrective compliance plan that describes how, by when, and 
     at what cost the State will achieve such compliance, which 
     has been approved by the Secretary,

     then the Secretary shall not disapprove the State plan under 
     section 454, and the Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     otherwise payable to the State under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection for the fiscal year by the penalty amount.
       ``(B) In this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `penalty amount' means, with respect to a 
     failure of a State to comply with section 454(24)--
       ``(I) 4 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 1st 
     fiscal year in which such a failure by the State occurs;
       ``(II) 8 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     2nd such fiscal year;
       ``(III) 16 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     3rd such fiscal year; or
       ``(IV) 20 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     4th or any subsequent such fiscal year.
       ``(ii) The term `penalty base' means, with respect to a 
     failure of a State to comply with section 454(24) during a 
     fiscal year, the amount otherwise payable to the State under 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection for the preceding fiscal 
     year, minus the applicable share of such amount which would 
     otherwise be payable to any county to which the Secretary 
     granted a waiver under the Family Support Act of 1988 (Public 
     Law 100-485; 102 Stat. 2343) for 90 percent enhanced Federal 
     funding to develop an automated data processing and 
     information retrieval system provided that such system was 
     implemented prior to October 1, 1997.
       ``(C)(i) The Secretary shall waive a penalty under this 
     paragraph for any failure of a State to comply with section 
     454(24)(A) during fiscal year 1998 if--
       ``(I) by December 31, 1997, the State has submitted to the 
     Secretary a request that the Secretary certify the State as 
     having met the requirements of such section;
       ``(II) the Secretary has provided the certification as a 
     result of a review conducted pursuant to the request; and
       ``(III) the State has not failed such a review.
       ``(ii) If a State with respect to which a reduction is made 
     under this paragraph for a fiscal year achieves compliance 
     with section 454(24)(A) by the beginning of the succeeding 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall increase the amount 
     otherwise payable to the State under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection for the succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal 
     to 75 percent of the reduction for the fiscal year.
       ``(D) The preceding provisions of this paragraph (except 
     for subparagraph (C)(i)) shall apply, separately and 
     independently, to a failure to comply with section 454(24)(B) 
     in the same manner in which the preceding provisions apply to 
     a failure to comply with section 454(24)(A).''.
       (b) Inapplicability of Penalty Under TANF Program.--Section 
     409(a)(8)(A)(i)(III) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(8)(A)(i)(III)) is amended by inserting ``(other than 
     section 454(24))'' before the semicolon.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE SINGLE STATEWIDE AUTOMATED DATA 
                   PROCESSING AND INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 452(d)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 652(d)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The Secretary may waive any requirement of paragraph 
     (1) or any condition specified under section 454(16), and 
     shall waive the single statewide system requirement under 
     sections 454(16) and 454A, with respect to a State if--
       ``(A) the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the State has or can develop an alternative 
     system or systems that enable the State--
       ``(i) for purposes of section 409(a)(8), to achieve the 
     paternity establishment percentages (as defined in section 
     452(g)(2)) and other performance measures that may be 
     established by the Secretary;
       ``(ii) to submit data under section 454(15)(B) that is 
     complete and reliable;
       ``(iii) to substantially comply with the requirements of 
     this part; and
       ``(iv) in the case of a request to waive the single 
     statewide system requirement, to--
       ``(I) meet all functional requirements of sections 454(16) 
     and 454A;
       ``(II) ensure that the calculation of distribution of 
     collected support is according to the requirements of section 
     457;
       ``(III) ensure that there is only 1 point of contact in the 
     State for all interstate case processing and coordinated 
     intrastate case management;
       ``(IV) ensure that standardized data elements, forms, and 
     definitions are used throughout the State; and
       ``(V) complete the alternative system in no more time than 
     it would take to complete a single statewide system that 
     meets such requirement;
       ``(B)(i) the waiver meets the criteria of paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) of section 1115(c); or
       ``(ii) the State provides assurances to the Secretary that 
     steps will be taken to otherwise improve the State's child 
     support enforcement program; and
       ``(C) in the case of a request to waive the single 
     statewide system requirement, the State has submitted to the 
     Secretary separate estimates of the total cost of a single 
     statewide system that meets such requirement, and of any such 
     alternative system or systems, which shall include estimates 
     of the cost of developing and completing the system and of 
     operating the system for 5 years, and the Secretary has 
     agreed with the estimates.''.
       (b) Payments to States.--Section 455(a)(1) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (C) and inserting ``, and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) equal to 66 percent of the sums expended by the State 
     during the quarter for an alternative statewide system for 
     which a waiver has been granted under section 452(d)(3), but 
     only to the extent that the total of the sums so expended by 
     the State on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     subparagraph does not exceed the least total cost estimate 
     submitted by the State pursuant to section 452(d)(3)(C) in 
     the request for the waiver.''.
                                                                    ____


                      Memorandum of Understanding

       This agreement is entered into by Wayne A. Stanton, 
     Administrator, Family Support Administration (FSA), 
     Department of Health and Human Services, Ira Reiner, Los 
     Angeles County District Attorney, Richard B. Dixon, Los 
     Angeles County Chief Administrative Officer, and Dennis 
     Boyle, Deputy Director, State Department of Social Services, 
     to resolve certain issues relating to needed improvement in 
     the Los Angeles County child support enforcement program.
       It is understood and agreed that there is a top level 
     management commitment to accomplish management standards to 
     performance and to develop an automated system that can 
     adequately support the program operations and to employ 
     sufficient staff to carry out the duties of the Child Support 
     Program.
       It is further understood and agreed that the lack of an 
     automation system that can adequately support the program 
     operations and the present number of employees assigned to 
     carry out the duties of the family support program have 
     significantly contributed to the current level of child 
     support collections.
       All concerned parties will work together to quickly 
     complete Requests For Proposals for the following areas 
     consistent with applicable County charter and ordinance 
     provisions which require findings of cost effectiveness or 
     feasibility:
       1. To replace, enlarge, or modify Los Angeles County's 
     existing Automated Child Support Enforcement System;

[[Page S2300]]

       2. Supplemental locate and collection services for hard-to-
     find absent parents;
       3. An automated billing system;
       4. Process serving;
       5. Banking/Court Trustee operations;
       6. Blood testing;
       7. Data preparation of case backlog in anticipation of 
     automation.
       The District Attorney's Office will immediately begin 
     hiring within current budgetary authorizations the necessary 
     additional qualified employees to provide required child 
     support enforcement program services.
       All concerned parties will work together to:
       1. Develop and approve a six to ten page planning Advance 
     Planning Document (as detailed on the Attachment).
       2. Revise Request For Proposals and Advance Planning 
     Document so as to require the use of existing hardware.
       The FSA will advise the State that Los Angeles County, in 
     recognition of the size of its caseload, is eligible to 
     establish its own automated system which may be separate from 
     any other system(s) which may be required of other countries.
       The State will request and FSA will consider in a timely 
     manner an 1115 waiver so as to provide Los Angeles County 90% 
     funding to replace, enlarge or modify Los Angeles County's 
     existing Automated Child Support Enforcement System and not 
     jeopardize 90% funding for other systems within the State.
       This document expresses the will and commitment of the 
     Federal, State, and County Governments to expedite the 
     approval processes necessary to accomplish the goals set 
     forth herein.
     Wayne A. Stanton,
       Administator, Family Support Administration.
     Gregory Thompson,
       Chief, Deputy District Attorney, District Attorney's 
     Office.
     Richard B. Dixon,
       Chief Administrative Officer, Chief, Administrative Office.
     Dennis Boyle,
       Deputy Director, State Department of Social Services.
                                                                    ____


                     Excerpts From 45 CFR Part 307


    Automated Data Processing Funding Limitation for Child Support 
                          Enforcement Systems

       Summary: The Federal share of funding available at an 80 
     percent matching rate for child support enforcement automated 
     systems changes resulting from the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act is limited to a total 
     of $400,000,000 for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. This 
     proposed rule responds to the requirement that the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services issue regulations which specify 
     a formula for allocating this sum among the States, 
     Territories and eligible systems.
       PRWORA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     to issue regulations which specify a formula for allocating 
     the $400,000,000 available at 80 percent FFP among the States 
     and Territories. The Balanced Budget Act Amendments add 
     specified systems to the entities included in the formula. 
     The allocation formula must take into account the relative 
     size of State and systems IV-D (child support enforcement) 
     caseloads and the level of automation needed to meet title 
     IV-D automated data processing requirements. Accordingly, we 
     propose to revise 45 CFR Part 307 to include conforming 
     changes and to add Sec. 307.31.

     Conditions That Must Be Met for 80 Percent Federal Financial 
                             Participation

       Pub. L. 104-193 provides enhanced funds to complete 
     development of child support enforcement systems which meet 
     the requirements of both the Family Support Act and PRWORA. 
     From this we conclude that no change in the conditions for 
     receipt of funds was anticipated by Congress. Thus, we 
     propose to retain in 45 CFR Part 307.31 the same conditions 
     for receipt funds at 80 percent FFP which appear at 
     Sec. 307.30 (a), (b), (c), and (d) and apply to claims for 
     FFP at the 90 percent rate.
       Throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking we use 
     ``State'' as the inclusive term for States, Territories and 
     approved systems as described in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) 
     (section 455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) as added to the Act by 
     section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-
     33). The technical amendments to section 455(a)(3)(B) of the 
     Act changed the entities included in the allocation formula 
     by adding ``system'' to States and Territories. For purposes 
     of this proposed rule, a system eligible for enhanced funding 
     is a system approved by the Secretary to receive funding at 
     the 90 percent rate for the purpose of developing a system 
     that meets the requirements of section 454(16) of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 654(16)) (as in effect on and after September 30, 
     1995) and section 454A of the Act (42 U.S.C. 654A), including 
     a system that received funding for this purpose pursuant to a 
     waiver under section 1115(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1315(a)).

                           Allocation Formula

       Section 344(b)(3)(C) of PRWORA requires the Secretary to 
     allocate by formula the $400,000,000 available at the 80 
     percent FFP rate. This section specifies that the formula 
     take into account the relative size of State IV-D caseloads 
     and the level of automation needed to meet applicable 
     automatic data processing requirements. The legislative 
     history does not elaborate on the meaning of these factors.
       The allocation formula proposed in this section is the 
     product of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. We 
     sought information from child support enforcement systems 
     experts, financial experts, economists, State IV-D directors, 
     and national associations. Before drafting regulations we 
     asked States to suggest approaches for allocating the 
     available Federal share of the funds. In a number of open 
     forums we sought suggestions for the allocation formula. An 
     internal working group considered the information from 
     States, reviewed the suggestions, then developed the proposed 
     allocation formula.
       Simply stated, the proposed formula first allots a base 
     amount of $2,000,000 to each State to take into account the 
     level of automation needed to meet the automated data 
     processing requirements of title IV-D. The formula, then, 
     allots an additional amount to States based on both their 
     reported IV-D caseload and their potential caseload based on 
     Census data on children living with one parent.
       As indicated earlier, we use ``State'' as the inclusive 
     term for States, Territories and systems described in 42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) as 
     amended by section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. 
     The technical amendments to section 455(a)(3)(B) of the Act 
     changed the entities included in the allocation formula by 
     adding ``system'' to States.
       At this time caseload and census data are not available for 
     Los Angeles County. Therefore, the tables in appendix A show 
     a base amount allocated to Los Angeles County and blank cells 
     for the caseload factor and the census factor. With a base 
     amount assigned for Los Angeles County, we can calculate the 
     total remaining funds available for allocation among the 
     other States. California's caseload factor and census factor 
     represent the total for the State, including Los Angeles 
     County. The California IV-D agency and the Los Angeles County 
     IV-D agency have been asked to provide us with caseload and 
     census data, as described below, showing Los Angeles County's 
     share of the California total.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1799. A bill to amend section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to provide that a member of the Armed Forces of the United States 
shall be treated as using a principal residence while away from home on 
extended active duty; to the Committee on Finance.


                       tax exclusion legislation

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor this bill to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code. This bill would modify the home ownership 
test for Sales of Primary Residence so that members of our Armed 
Forces, who are away on active duty, qualify for the existing tax 
relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence. 
This amendment will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies 
current law to include the time military personnel are away from home 
on active duty when calculating the number of years the home owner has 
lived in their primary residence. In short, this amendment is narrowly 
tailored to remedy a specific dilemma.
  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to 
millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes 
that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It is also 
one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent memory.
  Mr. President, as with any complex legislation, there are winners and 
losers. But in this instance, there is an unintended loser: military 
personnel. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal 
residence a much-needed tax break when they sell their primary 
residence. Under the old rule, taxpayers received a one-time exclusion 
on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but 
the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence 
for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily 
benefited elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger 
taxpayers and their families.
  Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under the new law, 
all taxpayers who sell their personal residence on or after May 7, 
1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale. 
Joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they made 
from selling their principal residence.
  Mr. President, I applaud the bi-partisan cooperation that resulted in 
this much-needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds 
great, and it is. However, when we delve deeper

[[Page S2301]]

into this law, we note that the taxpayer must meet two requirements to 
qualify for this tax relief. To qualify, the taxpayer must (1) own the 
home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and (2) live in 
the home as their MAIN home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years.
  The second part of this test unintentionally prohibits many of our 
women and men in the Armed Services from qualifying for this beneficial 
tax relief. Constant travel across the U.S. and abroad is inherent to 
military service. Nonetheless, some military personnel choose to 
purchase a home in a certain locale, even though they will not live 
there for much of the time. Under the new law, if you do not have a 
spouse, and are also forced to travel, you will not qualify for the 
full benefit of the new home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' 
in the home for the required period of time. The current law also hits 
dual-military couples that are often away on active duty. They, would 
not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse 
``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

  Today, the United States has approximately 37,000 men and women 
deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so 
ordered. There are another 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, 
and another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other 
commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 women and men 
deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home. 
These women and men are abroad protecting and furthering the freedoms 
we Americans hold so dear.
  It is fundamentally unfair to deny these men and women the same tax 
relief as their civilian counterparts. The newly enacted current home 
sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among 
military personnel. Many of our troops simply do not qualify for the 
homes sales tax relief because they are away from their home so much of 
the time.
  Discouraging home ownership among military personnel is unfair and 
bad fiscal policy. Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities 
and individual homeowners. Having a fixed home provides Americans with 
a sense of community, and adds stability to our nation's neighborhoods. 
Home ownership also generates valuable property taxes for our nation's 
communities.
  We are in a period of robust growth. Americans who are fortunate 
enough to do so, reap the benefits of our country's growth by investing 
in the stock market. Many of our nation's recent millionaires became 
millionaires through the stock market. However, many middle- and lower-
income Americans don't hold vast amounts of stocks, bonds, mutual 
funds, and the like. Therefore, how does the average American 
participate in our nation's robust growth? Through home ownership.
  Appreciation in the value of a home resulting from our country's 
overall economic growth allows everyday Americans to participate in our 
country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
recognized this, and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax 
most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their 
main homes.
  This bill simply remedies an inequality in the new law. The bill 
amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of our Armed Forces 
will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for 
any period that they are away on extended active duty. In short, 
military personnel will be deemed to be using their house as their main 
home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the 
``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South 
Korea, or anywhere else on active duty orders.
  We cannot afford to discourage Military service by penalizing 
military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing 
their job. Military service in itself entails sacrifice, such as long 
periods of time away from friends and family, and the constant threat 
of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to 
heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.
  In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequities 
such as the current Home Sales provision is to adopt a fairer, flatter 
tax that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the 
meantime, we must insure that the tax code is fair and equitable.
  The Taxpayers' relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping 
tax relief to all Americans, including our women and men in uniform. 
Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code. 
However, this inequity is unintended. We should enact this narrowly 
tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Armed 
Services.
  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. 1799

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

     SECTION 1. ARMED FORCES MEMBER TREATED AS USING PRINCIPAL 
                   RESIDENCE WHILE AWAY FROM HOME ON ACTIVE DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 121(d) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Determination of use during periods of active duty 
     with armed forces.--
       ``(A) In general.--A taxpayer shall be treated as using 
     property as a principal residence during any period the 
     taxpayer (or the taxpayer's spouse) is serving on extended 
     active duty with the Armed Forces of the United States, but 
     only if the taxpayer used the property as a principal 
     residence for any period before the period of extended active 
     duty.
       ``(B) Extended active duty.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `extended active duty' means any period 
     of active duty pursuant to a call or order to such duty for a 
     period in excess of 90 days or for an indefinite period.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to sales or exchanges after May 6, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 1800. A bill to designate the Federal building and United States 
courthouse located at 85 Marconi Boulevard in Columbus, Ohio, as the 
``Joseph P. Kinneary United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


          joseph kinneary united states courthouse legislation

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill naming the 
Federal Building and Courthouse at 85 Marconi Boulevard in Columbus, 
Ohio after one of my home state's most highly esteemed members of the 
federal bench, Judge Joseph P. Kinneary.
  Judge Kinneary has served on the United States District Court of Ohio 
for over 32 years. But Judge Kinneary's commitment to public service 
goes much further beyond these past three decades. He has given a 
lifetime to public service. In fact, that service continues even today 
where, at age 92, Judge Kinneary continues to serve as a senior judge 
carrying a docket of cases.
  I'd like to take a few minutes of my colleagues' time to talk about 
this amazing gentleman and what he's done for my home state of Ohio and 
our entire nation.
  Judge Kinneary graduated from the University of Cincinnati's College 
of Law in 1935. After practicing law in both Columbus and Cincinnati 
for two years, Judge Kinneary served as Assistant Attorney General of 
Ohio until 1939.
  But, as happened to many Americans in those days, World War II 
changed Joseph Kinneary's career plans. He served in the Army from 1942 
to 1946, and worked as the Chief of the Legal Branch for the Field 
Headquarters of the Quartermaster Corps.
  After his war service, Judge Kinneary returned to private practice. 
In 1949, however, Judge Kinneary returned to public service and became 
the First Assistant Attorney General of Ohio. And, in 1961, President 
Kennedy appointed Judge Kinneary to United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of Ohio where he served until 1966.
  In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Kinneary to the District 
Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Well-respected among his 
colleagues, he served as Chief Judge from January 1973 to September 
1975.
  And, today, 32 years after his appointment to the bench, Judge 
Kinneary still presides and draws a docket that is approximately 80 
percent of an active judge. I find Judge Kinneary's dedication to the 
people of

[[Page S2302]]

Ohio and America inspiring, as I'm sure many of my colleagues do on 
hearing of his career.
  I can think of no better way for the U.S. Senate, for the entire 
country, to honor Judge Kinneary than to name one of Columbus, Ohio's, 
most important federal buildings and courthouses in his honor. So, it 
is with great thanks and a deep sense of honor that I introduce today a 
bill to name the Columbus Courthouse after Judge Kinneary. I urge my 
colleagues to give this legislation quick consideration and approval.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1800

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOSEPH P. KINNEARY UNITED STATED 
                   COURTHOUSE.

       The Federal building and United States courthouse located 
     at 85 Marconi Boulevard in Columbus, Ohio, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Joseph P. Kinneary United States 
     Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
     and United States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph P. Kinneary 
     United States Courthouse''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1801. A bill to suspend until December 31, 2000, the duty on 
Benzenepropanal, 4-(1, 1-Dimethylethyl)-Methyl-; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                      DUTY SUSPENSION LEGISLATION

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to temporarily reduce the rate of duty imposed on a fragrance additive 
with the chemical name of Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-
Methyl-. The chemical has a lily-like floral aroma and used in 
fragrances.
  My constituent who requested this duty reduction, Bush Boake Allen 
Inc. of Montvale, New Jersey, knows of no opposition to this 
legislation. The last United States manufacturer of this chemical, 
Givaudan-Roure, will cease all production of this additive by June 
1998. I have drafted this legislation to ensure that it will not go 
into effect before July 15. Givaudan-Roure, which is also a 
constituent, knows of this legislation and the effective date, and does 
not oppose it.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Reducing the duties 
paid by American companies for products which have no American 
manufacturer keep our companies from being placed at a competitive 
disadvantage in the global marketplace. In addition, these lower duties 
will benefit American consumers and business customers of Bush Boake 
Allen Inc.
  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. 1801

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

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON BENZENEPROPANAL, 4-(1,1-
                   DIMETHYLETHYL)-METHYL-.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by 
     inserting in numerical sequence the following new item:

       

``    9902.29.57    Benzenepropanal,                                                                            
                     4-(1,1-                                                                                    
                     Dimethylethyl)-                                                                            
                     Methyl- (CAS                                                                               
                     No. 80-54-6)                                                                               
                     provided for in                                                                            
                     subheading                                                                                 
                     2912.29.60)....  6%                No change         No change         On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2000            
                                                                                                              ''
                                                                                                               .

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the later of--
       (1) the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act; 
     or
       (2) July 15, 1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Ford):
  S. 1802. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Surface 
Transportation Board for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


      the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 1998

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Surface 
Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 1998. I am pleased to 
be joined in sponsoring this measure by several members of the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, including Senator 
Hollings, Ranking Member, Senators Hutchison and Inouye, Chair and 
Ranking Member of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine 
Subcommittee, as well as Senators Lott and Ford.
  Mr. President, the introduction of this bill today is intended to 
demonstrate our Committee's firm commitment to enact legislation 
extending the authorization for the Surface Transportation Board during 
this session of Congress. The bill we are introducing is simple. It 
proposes to reauthorize the STB for three years and provide sufficient 
resources to ensure the agency is able to continue to carry out its 
serious responsibilities.
  Mr. President, I want to stress to my colleagues that this is a 
working piece of legislation. The Senate Commerce Committee intends to 
fully explore the resource needs of the Board, along with proposals to 
provide for any statutory changes as may be necessary. The Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee has already scheduled a 
hearing on the STB reauthorization for March 31st and I want to commend 
Chairman Hutchison for her expeditious action on this important 
reauthorization hearing.
  During the reauthorization process, I further anticipate we will 
continue our examination of rail service and rail shipper problems in 
addition to the more general reauthorization issues. The Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee has held two fields 
hearings and a third hearing on rail service problems will be conducted 
next month.
  Rail service and rail shipper issues warrant serious consideration, 
but I believe specific rail service and rail shipper problems and cases 
are best resolved by the Board. The Congress established the STB as an 
independent non-political authority to deal with these very exact 
problems and I believe we must continue to assist the Board in 
fulfilling its statutory duties responsibly and independently.
  I look forward to working on this important transportation 
legislation and hope my colleagues will agree to join with me and the 
other sponsors in expeditiously moving this necessary transportation 
reauthorization through the legislative process.
  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. 1802

       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 ``Surface Transportation Board 
     Reauthorization Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION LEVELS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Surface 
     Transportation Board $16,190,000 for fiscal year 1999, 
     $16,642,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $17,111,000 for fiscal 
     year 2001.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor, along with 
Senators McCain, Inouye, Hutchison, Lott, and Ford, this bill to 
reauthorize appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board 
(Board). The Board is the independent agency which oversees the 
nation's rail transportation industry. The Board also has some 
authority over the interstate bus system, pipeline system, and rail 
labor-management disputes. It should be said that the Congress gave 
this small agency, with less than 150 people, the job that had been 
done by the old Interstate Commerce Commission with, at its peak, 1600 
people. We demanded that

[[Page S2303]]

the Board do more with less and we demanded that it be evenhanded, 
fair-minded, and tackle some very tough, contentious issues. I am happy 
to report that the Board has done all of that and more.
  Since its inception, the Board has had a pending caseload of between 
400 and 500 adjudications related to all of its functions. The number 
of rail cases pending at the Board remains relatively constant because, 
even as cases are resolved, new cases are filed. Even with its 
relatively meager resources the Board has met every rulemaking deadline 
set by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. 
It has resolved close to 200 motor carrier undercharge cases. It has 
set and met deadlines and established simplified procedures for 
handling pending cases. It has also dealt with the important and 
difficult issue of rail carriers providing rates to shippers in the so-
called ``bottleneck'' cases. While this issue is now before the courts, 
it is the Board that has tried to steer a course allowing the rail 
carriers to earn a decent return on their investment while providing 
shippers with needed transportation at reasonable rates.
  In the area of rail regulation, the Board has worked on several 
important rail restructuring cases, including several complex line 
construction cases, the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger, and the 
pending Conrail acquisition case (in which approximately 80 decisions 
have already been issued). It has tackled the rail service emergency in 
the West in many ways, including its issuance of an emergency service 
order on October 31, 1997, which has been extended and expanded upon 
twice and is in place through August 2, 1998. In addition, the Board is 
holding two days of hearings on the rail service emergency in the 
beginning of next month. We must applaud Linda Morgan, the Chairman of 
the Board, on her leadership and the men and women of the Board on 
their hard work and dedication and as we do so we must be mindful that 
more, much more, will be expected of them. Two additional rail mergers 
have been announced, both of critical importance to the nation. I have 
every confidence in Chairman Morgan and the STB to meet and surmount 
these latest challenges.
  This bill represents my commitment to seeing that the Board is 
reauthorized for a multi-year span and is given the resources it needs 
to continue its vital work. Absent the Board, neither shippers nor rail 
carriers would have an effective forum to adjudicate disputes and 
ensure a first rate nationwide rail transportation system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 1803. A bill to reform agricultural credit programs of the 
Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, every day small and minority farmers are 
struggling to survive. They struggle in the field as they try to grow a 
plentiful crop, they struggle with the ever unpredictable Mother 
Nature, and they struggle to compete with large farm operations. They 
have a very tough job, but they provide us, the consumers, with the 
abundant food supply we take for granted. Historically, when credit is 
unavailable from private sources, farmers have turned to USDA to 
finance land, seed, equipment and fertilizer, or for funds to offset 
disaster losses. USDA direct and guaranteed operating loan programs 
allow small farmers to be self-sustaining, successful, contributing 
members of their rural communities.
  But Mr. President, a little, unknown provision in the 1996 Farm Bill 
is prohibiting farmers and ranchers from receiving USDA loans if their 
farm debt has been written off, or forgiven, by the Department in the 
past for any reason. This provision constitutes a lifetime ban, is more 
severe than private sector lending policies, and particularly 
disadvantages small and minority farmers who often have difficulty 
securing credit. It is a one strike you're out policy and Mr. 
President, it is simply un-American.
  I believe this provision that prohibits farmers who have had their 
farm debt written-off or restructured from ever receiving a USDA loan 
again was probably added to the 1996 Farm bill to protect the public 
interest. However, it is actually forcing some small and minority 
farmers into impoverished retirement.
  That is why I rise today to introduce the Agricultural Credit 
Restoration Act of 1998. While safeguarding the integrity of USDA 
lending programs, this bill provides credit-worthy farmers and ranchers 
a second opportunity to participate in lending programs. The 
legislation, which was formulated by the USDA, eliminates the lifetime 
ban. It limits eligibility to two write-downs and farmers and ranchers 
are given a second opportunity to participate in USDA lending programs. 
Secondly, an exemption from the ban is included for one write-down that 
may result from a natural disaster or medical condition affecting 
farmers or their immediate family, or where discrimination by USDA has 
occurred. Thirdly, the bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the 
authority to give loan funds for socially disadvantaged farmers to 
states where need is greatest.
  In my state, Virginia, and throughout the South, farmers have been 
denied or delayed loans by USDA local agents because of their race. 
This has been confirmed by USDA and acknowledged by Agriculture 
Secretary Dan Glickman and President Clinton. This discrimination has 
forced farmers into bankruptcy and statistics show that the black 
farmer is dwindling at three times the rate of other farmers in the 
United States.
  In the Dakotas, farmers were devastated by the great floods of 1997. 
Due to a terrible act by Mother Nature, they lost everything and had to 
declare bankruptcy.
  Whether it is a man-mad or a natural disaster, conditions beyond a 
farmer's control have left him or her in a desperate position. This 
does not mean these are bad farmers with bad business sense. They have 
simply experienced bad times, and USDA, the lender of last resort, 
should not be forbidden from lending these farmers a helping hand.
  Last year, responding to complaints by Virginia farmers, I added $50 
million in direct operating loan funding to the 1997 Supplemental 
Appropriations bill. Many deserving farmers were unable to access these 
funds because of the lifetime ban included in the 1996 Farm bill.
  Mr. President, it is time to repeal this unjust one strike you're out 
provision. We need to do so now, before another planting season goes by 
and farmers are denied the resources they need to get their corps in 
the ground.
  Small farmers are hardworking individuals with many daily struggles. 
The Federal government should be there to offer them a chance to 
survive, not forcing them to move out of the farming business.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill 
be inserted in the Record, and I urge my fellow colleagues to support 
small farmers and pass this legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1803

       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 ``Agricultural Credit 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT ACT.

       (a) Section 343(a)(12)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(12)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Exception.--The term `debt forgiveness' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) consolidation, rescheduling, reamortization, or 
     deferral of a loan;
       ``(ii) 1 debt forgiveness in the form of a restructuring, 
     write-down, or net recovery buy-out during the lifetime of 
     the borrower that is due to a financial problem of the 
     borrower relating to a natural disaster or a medical 
     condition of the borrower or of a member of the immediate 
     family of the borrower (or, in the case of a borrower that is 
     an entity, a principal owner of the borrower or a member of 
     the immediate family of such an owner); and
       ``(iii) any restructuring, write-down, or net recovery buy-
     out provided as a part of a resolution of a discrimination 
     complaint against the Secretary.''.
       (b) Section 353(m) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2001(m)) is 
     amended by striking all that precedes paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(m) Limitation on Number of Write-Downs and Net Recovery 
     But-Outs Per Borrower.--

[[Page S2304]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide a write-down 
     or net recovery but-out under this section or not more than 2 
     occasions per borrower with respect to loans made after 
     January 6, 1988.''.
       (c) Section 353 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2001) is amended by 
     striking subsection (o).
       (d) Section 355(c)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(c)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Reservation and allocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, reserve and allocate the proportion of 
     each State's loan funds made available under subtitle B that 
     is equal to that State's target participation rate for use by 
     the socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers in that State. 
     The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, distribute 
     the total so derived on a county by county basis according to 
     the number of socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers in 
     the county.
       ``(B) Reallocation of unused funds.--The Secretary may pool 
     any funds reserved and allocated under this paragraph with 
     respect to a State that are not used as described in 
     subparagraph (A) in a State in the first 10 months of a 
     fiscal year with the funds similarly not so used in other 
     States, and may reallocate such pooled funds in the 
     discretion of the Secretary for use by socially disadvantaged 
     farmers and ranchers in other States.''.
       (e) Section 373(b)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h(b)(1)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may not make or guarantee a loan under subtitle A 
     or B to a borrower who on, 2 or more occasions, received debt 
     forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed under this title.''.
       (f) Section 373(c) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) No More Than 2 Debt Forgivenesses Per Borrower on 
     Direct Loans.--The Secretary may not, on 2 or more occasions, 
     provide debt forgiveness to a borrower on a direct loan made 
     under this title.''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out the amendments made by 
     this Act, without regard to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) the statement of policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     relating to notices of proposed rulemaking and public 
     participation in rulemaking that became effective on July 24, 
     1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 1804. A bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 
to limit the amount of any increase in the payments required by health 
insurance issuers for health insurance coverage provided to individuals 
who are guaranteed an offer of enrollment under individual health 
insurance coverage relative to other individuals who purchase health 
insurance coverage; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                affordable health INSURANCE AcT of 1998

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a recent GAO report makes clear that 
significant insurance company abuses are undercutting the effectiveness 
of one of the key parts of the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance 
reforms enacted in 1996. The legislation that I am introducing today 
will stop these unconscionable practices.

  The 1996 legislation was enacted in response to several serious 
problems. Large numbers of Americans felt locked into their jobs 
because of pre-existing health conditions that would have subjected 
them to exclusions coverage if they changed jobs.
  Many more who did change jobs found themselves and members of their 
families exposed to devastating financial risks because of exclusions 
for such conditions. Other families faced the same problems if their 
employers changed insurance plans. Still others were unable to buy 
individual coverage because of health problems if they left their job 
or lost their job and did not have access to employer-based coverage.
  The legislation addressed each of these problems. It banned 
exclusions for pre-existing conditions for people who maintained 
coverage, even if they changed jobs or changed insurers. It required 
insurance companies to sell insurance policies to small businesses and 
individuals losing group coverage, regardless of their health status. 
It banned higher charges for those in poor health in employment-based 
groups.
  A GAO study in 1995 had found that 25 million Americans faced one or 
more of these problems and would be helped by the Kassebaum-Kennedy 
proposal. For the vast majority of these Americans, the legislation is 
working well. They can change jobs without fear of new exclusions for 
pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage, or insurance company 
gouging.
  But as the GAO study released last week makes clear, many of the two 
million people a year who lose employer-based group coverage are 
vulnerable to flagrant industry price-gouging if they try to purchase 
individual coverage. Under the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, 
individuals who leave their jobs and want to buy coverage in the 
individual market are guaranteed access to coverage without regard to 
their health status and without being subject to pre-existing condition 
exclusions. But there is no clear limit in the Federal law on how much 
they can be charged for that coverage--and some unscrupulous companies 
are taking advantage of that loophole to effectively deny coverage to 
those in poor health by requiring them to pay exorbitant premiums.
  We recognized that potential problem in 1996, but Republican 
opposition blocked clear, strict federal limits to prevent such abuse, 
on the ground that state regulation would be an adequate remedy. At 
least in some states, as the GAO report makes clear, state regulation 
is no match for insurance industry price-gouging.
  The legislation that I am introducing today is a straightforward 
response to that problem. It will limit insurance company charges to 
eligible individuals, so that they will have to pay no more than 150% 
of the rate charged to those in good health. That is well within the 
range that the American Academy of Actuaries said would have negligible 
impact on the premiums of those who already have coverage, but it will 
end the worst of the current price-gouging. This approach of limiting 
premium increases based on health conditions has worked and worked well 
in the small group market for many years. It should have been included 
in the 1996 bill, and Congress should act on it promptly this year.
  The verdict of experience is in. The GAO report makes clear that some 
insurance firms are guilty of abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, and 
Congress has to act.
  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. 1804

       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 ``Affordable Health Insurance 
     Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

       (a) Premium Limitations With Respect to Individual 
     Coverage.--Section 2741 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300gg-41) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second subsection (e) and 
     subsection (f) as subsection (f) and (g) respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(h) Premium Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to an eligible individual 
     desiring to enroll in, or renew, individual health insurance 
     coverage under this section, the health insurance issuer that 
     offers such coverage shall not charge such individual a 
     premium rate for such coverage that is higher than a rate 
     equal to 150 percent of the average standard risk rate (as 
     determined under paragraph (2)) of the issuer for individual 
     health insurance offered in the State or applicable marketing 
     or service area (as determined pursuant to regulations).
       ``(2) Average standard risk rate.--As used in paragraph 
     (1), the term `average standard risk rate' means the 
     following:
       ``(A) Guaranteed issue of all policies.--In the case of a 
     health insurance issuer that meets the requirements of this 
     section with respect to individual health insurance coverage 
     by meeting the requirements of subsection (a)(1), the 
     standard risk rate for the policy in which the eligible 
     individual is enrolled or desires to enroll.
       ``(B) Guaranteed issue of two most popular policies.--In 
     the case of a health insurance issuer that meets the 
     requirements of this section with respect to individual 
     health insurance coverage through a mechanism described in 
     subsection (c)(2), the standard risk rate for the policy in 
     which the eligible individual is enrolled or desires to 
     enroll.
       ``(C) Guaranteed issue of two policy forms with 
     representative coverage.--In the case of a health insurance 
     issuer that meets the requirements of this section with 
     respect to individual health insurance coverage through a 
     mechanism described in subsection (c)(3), the average of the 
     standard risk rates for the most common policy forms offered 
     by the issuer in the State or applicable marketing or service 
     area (as determined pursuant to regulations), established 
     using reasonable actuarial techniques to adjust for the 
     difference in actuarial values among

[[Page S2305]]

     such policy forms, subject to review and approval or 
     disapproval of the applicable regulatory authority.
       (b) State Flexibility.--Section 2744(c) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-44(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, except that in applying any such model act, an 
     eligible individual shall not be charged a premium rate that 
     is higher than a rate equal to 150 percent of the standard 
     risk rate of the issuer'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, except that an eligible individual shall not 
     be charged a premium rate that is higher than a rate equal to 
     150 percent of the standard risk rate as determined under the 
     Model Plan''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a mechanism described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3), a State shall not 
     be considered to be implementing an acceptable alternative 
     mechanism unless the mechanism limits the amount of premium 
     rates that may be charged to eligible individuals to not more 
     than 150 percent of the standard risk rate.
       ``(B) Standard risk rate.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the term `standard risk rate' means--
       ``(i) in the case of a mechanism under paragraph (3)(A), 
     and as determined by the Secretary to be appropriate with 
     respect to the State mechanism involved--
       ``(I) the rate determined under section 2741(h)(2)(A);
       ``(II) the rate determined pursuant to the standards 
     included in the Model Plan described in paragraph (2)(B); or
       ``(III) the rate determined pursuant to such other method 
     of calculation as is determined by the State and approved by 
     the Secretary as appropriate to achieve the goal of this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a mechanism under paragraph (3)(B), 
     the rate determined under section 2741(h)(2)(A).''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by--
       (1) section 2(a) shall apply to health insurance coverage 
     offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the 
     individual market on the date that is 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) section 2(b) shall apply with respect to a State that 
     adopted an alternative mechanism under section 2744 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-44) on the date 
     that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 1805. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
increase the Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                   the fair minimum wage act of 1998

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator 
Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act of 1998. This proposal is strongly supported by President 
Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard 
Gephardt, and many of their colleagues.
  The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it 
by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on January 1, 
1999, and another 50 cent increase on January 1, 2000, so that the 
minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 at the turn of the century.
  These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their 
families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour 
today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million 
Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to 
benefit from the increase.
  The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the 
leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a 
remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and 
entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an extraordinary 
expansion, with remarkable efficiencies and job creation. The stock 
market is soaring. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and interest 
rates are low.
  In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has 
gone up by 115%. In 1997, the average compensation of a Wall Street 
executive was $280,000--a stunning $120,000 increase over 1996. These 
lavish salaries contrast starkly with the 30% decline in the value of 
the minimum wage over the past three decades. To have the purchasing 
power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be $7.38 an hour 
today, instead of $5.15.
  But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum 
wage earners. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn 
$10,712 a year--$2,600 below the poverty line for a family of three.
  According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are 
women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Three-fifths are the sole 
breadwinners in their families. More than half work full time. These 
families need help, and they deserve this increase in the minimum wage.
  Increasing the minimum wage can make all the difference to these 
workers and their families. They will be able to survive without food 
stamps or other social services to supplement their incomes. They can 
fix up their homes and invest in their neighborhoods. They can spend 
more at the local grocery store. They can work two jobs rather than 
three, and spend more time with their families. Their utilities won't 
be cut off. They can pay the medical bills they accumulated from not 
having health benefits at their jobs. As one minimum wage earner told 
me earlier this year, ``The best welfare reform is an increase in the 
minimum wage.''
  Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky 
will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This 
hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In 
fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in 
the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a 
40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all 
sectors of the population.
  Since September 1996, 700,000 new retail jobs have been added in the 
economy, including 200,000 new restaurant jobs. Overall employment is 
at an all-time high. Overall unemployment is at an historically low 
rate--4.6 %. The teenage unemployment rate has declined by 1.3 
percentage points. The unemployment rate for African-Americans has 
declined by 1 percentage point over the same period.
  Seventeen renowned economists--including Nobel Prize winner Lawrence 
R. Klein and former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall--recently wrote to 
President Clinton, supporting an increase in the minimum wage. 
According to these experts, ``the 1996 and 1997 increases had a 
beneficial effect, not only on those whose earnings were increased by 
90 cents an hour, but also on the economy as a whole. Billions in added 
consumer demand helped fuel our expanding economy in those years. . . . 
Given the nation's low unemployment rate and strong economy without 
inflation, now is the time to deepen our public commitment to a decent 
minimum wage.''
  The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 
an hour. We intend to do all we can to see that the minimum wage is 
increased this year. No one who works for a living should have to live 
in poverty.
  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. 1805

       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 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       (a) Wage.--Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning on January 1, 
     1999; and
       ``(B) $6.15 an hour during the year beginning on January 1, 
     2000.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on January 1, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1806. A bill to state the policy of the United States regarding 
the deployment of a missile defense system

[[Page S2306]]

capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited 
ballistic missile attack; to the Committee on Armed Services.


              the american missile protection act of 1998

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to make it 
the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense 
system as soon as technology permits. I am pleased that the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, is joining me as 
cosponsor of this legislation, the American Missile Protection Act of 
1998.
  A new type of ballistic missile threat is emerging in the world 
today, one that derives not from a cold war strategic balance but from 
the increasing proliferation of ballistic missile technology, from the 
stated desire of some nation states to acquire such delivery systems, 
and from their evident progress in doing so. Last year, the 
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services held a series of 11 hearings 
examining proliferation-related issues. The evidence from those 
hearings forms the basis for the findings in this bill.
  First, we found, and this bill recites, that the threat of weapons of 
mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles is among 
the most serious security issues facing the United States. There is 
widespread agreement on this. For the last 4 years, the President has 
annually declared that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and 
chemical weapons, and the means of delivering such weapons, constitute 
``an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 
policy, and economy of the United States.'' And the Senate said in 
legislation in 1996 that ``it is in the supreme interest of the United 
States to defend itself from the threat of limited ballistic missile 
attack, whatever the source.''
  The second finding in the bill is that the long-range ballistic 
missile threat to the United States is increasing. The leaders of 
several rogue states have stated their belief that missiles capable of 
striking our territory would enable them to coerce or deter the United 
States, and they have declared their desire and intent to acquire these 
delivery systems. Ballistic missiles are increasingly the weapon of 
choice. They were used only once between World War II and 1980, but 
thousands have been fired in at least six conflicts since 1980. 
Furthermore, the clear trend is toward missiles with greater range. For 
example, since the early 1980s, North Korea has progressed from having 
to purchase 300-kilometer-range Scud missiles to developing its own 
6,000-kilometer-range ballistic missile, which the intelligence 
community says may be capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii in less 
than 15 years. Iran's progress in developing extended range missiles 
has been dramatic and sudden, posing a new threat to U.S. forces in the 
Middle East.

  The technological advances of the information age have made vast 
amounts of previously classified, arcane technical information 
available to anyone with Internet access. Advances in commercial 
aerospace have made once-exotic components and materials commonplace 
and more easily obtainable, and the demand for space-based 
telecommunications has vastly increased demand for space launch 
vehicles. These developments mean that the technical information, 
hardware, and other resources necessary to build ballistic missiles are 
increasingly available and accessible worldwide.
  So, too, is scientific and technical expertise from Russia and China, 
which have been primary suppliers of equipment, materials, and 
technology related to weapons of mass destruction. Efforts by the 
administration to stop such assistance from these two countries have 
not been successful.
  America's well-known vulnerability serves to feed this growing 
threat. As long as potential adversaries know we cannot defend 
ourselves against these weapons, they have every incentive to acquire 
or develop them.
  The third finding in the bill is that the ability of the United 
States to anticipate the rate of progress in rogue ballistic missile 
programs is questionable. In the past, the United States has been 
surprised by the technical innovation of other nations, particularly 
with respect to ballistic missiles. There are many reasons for this, 
including help from other nations and the willingness of some states to 
field systems with lower accuracy requirements than would be acceptable 
to the United States. In both cases, the result can be progress that is 
more rapid than expected. Just 2 months ago, for example, the Director 
of Central Intelligence stated, ``Iran's success in getting technology 
and materials from Russian companies, combined with recent indigenous 
Iranian advances means that it could have a medium-range missile much 
sooner than I assessed last year.''
  That year, last year, in 1997, Mr. Tenet testified that Iran could 
have such a missile by 2007, the year 2007. While he didn't say how 
much sooner than 2007 when he testified recently, State Department 
officials have testified since then that Iran could develop this 
missile this year, 9 years earlier than had been predicted only a year 
ago.
  Iran's rapid progress demonstrates how external assistance can affect 
the pace of missile programs. And, of course, predicting the amount of 
outside assistance any nation will receive is nearly impossible. The 
CIA has recognized this difficulty, stating recently to the Senate 
that, ``gaps and uncertainties preclude a good projection of exactly 
when `rest of the world' countries will deploy ICBMs.''
  This bill's fourth finding is that the failure to prepare a defense 
against ballistic missiles could have grave security and foreign policy 
consequences for the United States. An attack on the United States by a 
ballistic missile equipped with a weapon of mass destruction would be 
catastrophic, inflicting death and injury to potentially thousands of 
American citizens. Even the threat of such an attack could constrain 
American options in dealing with regional challenges to our interests, 
deter us from taking action, or prompt allies to question America's 
security guarantees. All of this would have serious consequences for 
the United States and international stability.

  The fifth finding is that it is imperative for the United States to 
be prepared for rogue nations acquiring long-range ballistic missiles 
armed with weapons of mass destruction. The Senate, in its resolution 
of ratification for the START II treaty, declared that ``. . . because 
deterrence may be inadequate to protect the United States against long-
range ballistic missile threats, missile defenses are a necessary part 
of new deterrent strategies.'' Former Defense Secretary Perry said in 
1994 that we have an opportunity to move from ``mutual assured 
destruction'' to ``mutual assured safety.'' And in 1997, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy testified in the Senate that we ``are 
quite willing to acknowledge that if we saw a rogue state, a potential 
proliferant, beginning to develop a long-range ICBM capable of reaching 
the United States, we would have to give very, very serious attention 
to deploying a limited national missile defense.'' Mr. President, our 
Nation's interests will be served better being prepared 1 year too soon 
rather than 1 year too late.
  This bill's sixth and final finding acknowledges the United States 
has no defenses deployed against weapons of mass destruction delivered 
by long-range ballistic missiles and no policy to deploy such a 
national missile defense system. We have only a policy to wait and see.
  The bill in its final paragraph provides, ``It is the policy of the 
United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible, a National 
Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United 
States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, 
unauthorized, or deliberate).''
  This policy statement accomplishes two things. It sends a clear 
message to any rogue state seeking ballistic missile delivery systems 
that America will not be vulnerable to these weapons indefinitely. And, 
second, it affirms that the United States will take the steps necessary 
to protect its citizens from missile attack. That is what the bill is. 
That is what it says.
  Now, let me briefly say what it is not. It is not a referendum on the 
ABM Treaty. It does not prescribe a specific system architecture. It 
does not mandate a deployment date, only that we deploy as soon as the 
technology is ready. It is not a directive to negotiate or cooperate on 
missile defense programs. It does not initiate studies or

[[Page S2307]]

reports. Nor is it a declaration that the only weapon of mass 
destruction threat to the United States is from weapons delivered by 
long-range ballistic missiles--other delivery methods are also of 
concern but we have programs in place to defend against those threats. 
This bill is designed to deal only with the accelerating proliferation 
threat.
  In his State of the Union Address President Clinton said, ``preparing 
for a far off storm that may reach our shores is far wiser than 
ignoring the thunder 'til the clouds are just overhead.'' He wasn't 
talking about national missile defense, but his words do apply 
precisely to this dilemma. We are hearing the thunder now, and the time 
has come to declare to our citizens and to the world and to demonstrate 
by our actions that the United States will not remain defenseless 
against ballistic missiles. That should be our policy and this bill 
states that it is our policy.
  A letter to all Senators is going out inviting cosponsors to join us 
when we reintroduce the bill within the next 2 weeks. I ask unanimous 
consent a copy 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. 1806

       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 at the ``American Missile Protection 
     Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The threat of weapons of mass destruction delivered by 
     long-range ballistic missiles is among the most serious 
     security issues facing the United States.
       (A) In a 1994 Executive Order, President Clinton certified, 
     that ``I . . .  find that the proliferation of nuclear, 
     biological, and chemical weapons (`weapons of mass 
     destruction') and the means of delivering such weapons, 
     constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
     national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 
     States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with 
     that threat.'' This state of emergency was reaffirmed in 
     1995, 1996, and 1997.
       (B) In 1994 the President stated, that ``there is nothing 
     more important to our security and the world's stability than 
     preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic 
     missiles''.
       (C) Several countries hostile to the United States have 
     been particularly determined to acquire missiles and weapons 
     of mass destruction. President Clinton observed in January of 
     1998, for example, that ``Saddam Hussein has spent the better 
     part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on 
     providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, 
     chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver 
     them''.
       (D) In 1996, the Senate affirmed that, ``it is in the 
     supreme interest of the United States to defend itself from 
     the threat of limited ballistic missile attack, whatever the 
     source.''
       (2) The long-range ballistic missile threat to the United 
     States is increasing.
       (A) Several adversaries of the United States have stated 
     their intention to acquire intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles capable of attacking the United States.
       (i) Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has stated, ``If they 
     know that you have a deterrent force capable of hitting the 
     United States, they would not be able to hit you. If we had 
     possessed a deterrent--missiles that could reach New York--we 
     would have hit it at the same moment. Consequently, we should 
     build this force so that they and others will no longer think 
     about an attack.''
       (ii) Abu Abbas, the head of the Palestine Liberation Front, 
     has stated, ``I would love to be able to reach the American 
     shore, but this is very difficult. Someday an Arab country 
     will have ballistic missiles. Someday an Arab country will 
     have a nuclear bomb. It is better for the United States and 
     for Israel to reach peace with the Palestinians before that 
     day.''
       (iii) Saddam Hussein has stated, ``Our missiles cannot 
     reach Washington. If we could reach Washington, we would 
     strike if the need arose.''
       (iv) Iranian actions speak for themselves. Iran's 
     aggressive pursuit of medium-range ballistic missiles capable 
     of striking Central Europe--aided by the continuing 
     collaboration of outside agents--demonstrates Tehran's intent 
     to acquire ballistic missiles of ever-increasing range.
       (B) Over 30 non-NATO countries possess ballistic missiles, 
     with at least 10 of those countries developing over 20 new 
     types of ballistic missiles.
       (C) From the end of World War II until 1980, ballistic 
     missiles were used in one conflict. Since 1980, thousands of 
     ballistic missiles have been fired in at least six different 
     conflicts.
       (D) The clear trend among countries hostile to the United 
     States is toward having ballistic missiles of greater range.
       (i) North Korea first acquired 300-kilometer range Scud Bs, 
     then developed and deployed 500-kilometer range Scud Cs, is 
     currently deploying the 1000-kilometer range No-Dong, and is 
     developing the 2000-kilometer range Taepo-Dong 1 and 6000-
     kilometer range Taepo-Dong 2, which would be capable of 
     striking Alaska and Hawaii.
       (ii) Iran acquired 150-kilometer range CSS-8s, progressed 
     through the Scud B and Scud C, and is developing the 1300-
     kilometer range Shahab-3 and 2000-kilometer range Shahab-4, 
     which would allow Iran to strike Central Europe.
       (iii) Iraq, in a two-year crash program, produced a new 
     missile, the Al-Hussein, with twice the range of its Scud Bs.
       (iv) Experience gained from extending the range of short- 
     and medium-range ballistic missiles facilitates the 
     development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
       (E) The technical information, hardware, and other 
     resources necessary to build ballistic missiles are 
     increasingly available and accessible worldwide.
       (i) Due to advances in information technology, a vast 
     amount of technical information relating to ballistic missile 
     design, much of it formerly classified, has become widely 
     available and is increasingly accessible through the Internet 
     and other distribution avenues.
       (ii) Components, tools, and materials to support ballistic 
     missile development are increasingly available in the 
     commercial aerospace industry.
       (iii) Increasing demand for satellite-based 
     telecommunications is adding to the demand for commercial 
     Space Launch Vehicles, which employ technology that is 
     essentially identical to that of intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles. As this increasing demand is met, the technology 
     and expertise associated with space launch vehicles also 
     proliferate.
       (F) Russia and China have provided significant technical 
     assistance to rogue nation ballistic missile programs, 
     accelerating the pace of those efforts. In June of 1997, the 
     Director of Central Intelligence, reporting to Congress on 
     weapons of mass destruction-related equipment, materials, and 
     technology, stated that ``China and Russia continued to be 
     the primary suppliers, and are key to any future efforts to 
     stem the flow of dual-use goods and modern weapons to 
     countries of concern.''
       (G) Russia and China continue to engage in missile 
     proliferation.
       (i) Despite numerous Russian assurances not to assist Iran 
     with its ballistic missile program, the Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Nonproliferation testified to the 
     Senate, that ``the problem is this: there is a disconnect 
     between those reassurances, which we welcome, and what we 
     believe is actually occurring.''
       (ii) Regarding China's actions to demonstrate the sincerity 
     of its commitment to nonproliferation, the Director of 
     Central Intelligence testified to the Senate on January 28, 
     1998, that, ``the jury is still out on whether the recent 
     changes are broad enough in scope and whether they will hold 
     over the longer term. As such, Chinese activities in this 
     area will require continued close watching.''
       (H) The inability of the United States to defend itself 
     against weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range 
     ballistic missile provides additional incentive for hostile 
     nations to develop long-range ballistic missiles with which 
     to threaten the United States. Missiles are widely viewed as 
     valuable tools for deterring and coercing a vulnerable United 
     States.
       (3) The ability of the United States to anticipate future 
     ballistic missile threats is questionable.
       (A) The Intelligence Community has failed to anticipate 
     many past technical innovations (for example, Iraq's 
     extended-range Al-Hussein missiles and its development of a 
     space launch vehicle) and outside assistance enables rogue 
     states to surmount traditional technological obstacles to 
     obtaining or developing ballistic missiles of increasing 
     range.
       (B) In June of 1997, the Director of Central Intelligence 
     reported to Congress that ``many Third World countries--with 
     Iran being the most prominent example--are responding to 
     Western counter-proliferation efforts by relying more on 
     legitimate commercial firms as procurement fronts and by 
     developing more convoluted procurement networks.''
       (C) In June of 1997, the Director of Central Intelligence 
     stated to Congress that ``gaps and uncertainties preclude a 
     good projection of exactly when `rest of the world' countries 
     will deploy ICBMs.''
       (D) In 1997, the Director of Central Intelligence testified 
     that Iran would have a medium-range missile by 2007. One year 
     later the Director stated, ``since I testified, Iran's 
     success in getting technology and materials from Russian 
     companies, combined with recent indigenous Iranian advances, 
     means that it could have a medium-range missile much sooner 
     than I assessed last year.'' Department of State officials 
     have testified that Iran could be prepared to deploy such a 
     missile as early as late 1998, nine years earlier than had 
     been predicted one year before by the Director of Central 
     Intelligence.
       (4) The failure to prepare adequately for long-range 
     ballistic missile threats could have severe national security 
     and foreign policy consequences for the United States.
       (A) An attack on the United States by a ballistic missile 
     equipped with a weapon of mass destruction could inflict 
     catastrophic death or injury to citizens of the United States 
     and severe damage to their property.

[[Page S2308]]

       (B) A rogue state's ability to threaten the United States 
     with an intercontinental ballistic missile may constrain the 
     United States' options in dealing with regional threats to 
     its interests, deter the United States from taking 
     appropriate action, or prompt allies to question United 
     States security guarantees, thereby weakening alliances of 
     the United States and the United States' world leadership 
     position.
       (5) The United States must be prepared for rogue nations 
     acquiring long-range ballistic missiles armed with weapons of 
     mass destruction.
       (A) In its resolution of ratification for the START II 
     Treaty, the United States Senate declared that ``because 
     deterrence may be inadequate to protect the United States 
     against long-range ballistic missile threats, missile 
     defenses are a necessary part of new deterrent strategies.''
       (B) In September of 1994, Secretary of Defense Perry stated 
     that in the post-Cold War era, ``we now have opportunity to 
     create a new relationship based not on MAD, not on Mutual 
     Assured Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, or 
     Mutual Assured Safety.''
       (C) On February 12, 1997, the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Policy testified to the Senate that ``I and the 
     administration are quite willing to acknowledge that if we 
     saw a rogue state, a potential proliferant, beginning to 
     develop a long-range ICBM capable of reaching the United 
     States, we would have to give very, very serious attention to 
     deploying a limited national missile defense.''
       (6) The United States has no defense deployed against 
     weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic 
     missiles and no policy to deploy such a national missile 
     defense system.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

       It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as 
     is technologically possible a National Missile Defense system 
     capable of defending the territory of the United States 
     against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, 
     unauthorized, or deliberate).

                          ____________________