[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 61 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4906-S4916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grams, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Hutchinson):
S. 2079. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to replace
the dependent care credit for children age 5 and under with an increase
in the amount of the child tax credit for such children; to the
Committee on Finance.
child tax credit legislation
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, colleagues, and ladies and
gentlemen, I rise today to introduce legislation to change the Tax Code
to put stay-at-home moms and dads on an equal footing with two-income
families. My legislation is cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Grams,
Wyden, and Abraham. This legislation that we introduce will
[[Page S4907]]
increase the current $500-per-child credit to $1,500 per child for
children up to 6 years of age. This credit would replace the current
dependent care tax credit with real money that directly benefits
families and restores equality and fairness in child care.
Mr. President, there are many proposals to reduce tax burdens, many
of which I wholeheartedly support, such as the elimination of the
marriage penalty. But I must confess some frustration that I felt on
the night our President gave his State of the Union Address when he
spoke at great length about child care. He made a proposal, about $20
billion worth, that contained many laudable provisions and parts of
which I could support. But it contained a very glaring omission, in my
view. The Clinton administration policy is both a direct and indirect
subsidy to the marketplace day care industry. The administration seeks
to help only a small portion of working parents, ruling out those who
wish to stay at home to take care of their child and those who do not
want to use marketplace day care. Government policy ought not to
discriminate in this manner against the best form of child care where
the child is taken care of by his or her own parents or family member.
A few months ago Renee Anderson of Medford, OR, sent me an e-mail
commenting that government spending will not give tax relief to parents
of preschoolers who take care of their own children.
Here is her letter, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Medford, OR,
March 7, 1998.
Re the President's National Day Care Plan.
Dear Senator Gordon Smith: Please do all you can to squelch
Bill and Hillary Clinton's $21.7 billion National Day Care
Plan.
It is loaded with a number of government-controlled
programs.
New spending will not give tax relief to parents of
preschoolers who take care of their own children.
Not one penny of relief will help increase the amount of
time parents will have available to spend with their
children.
This is ``day care,'' not ``child care.'' Child care is
something that every family does. Day care is the activity,
undertaken out of preference or necessity, that some families
choose.
There is a rampant prejudice against stay-at-home parents.
Here's what's at stake: the continued importance of
parental care of children and through that care, passing on
the values that families hold dear.
Commercial day care is often avoided if at all possible
because there is a lack of personalized attention and
affection. Plus there is a greater exposure to childhood
diseases and many other sicknesses.
Surely this new public policy is very characteristic of
today's government arrogance.
I strongly oppose this $21.7 billion national day care
plan. It is an alarming example of government encroachment.
Sincerely,
Renee Anderson.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Renee, like many mothers and fathers, sees most
government spending as ``day care'' and not ``child care.'' Child care,
she says, is something that every family does. Day care is the activity
undertaken out of either preference or necessity that some families are
able to choose or forced to choose.
A recent Wirthlin poll shows that care by a child's own parent or
immediate family member is rated as the most desirable form of child
care, with child care by a family's mother ranking the highest.
Census Bureau statistics show that many families--nearly half of
those with children under 6 years of age--pass up a second income and
care for their children themselves, and yet where is the tax relief to
help ease the burden of child care expenses for families that choose to
take care of their children in their homes? It simply is not there.
This legislation will eliminate the current discriminatory tax policy
and replace it with one that is fair to all families regardless of the
child care choices they make.
I hope many of my colleagues can join in supporting this legislation.
I know it competes with many other proposals, but I, frankly, can think
of no greater priority that we ought to have than helping mothers and
fathers take care of their children, for truly the hand that rocks the
cradle is the hand that controls the future. There is no more important
responsibility that any of us as mortals undertake than to rear a
child. So the Federal Government ought to not get in the way of that
but ought to reduce its take and leave more resources to mothers and
fathers to leave them at home where they can serve real human and child
needs.
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. 2079
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT FOR CHILDREN
UNDER AGE 6 WITH INCREASE IN CHILD TAX CREDIT.
(a) Increase in Child Tax Credit.--Subsection (a) of
section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
child tax credit) is amended by striking ``an amount equal to
$500'' and all that follows through the period and inserting
the following: ``an amount equal to--
``(1) $1,500 in the case of a qualifying child who is 5
years of age or less, and
``(2) $500 in the case of all other qualifying children.''.
(b) Coordination of Dependent Care Credit.--Section 21 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for
household and dependent care services necessary for gainful
employment) is amended by inserting ``over the age of 5 and''
before ``under the age of 13'' each place it appears in
subsections (b)(1)(A) and (e)(5)(B).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
______
By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roth, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Grassley, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Faircloth, Mr.
Inhofe, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Hollings, Mr. DeWine,
and Mr. Thompson):
S. 2080. A bill to provide for the President to increase support to
the democratic opposition in Cuba, to authorize support under the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 for the
provision and transport of increased humanitarian assistance directly
to the oppressed people of Cuba to help them regain their freedom, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
THE CUBAN SOLIDARITY ACT OF 1998 (SOLIDARIDAD)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, immediately upon his return from Cuba, Pope
John Paul II gave an audience at the Vatican where he discussed his
historic Cuban pilgrimage. While Fidel Castro and others were working
hard to distort the purpose of his visit, the Pope was unambiguous
about the aims and purposes of his visit in Cuba.
His Holiness said: ``I wish for our brothers and sisters on that
beautiful island that the fruits of this pilgrimage will be similar to
the fruits of that pilgrimage in Poland,'' referring to his June 1979
visit to his native Poland--a visit which is widely credited with
inspiring the Polish people to throw off the shackles of their
oppression, and embrace their God-given spiritual and political
freedom.
That visit marked the beginning of the end for Poland's communist
dictatorship--just as, I believe, the Pope's historic visit to Cuba has
marked the beginning of the end of Fidel Castro's despotic rule.
With his Cuban pilgrimage, John Paul II has sown the seeds of
spiritual and political liberation in the Cuban mind. The United States
must now help the Cuban people to cultivate those seeds of liberation
which His Holiness had planted in Cuba--just as the United States
worked with him in helping the Polish people in their struggle against
communist oppression nearly two decades ago.
That is why today--along with more than 20 of my Senate colleagues--I
am introducing legislation that will bring new energy and focus to the
U.S. Cuba policy--``The Cuban Solidarity Act of 1998'' or
``SOLIDARIDAD'' Act.
The buttons we are all wearing may look familiar to many watching
today. Our buttons bear the logo of the Polish Solidarity movement--but
with a Cuban twist. You see, we are calling this legislation the
``Cuban Solidarity Act'' for a reason. Our goal is to do today for the
people of Cuba, what the United States did for the Solidarity
[[Page S4908]]
movement in Poland during the 1980s: Give the Cuban people the
resources they need to build a free, functioning civil society within
the empty shell of Castro's bankrupt communist ``revolution.''
The Cuban Solidarity Act proposes to authorize $100 million over four
years in U.S. government humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people--
donations of food and medicine, to be delivered through the Catholic
Church and truly independent relief organizations in Cuba like Caritas.
The legislation we are introducing today will authorize direct
humanitarian flights to deliver both private and U.S. government
donations to Cuba. And it will mandate a proactive U.S. policy to
support the internal opposition in Cuba, just as the U.S. supported the
Solidarity movement in Poland during the 1980s.
This legislation is not about the Cuban embargo. It does not tighten
the embargo; it does not loosen the embargo. What it does is add a new
dimension to the U.S. policy regarding Cuba: With the enactment of this
legislation, U.S. policy will no longer be simply to isolate the Castro
regime, but to actively support those working to bring about change
inside Cuba.
As Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently put it, there are
two embargoes in Cuba today: The U.S. embargo on the Castro regime, and
Castro's embargo on his own people. We must, Secretary Albright said,
maintain the first, while breaking the second.
This legislation is designed to break Fidel Castro's brutal embargo
on the Cuban people. The Cuban Solidarity Act has four central
objectives:
First, this bill will provide free food and medicine to Cubans most
in need--those who cannot possibly afford to buy the necessities of
life because they have no access to U.S. dollars.
Second, it will strengthen those institutions delivering this aid by
giving them the resources they need to expand their space in Cuba and
nurture a nascent civil society on the island.
Third, this bill will undermine the Castro regime's ability to stifle
dissent through the denial of work and basic necessities. In Cuba
today, anyone who dares to speak out against Castro's despotic rule can
lose his or her job (or be thrown in jail) and thus lose their ability
to feed their families. This bill will help undermine Castro's ability
to maintain social control through deprivation, by helping build
alternative sources of food and medicine in Cuba.
And finally, this bill will take away Fidel Castro's excuses, by
neutralizing Castro's propaganda which falsely blames the U.S. embargo
for the hardships suffered by the Cuban people.
This legislation puts Castro in a no-win situation. There is no way
for him to be on the right side of denying the Cuban people access to
free food and medicine from the United States.
If Castro allows this food and medicine into Cuba, it will bring
relief to millions of Cubans who cannot afford to buy basic
necessities; it will remove his ability to use deprivation as a tool of
oppression; and it will help independent institutions create space for
themselves in Cuba society.
But if he does not allow the food and medicine in, them 11 million
Cubans will know exactly who is responsible for their daily suffering.
They will know that the American people wanted to send them $100
million in food and medicine, but that Castro said ``No''.
In addition to this humanitarian relief, the Cuban Solidarity Act
also instructs the President to take a series of steps intended to
hasten the liberation of the Cuban people. Among other provisions:
The bill instructs the President to increase all forms of U.S.
government support for ``democratic opposition groups in Cuba,'' who
risk life and limb each day to challenge the regime.
The bill also urges the President to seek a U.N. Security Council
resolution calling on Fidel Castro to ``immediately respect all human
rights, free all political prisoners, legalize independent political
parties, allow independent trade unions, and conduct freely contested
elections.''
The Cuban Solidarity Act also calls for creative measures to overcome
Castro's blockade on information coming into Cuba instructing the
President to commence ``freedom broadcasting'' through Radio and TV
Marti from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, and other suitable sites
around Cuba.
The bill also requires the Administration to produce a series of
reports on the plight of average Cubans, including conditions of human
rights, workers' rights, and the apparent policy of coercing abortions
among poor, less-educated Cuban women.
And the bill will authorize increased personnel in the Treasury and
Commerce Departments to facilitate licenses for American medical sales
to Cuba--which have been fully legal since 1992--taking away Castro's
excuses for his failure to provide American medicine and medical
equipment for his people.
The Cuban Solidarity Act is a bill that could and should be supported
by all U.S. Senators, those for the Cuban embargo, and those opposed.
All of us should unite behind a policy of providing free food and
medicine to those trapped in Castro's Orwellian economy. I cannot
imagine that anyone would disagree with the notion that the United
States should bring the same intense commitment to its Cuba policy that
made the difference in Poland's struggle with communist tyranny.
Now some have suggested that we should not give the Cuban people free
food and medicine--rather, we should sell it to them. My question is
this: What exactly will they use to buy this American food and
medicine? Soviet rubles?
The Cuban people can't afford to buy American food and medicine!
Today, in Cuba, food and medicine is available everywhere. In Havana,
there are bakeries overflowing with fresh bread, pharmacies stocked
with Western medicines, grocery stores brimming with foods. But these
products are completely out of reach to most Cubans.
Why? Castro allows them to be sold only for dollars, which the vast
majority of Cubans don't have. Castro pays them in worthless Cuban
pesos. The only Cubans who can afford to shop in these exclusive stores
are cronies of the Castro regime, and those few lucky Cubans who get
dollars from abroad--or those poor Cuban women and girls who are forced
to prostitute themselves to foreign tourists from Canada and Europe in
order to survive.
Instead of trading with the Castro regime (and thus subsidizing the
brutal state security apparatus which keeps him in power), our call
today is: Let us unite to circumvent this monstrous system Castro has
built; Let's give food and medicine directly to the Cuban people.
The Cuban Solidarity Act will also encourage and facilitate increased
private donations to Cuba. There are many in the private sector who
have been enormously generous in their humanitarian efforts for the
Cuban people, and we will be encouraging them to redouble their
efforts.
But we will also be issuing a challenge to all of our big-hearted
friends in the corporate community who have been lobbying to lift the
Cuban embargo. Since they claim to have so much concern for the Cuban
people, we will be asking them: What are you willing to donate to help
suffering Cubans who cannot afford to buy food and medicine for
themselves? We'll see if the floodgates of generosity open up, showing
corporate America's concern for Cuba's suffering people.
Fidel Castro will never change his stripes. The Cuban Solidarity Act
is based on the belief that we must do more than wait for Fidel Castro
to die or ``get religion.'' We must do what was done for Lech Walesa
and his courageous Polish brothers; that is, we must undertake a
proactive policy under which the United States will lend decisive
support to the cause of freedom in Cuba.
The Pope's visit planted the seeds of liberation in Cuba. The Cuban
Solidarity Act is the American people's way of cultivating those seeds
for the benefit of Cubans and freedom-loving people everywhere.
Let's get about it.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Helms, Lott,
Mack, and nearly twenty other Senators in introducing the Cuban
Solidarity Act. This bill will capitalize on the historic opportunity
provided by Pope John Paul II's visit to Cuba this past January. It
provides for $100 million in humanitarian assistance directly to the
Cuban people over four years, and does so in a way that will strengthen
[[Page S4909]]
the Catholic Church and other independent organizations in Cuba. We
must seize this opportunity to help our Cuban brothers and sisters who
have suffered under Castro's brutal rule for far too long.
Communism has collapsed around the world, and the only countries that
maintain this economic sytsem--Cuba and North Korea--are crumbling
under their own weight. This failed system has created shortages of
food and medicine, and Castro has denied the basic freedoms that we
take for granted to millions of ordinary Cubans.
In addition to providing humanitarian assistance to Cuba, this bill
also directs the administration to expedite the licensing of sales of
medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. Since 1992, the embargo has been
lifted on the sale of medicines, medical equipment, and medical
supplies to Cuba. While Castro continues to claim that the United
States is responsible for Cubans' lack of access to much needed
medicines, the truth is that we are doing everything we can to ensure
that the Cuban people can get the medical supplies denied them by the
Castro government.
Pope John Paul II called the world's attention to the suffering of
the Cuban people during his visit to Cuba in January. I feel the time
is right to make assistance to oppressed Cubans more easily available
through organizations such as the Catholic Church and other independent
groups. Targeting additional aid in this matter will have three
important effects. First, it will provide humanitarian assistance
directly to the Cuban people who have suffered under communism. Second,
it will strengthen the position of the Catholic Church as a more
independent, viable institution in Cuba. Finally, it will help to
undermine Castro's policy of denying food and medicine as a means of
political control.
Pope John Paul II asked the world to open up to Cuba, and asked Cuba
to open itself to the world. This bill will begin that process by
providing humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people. We hope that
Castro will respond by opening Cuba to the world.
Just yesterday, Cuban Cardinal Ortega expressed concern that the
Castro regime was not making an effort to open Cuba to the world--
specifically regarding the political prisoners that continue to fill
Cuban jails. Four of these political prisoners are in particularly
desperate condition--Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne,
and Rene Gomez Manzano--and Castro has refused appeals by the Pope and
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien to release them on humanitarian
grounds. In fact, Marta Beatriz Roque is very ill with breast cancer
and is being denied medical attention in jail. I hope that these
political prisoners, as well as thousands of others, live to see a time
when expressing one's political ideas does not mean a death sentence.
This legislation will provide an upwelling of support for the
advocates of freedom and human rights in Cuba. A number of periodic
reports on exploitative labor conditions and the plight of political
prisoners in Cuba will help bring the world's attention to the reality
of Castro's oppression. Democracy efforts in Cuba will be bolstered
through pro-active U.S. support for the Cuban opposition. Direct mail
delivery from the U.S. to Cuba and additional Radio and TV Marti
broadcasts will allow the Cuban people to receive uncensored news from
the outside world, breaking Catro's monopoly on the dissemination of
information.
Let us not forget that U.S. support for the democracy movements of
Eastern Europe helped millions of people there win the freedom to
express their ideas, live without fear, and create better lives for
their children. We should not turn our backs on the Cuban people now,
when they need our help more than ever. The Castro government does not
need food and medicine: the Cuban people do. We must ensure that our
aid does not go to those who torture and kill. The Cuban Solidarity Act
works to give food and medicine to those who are forgotten by Castro's
regime--the poor mothers who need prenatal care, the children who need
bread and milk, the elderly who die of easily curable diseases.
Mr. President, the 11 million Cubans imprisoned by Castro's reign of
terror are counting on us to enact this vital and historic piece of
legislation. I hope that all of my colleagues will join Senators Helms,
Lott, Mack, myself, and nearly twenty others in supporting this effort
to provide a lifeline to the Cuban people.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the
Cuban Assistance and Solidarity (SOLIDARIDAD) Act that my distinguished
friend and Chairman of the foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms,
is introducing today. I commend the Chairman for his leadership on this
issue and strongly support him in this endeavor.
The intent of this legislation is very simple * * * to actively
assist the repressed Cuban people and those dedicated to ending the
regime of Fidel Castro.
This Act will authorize $100 million in humanitarian assistance over
four years for food, medicine, and medical supplies, donated by the
U.S. government. In addition, direct flights to deliver this
humanitarian aid will be authorized and monitored to ensure that all
aid is directly delivered to the Cubans who need it most, those who are
unable to afford to make purchases in the Castro controlled dollar-only
stores.
Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation. This bill
will eliminate Castro's claims that the U.S. embargo is the cause of
the hardships suffered by the Cuban people. It effectively creates a
Catch-22 for him. If he allows the aid, he loses his control by
deprivation. If he prohibits the aid, he will no longer be able to
prevent the people from receiving food and medicine without the
knowledge that he is responsible for their pain and suffering, not the
United States.
Further, this bill requires the President to take several timely and
appropriate pro-democracy steps regarding Cuba, such as strengthening
support for democratic opposition within Cuba; seeking a U.N. Security
Council resolution on free elections; beginning ``freedom
broadcasting'' through Radio and TV Marti; producing a series of
reports on the plight of average Cubans; authorizing increased
personnel to expedite American medical sales licenses; and obtaining
the International Court of Justice indictment in the downing of two
unarmed planes and the murder of four people in 1996.
Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to take a proactive stand
for the people of Cuba and support the SOLIDARIDAD Act.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2081. A bill to guarantee the long-term national security of the
United States by investing in a robust Defense Science and Technology
Program; to the Committee on Armed Services.
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1998
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998. In line
with the clear bipartisan support for Defense research I am very
pleased to be joined by Senator Santorum and Lieberman in introducing
this important bill.
The National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998
will lay the fiscal framework for the Defense research needed to
achieve, early in the next century, what the Department of Defense call
``Full Spectrum Dominance''--the ability of our armed forces to
dominate potential adversaries in any conceivable military operation,
from humanitarian operations through the highest intensity conflict.
The bill creates a plan that would achieve the equivalent of at least a
$9 billion Defense Science and Technology Program budget in today's
dollars within the next 10 years--an increase of 16% over today. The
bill also sets similar increases for the non-proliferation research of
the Department of Energy.
Much of the technology that gave the United States a quick victory
with so few casualties in Desert Storm came from DoD's research of the
1960s and 1970s. More Defense research is needed today to prepare for
the next century for a number of reasons.
First, as the DoD has noted, the two key enablers of ``Full Spectrum
Dominance'' will be information superiority and technological
innovation. The DoD has been the preeminent federal agency funding the
disciplines undergirding these enablers, for example, supporting
[[Page S4910]]
roughly 80% of the federally sponsored research in electrical
engineering, and 50% of that in computer science and mathematics. No
other organizations, public or private, can be expected to substitute
for the unique role of the DoD in these research areas. Second, the
global spread of advanced technology and a nascent revolution in
military affairs are creating new threats to the United States which
will challenge our ability to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance. These
include: information warfare; cheap precise cruise missiles; and the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, we are now in a
relatively secure interlude in our international relations, a time when
we can afford to work on transforming our military forces. While the
world is still a dangerous place, it will be even more dangerous in the
future. So now is the time to undertake the Defense research needed to
secure our future.
Yet, the DoD's current Science and Technology budget plans do not
reflect these realities. The outyear budgets are basically flat in real
terms out to 2003, at a level $200 million lower than 1998's level.
This money pays for the research and concept experimentation needed to
invent and experiment with new military capabilities. Worse yet, the
Department of Energy's budget for non-proliferation research will
decline by around 20% in real terms by 2003. Simply put, Mr. President,
these budget plans are just not consistent with the vision of Full
Spectrum Dominance, the threats on the horizon, and the opportunity we
have today.
National Defense Science and Technology Investment Act creates budget
plans that are consistent with the vision, threats, and opportunity.
Starting with fiscal year 2000, the Act calls on the Secretary of
Defense to increase the Defense Science and Technology budget request
by at least 2% a year over inflation until fiscal year 2008. The end
result will be a Defense Science and Technology budget that reaches at
least $9 billion in today's dollars by 2008, an increase of $1.2
billion or 16% over today's level. The Department of Energy's non-
proliferation research would also increase the same 2% over inflation
yearly.
These budget increases are significant for research, yet modest and
achievable; they will be an excellent investment. While they may
require some shifting of funds within DoD's budget, the total amount
shifted will be around half a percent of that total budget over ten
years. I am extremely confident that the Secretary of Defense will be
able to make this gradual shift in the budget without damaging other
priorities. I am also quite sure its something we need to do.
Imagine, if you will, a large company in the most ferociously
competitive high tech business in the world--a company that has done
very well over the years, but faces downstream a series of new, highly
aggressive, innovative and unpredictable competitors. Would we, as
shareholders, say that shifting half a percent of its revenue into
research over ten years would be something it couldn't afford to do?
No. It would be clear that is something it couldn't afford not to do. I
suggest the DoD is in a similar position.
Technological supremacy has been a keystone of America's security
strategy since World War II. Supporting that supremacy has been Defense
research, one of the highest return investments this nation makes. This
coming decade is the time to start increasing this investment in our
national security. The National Defense Science and Technology
Investment Act of 1998 is a modest approach to making this investment,
but one, I am sure, which will yield immodest returns to our military.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Santorum,
Lieberman, and myself in support of this important bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2081
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 ``National Defense Science and
Technology Investment Act of 1998.''
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress of the United States finds the following:
(1) To provide for the national security of the United
States in the 21st century, the U.S. military must be able to
dominate the full range of military operations, from
humanitarian assistance to full-scale conflict. The keys to
achieving this ``Full Spectrum Dominance,'' as described in
the Department of Defense's ``Joint Vision 2010,'' are
technological innovation and information superiority.
(2) The global spread of advanced technology is
transforming the military threats faced by the United States
and will challenge our ability to achieve Full Spectrum
Dominance. Some of the major technological challenges our
military face include information warfare; proliferating
weapons of mass destruction; inexpensive, precise, cruise
missiles; and increasingly difficult operations in urban
environments.
(3) The United States is now in a relatively secure
interlude in its international relations, but the future
security environment is very uncertain. Thus, now is the time
to focus our Defense investments on the research and
experimentation needs to meet new and undefined threats and
achieve Full Spectrum Dominance.
(4) The Department of Defense has been the preeminent
federal agency supporting research in engineering,
mathematics, and computer science, and a key supporter of
research in the physical and environmental sciences. These
disciplines remain critical to achieving information
superiority and maintaining technological innovation in our
military. The Department of Energy has played a critical role
in supporting the research needed to limit the spread of
weapons of mass destruction. No other organizations, public
or private, can be expected to substitute for the role of the
Department of Defense and Department of Energy in these
research areas.
(5) However, the current budget plan for the Defense
Science and Technology Program is essentially flat in real
terms through fiscal year 2003. The planned budget for
nonproliferation science and technology activities at the
Department of Energy will decline.
(6) These budget plans are not consistent with the vision
of Full Spectrum Dominance, the threats or uncertainties on
the horizon, or the opportunity presented by the current
state of international relations. The planned level of
investment could pose a serious threat to our national
security in the next 15 years, given the usual time it takes
from the start of Defense research to achieving new military
capabilities.
(7) Consequently, the Congress must act to establish a
long-term vision for the Defense Science and Technology
Program's funding if the United States is to encourage the
research and experimentation needed to seize the current
opportunity and begin transforming our military to meet the
new threats and achieve Full Spectrum Dominance early in the
next century.
(8) The Congress must also act to establish a robust long-
term vision and funding plan in support of nonproliferation
science and technology activities at the Department of
Energy.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create a ten-
year budget plan to support the disciplines, research, and
concept of operations experimentation that will transform our
military and reduce the threat from weapons of mass
destruction early in the next century.
(b) Funding Requirements.--
(1) Defense science and technology program budget.--For
each year from fiscal year 2000 until fiscal year 2008, it
shall be an objective of the Secretary of Defense to increase
the Defense Science and Technology Program budget by no less
than 2.0 percent over inflation greater than the previous
fiscal year's budget requests.
(2) Nonproliferation science and technology activities
budget.--For each year from fiscal year 2000 until fiscal
year 2008, it shall be an objective of the Secretary of
Energy to increase the budget for nonproliferation science
and technology activities by no less than 2.0 percent a year
over inflation greater than the previous fiscal year's budget
request.
SEC. 4. GUIDELINES FOR THE DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
(a) Synergistic management of research and development.--
The Secretary of Defense may allocate a combination of funds
from Department of Defense 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3 accounts in
supporting any individual project or program of the Defense
Science and Technology Program.
(b) Relationship of the Defense Science and Technology
Program to Commercial Research and Technology.--
(1) In supporting projects within the Defense Science and
Technology Program, the Secretary of Defense shall attempt to
leverage commercial research, technology, products, and
processes for the benefit of the Department of Defense to the
maximum extent practicable.
(2) Funds made available to the Defense Science and
Technology Program must only be used to benefit the
Department of Defense, which includes--
(A) the development of defense unique technology;
(B) the development of military useful, commercially viable
technology; or
[[Page S4911]]
(C) the adaption of commercial technology, products, or
processes for military purposes.
(c) Relationship of Defense Science and Technology Program
to University Research.--The following shall be key
objectives of the Defense Science and Technology Program--
(1) the sustainment of research capabilities in scientific
and engineering disciplines critical to the Department of
Defense;
(2) the education and training of the next generation of
scientists and engineers in disciplines relevant to future
Defense systems, particularly through the conduct of basic
research; and
(3) the continued support of the Defense Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research and research
programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
Minority Institutions.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) Defense science and technology program.--The term
``Defense Science and Technology Program'' means work funded
in Department of Defense accounts 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3; and
(2) Nonproliferation science and technology activities.--
The term ``nonproliferation science and technology
activities'' means work related to preventing and countering
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that is
funded by the Department of Energy under the following
programs and projects of the Department's Office of
Nonproliferation and National Security and Office of Defense
Programs:
(A) the Verification and Control Technology program within
the Office of Nonproliferation and National Security;
(B) projects under the ``Technology and Systems
Development'' element of the Nuclear Safeguards and Security
program within the Office of Nonproliferation and National
Security;
(C) projects relating to a national capability to assess
the credibility of radiological and extortion threats, or to
combat nuclear materials trafficking or terrorism, under the
Emergency Management program within the Office of
Nonproliferation and National Security;
(D) projects relating to developing or integrating new
technology to respond to emergencies and threats involving
the presence, or possible presence, of weapons of mass
destruction; radiological emergencies; and related terrorist
threats, under the Office of Defense Programs; and
(E) program direction costs for the programs and projects
funded under subparagraphs (A) through (D).
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with
Senators Bingaman and Santorum, the National Defense Science and
Technology Investment Act of 1998. I have been concerned for some time
now that our investments in defense R&D are not commensurate with the
opportunity that new technology developments afford. I recognize, Mr.
President, that relative to the procurement budget, defense R&D has
fared well in recent years. While the ratio of R&D funding relative to
procurement was an appropriate benchmark during the Cold War, I would
argue that it is a misleading indicator in the current environment.
We find ourselves in a comparatively peaceful historical interlude in
which we face no peer military competitors. How likely is it that this
set of circumstances will last? We don't know the answer to that
question. The future is uncertain and, if history is our guide, will be
considerably more dangerous than today. At the same time, the ongoing
technology revolution is creating revolutionary new capabilities that
will change the nature of warfare itself. These new capabilities would
enable our forces to engage an enemy in a coordinated fashion across an
entire theater of operations and thereby rapidly and totally dominate
the battlespace. By aggressively exploiting the new capabilities that
technology has to offer, the U.S. can assure its decisive military
superiority over any potential adversary, even with numerically smaller
forces than are fielded today. Our ability to realize this vision of
the future, however, depends on the research and development we conduct
today.
All of the assessments, both internal and external, of our nation's
defense posture concur that we must transform our force structure
through greatly accelerated rates of technology insertion. The
transformed military force envisioned in, for example, General
Shalikashvili's Joint Vision 2010 requires a much higher level of
research, development, prototyping, and testing than we are engaged in
today. Our current defense R&D budgets simply don't support the
accelerated rates of technology insertion and integration that these
assessments imply.
Mr. President, I realize that our military has many needs today that
compete for scarce defense dollars. But we cannot mortgage our future
security to short-term demands. Increased funding for our nation's
defense R&D enterprise is essential if we are to realize the vision of
a transformed force structure that takes advantage of the new
opportunities that the high-tech revolution has to offer. The National
Defense Science and Technology Investment Act of 1998 would put us on
the path of higher defense R&D budgets by outlining a plan for real
increases of 16% over ten years. This is a modest proposal, Mr.
President, and one that holds the promise of very significant future
returns. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Bingaman, Santorum, and
me and support this important piece of legislation.
______
By Mr. COCHRAN:
S. 2082. A bill to amend chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code,
to provide authority to fix rates and fees for domestic and
international postal services, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs.
the International Postal Services Act of 1998
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the International
Postal Services Act of 1998. This bill would amend section 3621 of
title 39 of the U.S. Code, dealing with the authority of the Board of
Governors of the U.S. Postal Service to establish rates and classes of
postal services, by subjecting international postal services to review
by the Postal Rate Commission.
At present, the Board of Governors' and Postal Rate Commission's
authority to collect and review Postal Service data on costs, volumes,
and revenues extends only to domestic mail. Therefore, the regulators
and Congress, and the public, cannot require data to support statements
by the Postal Service that international mail is covering its
attributable costs.
Allegations have been made that the Postal Service uses its revenues
from first class mail to subsidize its international postal services.
The Postal Service denies this, and reminds its competitors that the
Postal Reorganization Act prohibits the Postal Service from using the
revenues from one service to reduce the price of another.
When Congress drafted, and later passed, the postal Reorganization
Act of 1970, no specific language was included that would grant the
Postal Rate Commission jurisdiction over international postal
services--as it was granted for all domestic postal services. I believe
this was an oversight by Congress, and I believe it would be best if,
for the purposes of establishing classes and rates for mail,
international postal services were to be treated the same as domestic
postal services are treated.
I invite Senators to consider this proposal and support this effort
to bring harmony to the treatment of international and domestic postal
services.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2083. A bill to provide for Federal class action reform, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the class action fairness act
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that
will help fight class action lawsuit abuses. This bill, which Senator
Kohl and I are introducing today, will go a long way toward ending
class action lawsuit abuses where the plaintiffs receive very little
and their lawyers receive a whole lot. It will also preserve class
action lawsuits as an important toll that bring representation to the
unrepresented and result in important discrimination and consumer
decisions.
My Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing last Fall that exposed and
discussed the problem of certain class action lawsuit settlements. Let
me give you an example of a class action lawsuit settlement that I find
particularly disturbing. In an antitrust case settled in the Northern
District of Illinois in 1993, the plaintiff class alleged that multiple
domestic airlines participated in pricefixing beginning at least as
early as January 1, 1988. This pricefixing resulted in plaintiffs
paying more for airline tickets that they otherwise would have had to
pay.
The settlement in this case gave a coupon book to all of the
plaintiffs. These coupons varied in amount and
[[Page S4912]]
number, according to how many plane tickets the plaintiffs had
purchased. These coupons can be used toward the purchase of future
airline tickets. The catch is that the plaintiff still has to pay for
the majority of any new airline ticket out of his or her own pocket.
This means that only $10 worth of coupons can be used towards the
purchase of a $100 dollar ticket; up to $25 worth of coupons can be
used towards the purchase of a $250 ticket; up to $50 worth of coupons
can be used towards the purchase of a $500 ticket, and so on. In
addition, these coupons cannot be used on certain blackout dates, which
seem to include all holidays and peak travel times.
The attorneys, interestingly enough, did not get paid in coupons. The
plaintiffs' attorneys got paid in cash. They got paid $16 million
dollars in cash. If the coupons were good enough for their clients, I
wonder why coupons were not good enough for the lawyers.
Another egregious class action lawsuit settlement was discussed by
one of the witnesses in my subcommittee hearing. Ms. Martha Preston was
a member of the class in Hoffman versus BancBoston, where some of the
plaintiffs received under $10 dollars each in compensation for their
injuries, yet were docked around $75 or $90 for attorneys' fees. This
means that attorneys that they had never met, who were supposed to be
representing their best interests, agreed to a settlement that cost
some of the plaintiffs more money than they received in compensation
for being wronged.
These lawsuit abuses happen for a number of reasons. One reason is
that plaintiffs' lawyers negotiate their own fees as part of the
settlement. This can result in distracting lawyers from focussing on
their clients' needs, and settling or refusing to settle based on the
amount of their own compensation.
During our hearing, evidence was presented that at least one group of
plaintiffs' lawyers meets regularly to discuss initiating class action
lawsuits. They scan the Federal Register and other publications to get
ideas for lawsuits, and only after they have identified the wrong, do
they find clients for their lawsuits. Rather than having clients
complaining of harms, they find harms first, and then recruit clients
with the promise of compensation.
The defendants are not always innocent, though. Plaintiffs' lawyers
say that they are approached by lawyers from large corporations who
urge them to find a class and sue the corporation. The corporations may
use this as a tool to limit their liability. Once this suit is
initiated and settled, no member of the class may sue based on that
claim. In other words, if a corporation settles a class action lawsuit
by paying all class members $10 as compensation for a faulty car door
latch, the plaintiffs can no longer sue for any harm caused by the
faulty door latch. this is one way of buying immunity for liability.
The Preliminary Results of the Rand Study of Class Action Litigation
states that, ``It is generally agreed that fees drive plaintiffs'
attorneys' filing behavior, that defendants' risk aversion in the face
of large aggregate exposures drives their settlement behavior. . . . In
other words, the problems with class actions flow from incentives that
are embedded in the process itself.''
The Glassley/Kohl Class Action Fairness Act does the following:
plain english
Notice of proposed settlements (as well as all class notices) in all
class actions must be in clear, easily understood English and must
include all material settlement terms, including the amount and source
of attorney's fees. One thing that I knew before our hearing, but that
witness testimony confirm, is that the notice most plaintiffs receive
are written in small print and confusing legal jargon. Even one of the
lawyers testifying before my subcommittee said that he couldn't
understand the notice he received as a plaintiff in a class action
lawsuit. Since plaintiffs are giving up their right to sue, it is
imperative that they understand what they are doing and the
ramifications of their actions.
notice to state attorneys general
The Class Action Fairness Act requires that State Attorneys General
be notified of any proposed class settlement that would affect
residents of their states. The notice give a state AG the opportunity
to object if the settlement terms are unfair.
attorneys' fees based on actual damages
Our bill requires that attorney's fees in all class actions must be a
reasonable percentage of actual damages and actual costs of complying
with the terms of a settlement agreement.
removal of multistate class actions to federal court
This bill provides that class acting lawsuits may be removed to a
federal court by a defendant or unnamed class member if the total
damages exceed $75,000 and parties include citizens from multiple
states. Currently, only defendants can seek removal, and only if each
name plaintiff has at minimum a $75,000 claim and complete diversity
exists between all named plaintiffs and defendants, even if only one
class members is from the same state as a defendant. The bill also
eliminates the ability of a lone class action defendant to veto
removal, and it forecloses class attorneys from avoiding removal by
raising a class action claim for the first time only after the suit
already has been pending for a year. Removal still must be sought
within 30 days from when there is notice of the class claim.
mandatory sanctions for frivolous suits.
This section of our bill will reduce frivolous lawsuits by requiring
that a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which penalizes frivolous filings, will require the imposition of
sanctions. The nature and extent of sanctions will remain
discretionary.
We need this bill. We need this reform. Both plaintiffs and
defendants are calling for reform in his area. This bill is not just
procedural reform; this is substantive reform of our courts system.
This bill will remove the conflict of interest that lawyers face in
class action lawsuits, and ensue the fair settlement of these cases.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I today introduce the
Class Action Fairness Act of 1998. This legislation addresses a growing
problem in class action litigation--too many class lawyers put their
self-interest above the best interests of their clients, often
resulting in unfair and abusive settlements that shortchange class
members while the class lawyers line their pockets with high fees.
Let me share with you just a few disturbing examples.
One of my constituents, Martha Preston of Baraboo, Wisconsin, was an
unnamed member of a class action lawsuit against her mortgage company
that ended in a settlement. While at first she got four dollars and
change in compensation, a few months later her lawyers surreptitiously
took $80--twenty times her compensation--from her escrow account to pay
their fees. In total, her lawyers managed to pocket over $8 million in
fees, but never explained that the class--not the defendant--would pay
the attorneys' fees. Naturally outraged, she and others sued the class
lawyers. Her lawyers turned around and sued her in alabama--a state she
had never visited--and demanded an unbelievable $25 million. So not
only did she lose $75, she was forced to defend herself from a $25
million lawsuit.
Class lawyers and defendants often engineer settlements that leave
plaintiffs with small discounts or coupons unlikely ever to be used.
Meanwhile class lawyers reap big fees based on unduly optimistic
valuations. For example, in a settlement of a class action against
major airlines, most plaintiffs received less than $80 in coupons while
class attorneys received $14 million in fees based on a projection that
the discounts were worth hundreds of millions. In a suit over faulty
computer monitors, class members got $13 coupons, while class lawyers
pocketed $6 million. And in a class action against Nintendo, plaintiffs
received $5 coupons, while attorneys took almost $2 million in fees.
Competing federal and state class actions engage in a race to
settlement, where the best interests of the class lose out. For
example, in one state class action the class lawyers negotiated a small
settlement precluding all other suits, and even agreed to settle
federal claims that were not at issue in state court. Meanwhile, a
federal court found that the federal claims could be worth more than $1
billion, while accusing the state class lawyers of ``hostile
representation'' that ``surpassed inadequacy and sank to the level of
subversion;'' ``vigorous disparagement'' of the value of the federal
claim in order to sell the settlement to
[[Page S4913]]
the state court; and pursuit of self-interest in ``getting a fee'' that
was ``more in line with the interests of [defendants] than those of
their clients.''
Class actions are often filed in state courts that are more likely to
certify them without adequately considering whether a class action
would be fair to all class members. On several occasions, a state court
has certified a class action although federal courts rejected
certification of the same case. And in several Alabama state courts, 38
out of 43 classes certified in a three-year period were certified on an
ex parte basis, without notice and hearing. One Alabama judge acting ex
parte certified 11 class actions last year alone. Comparably, only an
estimated 38 class actions were certified in federal court last year
(excluding suits against the U.S. and suits brought under federal law).
This lack of close scrutiny appears to create a big incentive to file
in state court, especially given the recent findings of a Rand study
that class actions are increasingly concentrated in state courts.
Class lawyers often manipulate the pleadings in order to avoid
removal of state class actions to federal court, even by minimizing the
potential claims of class members. For example, state class actions
often seek just over $74,000 in damages per plaintiff and forsake
punitive damage claims, in order to avoid the $75,000 floor that
qualifies for federal diversity jurisdiction. Or they defeat the
federal requirement of complete diversity by making sure at least one
named class member is from the same state as a defendant, even if every
other class member is from a different state.
Out-of-state defendants are often hauled into state court to address
nationwide class claims, although federal courts are a more appropriate
and more efficient forum. For example, an Alabama court is now
considering a class action--and could establish a national policy--in a
suit brought against the big three automakers on behalf of every
American who bought a dual-equipped air bags in the past eight years.
The defendants failed in their attempt to remove to federal court based
on an application of current diversity law. And, unlike federal courts,
states are unable of consolidate multiple class actions that involve
the same underlying facts.
These examples show that abuse of the class action system is not only
possible, but real. And part of the problem are the incentives and
realities created by the current system.
A class action is a lawsuit in which an attorney not only represents
an individual plaintiff, but, in addition, seeks relief for all those
individuals who suffered a similar injury. For example, a suit brought
against a pharmaceutical company by a person suffering from the side
effects of a drug can be expanded to cover all individuals who used the
drug. A class action claim may proceed only if a court certifies the
class, and certification is permitted only if the class procedure will
be fair to all class members. Prospective class members are usually
sent notice about the class action, and are presumed to join it, unless
they specifically ask to be left out.
Often, these suits are settled. The settlement agreements provide
money and/or other forms of compensation. The attorneys who brought the
class action also get paid for their work. All class members are
notified of the terms of the settlement, and given the chance to object
if they don't think the settlement is fair. A court must ultimately
approve a settlement agreement.
The vast majority of these suits are brought and settled fairly and
in good faith. Unfortunately, the class action system does not
adequately protect class members from the few unscrupulous lawyers who
are more interested in big attorneys' fees than compensation for
their clients, the victims. The primary problem is that the client in a
class action is a diffuse group of thousands of individuals scattered
across the country, which is incapable of exercising meaningful control
over the litigation. As a result, while in theory the class lawyers
must be responsive to their clients, the lawyers control all aspects of
the litigation.
Moreover, during a class action settlement, the amount of the
attorney fee is negotiated between plaintiffs' lawyers and the
defendants, just like other terms of the settlement. But in most cases
the fees come at the expense of class members--the only party that does
not have a seat at the bargaining table.
In addition, defendants may use class action settlements to advance
their own interests. A settlement will generally preclude all future
claims by class members. So defendants have ample motivation to give
class lawyers the fees they want as the price for settling all future
liabilities.
In light of the incentives that are driving the parties, it is easy
to see how class members are left out in the cold. Class attorneys and
corporate defendants sometimes reach agreements that satisfy their
respective interests--and even the interests of the named class
plaintiffs--but that sell short the interests of any class members who
are not vigilantly monitoring the litigation. And although the judge is
supposed to determine whether the settlement is fair before approving
it, class lawyers and defendants ``may even put one over on the court,
a staged performance. The lawyers support the settlement to get fees;
the defendants support it to evade liability; the court can't vindicate
the class's rights because the friendly presentation means that it
lacks essential information.'' Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 100
F.3d 1348, 1352 (Easterbrook, J., dissenting) (7th Cir. 1996).
Although class members get settlement notices and have the
opportunity to object, they rarely do so, especially if they have
little at stake. Not only is it expensive to get representation, but
also it can be extremely difficult to actually understand what the
settlement really does. Settlements are often written in long, finely
printed letters with incomprehensible legalese, which even well trained
attorneys are hard pressed to understand. And settlements often omit
basic information like how much money will go towards attorney's fees,
and where that money will come from. In Martha Preston's case, one
prominent federal judge found that ``the notice not only didn't alert
the absent class members to the pending loss but also pulled the wool
over the state judge's eyes.''
We all know that class actions can result in significant and
important benefits for class members and society, and that most class
lawyers and most state courts are acting responsibly. Class actions
have been used to desegregate racially divided schools, to obtain
redress for victims of employment discrimination, and to compensate
individuals exposed to toxic chemicals or defective products. Class
actions increase access to our civil justice system because they enable
people to pursue claims that collectively would otherwise be too
expensive to litigate.
The difficulty in any effort to improve a basically good system is
weeding out the abuses without causing undue damage. The legislation we
propose attempts to do this. It does not limit anyone's ability to file
a class action or to settle a class action. It seeks to address the
problem in several ways. First, it requires that State attorneys
general be notified about proposed class action settlements that would
affect residents of their states. With notice, the attorneys general
can intervene in cases where they think the settlements are unfair.
Second, the legislation requires that class members be notified of a
potential settlement in clear, easily understood English--not legal
jargon.
Third, it limits class attorneys' fees to a reasonable percentage of
the actual damages received by plaintiffs and the actual costs of
complying with settlement agreements. This will deter class lawyers
from using inflated values of coupon settlements to reap big fees, even
if the settlement doesn't offer much practical value to victims. Some
courts have already embraced this standard, which parallels the recent
securities reform law.
Fourth, it permits removal to federal court of class actions
involving citizens of multiple states, at the request of unnamed class
members or defendants. This provision eliminates gaming by class
lawyers to keep cases in state court. It reinforces the legitimate role
for diversity jurisdiction--to establish the federal courts as the
proper forum for lawsuits directly affecting residents from diverse
states. Diversity jurisdiction makes little sense if a $76,000 claim by
one out-of-state plaintiff qualifies for federal jurisdiction but a
[[Page S4914]]
multimillion dollar class action bundling thousands of $74,000 claims
by out-of-state citizens cannot be brought in federal court, and if
remote state courts can make decisions affecting nationwide classes of
citizens.
Finally, it amends Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
to require the imposition of sanctions for filing frivolous lawsuits,
although the nature and extent of sanctions remains discretionary. This
provision will deter the filing of frivolous class actions.
Let me emphasize the limited scope of this legislation. We do not
close the courthouse door to any class action. We do not require that
State attorneys general do anything with the notice they receive. We do
not deny reasonable fees for class lawyers. And we do not mandate that
every class action be brought in federal court. Instead, we simply
promote closer and fairer scrutiny of class actions and class
settlements.
We are aware that some are critical of provisions in this bill. For
example, there is concern that attorneys' fee provision does not
adequately address settlements which offer primarily injunctive relief.
For this reason, this bill should be viewed as a point of departure,
not a final product.
But Mr. President, right now, people across the country can be
dragged into lawsuits unaware of their rights and unarmed on the legal
battlefield. What our bill does is give regular people back their
rights and representation. This measure may not stop all abuses, but it
moves us forward. It will help ensure that good people like Martha
Preston don't get ripped off.
Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I believe this is a moderate
approach to correct the worst abuses, while preserving the benefits of
class actions. It is both pro-consumer and pro-defendant. We believe it
will make a difference.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Graham):
S. 2084. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity
on submerged land of the Outer Continental Shelf that is adjacent to a
coastal State that has declared a moratorium on mineral exploration,
development, or production activity in adjacent State waters; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the coastal states protection act
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Coastal States
Protection Act--legislation which I also introduced in the 104th
Congress. This act will provide necessary protection for the nation's
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from the adverse effects of offshore oil
and gas development by making management of the federal OCS consistent
with state-mandated protection of state waters. I am pleased that
Representatives Capps and Miller are introducing the House version of
this legislation.
After many years of hard work to prevent further oil drilling in the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), I am very pleased to see the broad bi-
partisan support that now exists for this issue. I began fighting for
ocean protection on the Marin County Board of Supervisors, continued
during my 10 years in the House of Representatives, and as a United
States Senator representing California.
Simply put, my bill says that when a state establishes a drilling
moratorium on part or all of its coastal water, that protection would
be extended to adjacent federal waters.
It does a state little good to protect its own waters which extend
three miles from the coast only to have drilling from four miles to 200
miles in federal waters jeopardizing the entire state's coastline--
including the state's protected waters.
An oil spill in federal waters will rapidly foul state beaches,
contaminate the nutrient rich ocean floor upon which local fisheries
depend, and endanger habitat on state tidelands.
My legislation simply directs the Secretary of Interior to cease
leasing activities in federal waters where the state has declared a
moratorium on such activities thus coordinating federal protection with
state protection.
The bill has a very fundamental philosophy--do no harm to the
magnificent coastlines of America and respect state and local laws.
I also want to express my strong support for the current protection
of our precious marine resources.
The major portions of fragile California coastline is currently
protected from the dangers of oil and gas drilling in offshore waters
by several provisions of law. The State has a permanent moratorium on
oil and gas leasing, which covers state waters up to three miles out.
U.S. waters, up to 200 miles out, have been protected by a succession
of one-year leasing and drilling moratoria enacted by Congress each
year since 1982.
In addition, in 1990, President George Bush issued a statement
directing his Secretary of the Interior to cancel several existing
leases and withhold any further leases in California waters for 10
years. With this directive, President Bush showed his commitment to
prohibiting offshore drilling in areas where environmental risks
outweigh the potential energy benefits to the Nation.
The strongest protection would be a permanent ban on further offshore
oil and gas leases in California waters, and I have asked the President
to consider this.
California, and the rest of the nation, need a clear statement of
coastal policy to provide industries, small businesses, homeowners and
fishermen more certainty than can be provided by yearly moratoria.
Annual battles over the moratoria make long-range business planning
difficult, divert resources and attention from the real need for
national energy security planning, and send confusing signals to both
industry and those concerned about the impacts of offshore development.
I understand that some feel that we are losing revenue because of
these moratoria. I have two things to say about that. First, the public
strongly supports the moratorium. And second, if the oil companies paid
the royalties that they currently owe the federal government we could
make up for the so-called ``lost revenue'' caused by the moratorium.
Oil companies currently owe the federal government millions upon
millions of dollars. It does not make sense to give oil companies
access to more federal oil when they are already cheating the American
taxpayer out of millions of dollars.
As we celebrate the United Nations Year of the Ocean, we have a prime
opportunity to strengthen our commitment to environmental protection by
giving Americans a long lasting legacy of coastal protection.
We must recognize that the resources of the lands offshore
California, and the rest of the country, are priceless. We must
recognize that renewable uses of the ocean and OCS lands are
irreplaceable elements of a healthy, growing economy. These moratoria
recognize that the real costs of offshore fossil fuel development far
outweigh any benefits that might accrue from those activities.
I am very pleased that Senators Murray, Sarbanes, Robb, Lautenberg,
and Graham are original co-sponsors of this legislation.
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. 2084
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 ``Coastal States Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEASING.
Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) State Moratoria.--When there is in effect with
respect to lands beneath navigable waters of a coastal State
a moratorium on oil, gas, or other mineral exploration,
development, or production activities established by statute
or by order of the Governor, the Secretary shall not issue a
lease for the exploration, development, or production of
minerals on submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf
that are seaward of or adjacent to those lands.''.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague
Senator Boxer in introducing the ``Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.''
It is a key step forward in Florida's long battle to preserve our
beautiful coastal and marine ecosystems.
[[Page S4915]]
Floridians oppose offshore oil drilling because it poses a tremendous
threat to one of our state's greatest natural and economic resources--
our coastal environment. Florida's beaches, fisheries, and wildlife
draw millions of tourists each year from around the globe. Tourism
directly or indirectly supports millions of jobs all across Florida,
and the travel industry generates billions of dollars in economic
activity every year.
The Florida coastline boasts some of the richest estuarine areas in
the world. These brackish waters, with their mangrove forests and
seagrass beds, are an irreplaceable link in the life cycle of many
species, both marine and terrestrial. Florida's commercial fishing
industry relies on these estuaries because they support the nurseries
for the most commercially harvested fish. Perhaps the most
environmentally delicate regions in the Gulf, estuaries could be
damaged beyond repair by even a relatively small oil spill.
Over the years, we have met with some success in our effort to
protect Florida's OCS. In 1995, the lawsuit surrounding the
cancellation of the leases around the Florida Keys was settled,
removing the immediate threat of oil and gas drilling from what is an
extremely sensitive area.
In June of 1997, Senator Mack and I introduced the Florida Coast
Protection Act to cancel six leases in an area 17 miles off the coast
of Pensacola. This bill would have provided leaseholders with the
absolute right to just compensation from the federal government in
order to recover their investment in these leases, while simultaneously
protecting the Florida coastline that is so critical to our economy.
Luckily, it was never necessary. Less than a week after we introduced
our legislation, Mobil Oil announced that it was ending its drilling
operation off the Northwest Florida coast and cancelling its
exploratory leases. While Mobil's action did not completely eliminate
the threats posed by oil and gas drilling, it did mean that the
residents of Florida's Gulf Coast faced one fewer environmental
catastrophe-in-the-making.
The Florida delegation has also been successful in blocking other
attempts to search for energy resources off our state's precious
coastline. We've worked--and will continue to work--in a united,
bipartisan fashion to maintain the federal moratorium on drilling in
sensitive coastal areas.
Mr. President, the bill that Senator Boxer has introduced today will
provide further protection to all coastal states that have taken action
to prevent offshore oil drilling by issuing a state moratorium on oil,
gas, or mineral exploration, development, or production within state
waters. Florida will benefit greatly from this bill, and I urge its
speedy passage.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 2085. A bill to assist small businesses and labor organizations in
defending themselves against Government bureaucracy; to protect the
right of employers to have a hearing to present their cases in certain
representation cases; and to prevent the use of the National Labor
Relations Act for the purpose of disrupting or inflicting economic harm
on employers; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the fairness for small business and employees act of 1998
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today an
important piece of legislation which would restore fairness to small
businesses and their employees in the nation's labor laws, and ensure
freedom of choice in the marketplace. ``The Fairness for Small Business
and Employees Act of 1998'' will achieve these goals, and improve
fairness in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) process.
Small businesses are facing a serious and devastating problem. They
are the targets of unethical attempts to manipulate the law in order to
injure or destroy the competition. We cannot allow any group with an
ulterior and destructive motive to use coercive governmental power just
to harass small businesses and their workers.
Frivolus charges cost companies significant time, money, and
resources to defend themselves against complaints that have no merit.
Small businesses, in particular, need these resources to secure more
work opportunities, invest in better equipment, and create more jobs.
The bill I am introducing today consists of three separate small
business bills, which I have previously introduced in the Senate: ``The
Truth in Employment Act,'' ``The Fair Hearing Act,'' and ``The Fair
Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement Act (FAIR) Act.''
The first provision, ``The Truth in Employment Act,'' remedies the
unscrupulous practice of ``salting'' by amending the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) to make clear that an employer is not required to
hire any person who seeks a job in order to promote interests unrelated
to those of the employer. I would point out that the language in no way
infringes upon any rights or protections otherwise accorded employees
under the NLRA, including the right to organize. This provision would
merely alleviate the legal pressures imposed upon employers to hire
individuals whose overriding purpose for seeking the job is to disrupt
the employer's workplace, or otherwise inflict economic harm designed
to put the employer out of business.
The second section, ``The Fair Hearing Act,'' would create a
statutory right to a hearing for the employer when there is a dispute
regarding the proper bargaining unit of a company with multiple
locations. While the NLRB proposal has been ``tabled'' for now, there
is still nothing in the law to assure fairness for employees.
The last provision, ``The Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement
Act (FAIR) Act,'' would amend the NLRA to provide that a small business
or labor organization which prevails in an action against the NLRB will
automatically be allowed to recoup the attorneys' fees and expenses it
spends defending itself. Small employers often cannot afford the
qualified legal representation necessary to defend themselves against
NLRB charges.
Mr. President, it is time to stop the devastating impact of unfair
labor law enforcement on small businesses and their employees. Small
businesses are truly the backbone of our nation's economy. We must
curtail the anti-competitive attacks, and instead help these companies
devote time, money, and resources toward productivity, growth, and
providing new jobs.
I would urge my fellow Senators to join me in cosponsoring this
legislation, and work to pass ``The Fairness for Small Business and
Employees Act of 1998.'' The survival of America's small businesses
demand that we 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. 2085
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 ``Fairness for Small Business
and Employees Act of 1998''.
TITLE I--TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor-management
relationships is essential to a productive workplace and a
healthy economy.
(2) The tactic of using professional union organizers and
agents to infiltrate a targeted employer's workplace, a
practice commonly referred to as ``salting'' has evolved into
an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the
National Labor Relations Act was enacted and threatens the
balance of rights which is fundamental to our system of
collective bargaining.
(3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment
with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for
such employers but primarily to organize the employees of
such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically
designed to put nonunion competitors out of business, or to
do both.
(4) While no employer may discriminate against employees
based upon the views of employees concerning collective
bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job
applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills
of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the
employer.
SEC. 102. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to preserve the balance of rights between employers,
employees, and labor organizations which is fundamental to
our system of collective bargaining;
(2) to preserve the rights of workers to organize, or
otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under the
National Labor Relations Act; and
[[Page S4916]]
(3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire individuals
who seek or gain employment in order to disrupt the workplace
of the employer or otherwise inflict economic harm designed
to put the employer out of business.
SEC. 103. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS.
Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158(a)) is amended by adding after paragraph (5) the
following flush sentence:
``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring
an employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide
employee applicant, in that such person seeks or has sought
employment with the employer with the primary purpose of
furthering another employment or agency status: Provided,
That this sentence shall not affect the rights and
responsibilities under this Act of any employee who is or was
a bona fide employee applicant, including the right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.''.
TITLE II--FAIR HEARING
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Bargaining unit determinations by their nature require
the type of fact-specific analysis that only case-by-case
adjudication allows.
(2) The National Labor Relations Board has for decades held
hearings to determine the appropriateness of certifying a
single location bargaining unit.
(3) The imprecision of a blanket rule limiting the factors
considered material to determining the appropriateness of a
single location bargaining unit detracts from the National
Labor Relations Act's goal of promoting stability in labor
relations.
SEC. 202. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to ensure that the National
Labor Relations Board conducts a hearing process and specific
analysis of whether or not a single location bargaining unit
is appropriate, given all of the relevant facts and
circumstances of a particular case.
SEC. 203. REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS.
Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) If a petition for an election requests the Board to
certify a unit which includes the employees employed at one
or more facilities of a multi-facility employer, and in the
absence of an agreement by the parties (stipulation for
certification upon consent election or agreement for consent
election) regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining
unit at issue for purposes of subsection (b), the Board shall
provide for a hearing upon due notice to determine the
appropriateness of the bargaining unit. In making its
determination, the Board shall consider functional
integration, centralized control, common skills, functions
and working conditions, permanent and temporary employee
interchange, geographical separation, local autonomy, the
number of employees, bargaining history, and such other
factors as the Board considers appropriate.''.
TITLE III--ATTORNEYS FEES
SEC. 301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Certain small businesses and labor organizations are at
a great disadvantage in terms of expertise and resources when
facing actions brought by the National Labor Relations Board.
(2) The attempt to ``level the playing field'' for small
businesses and labor organizations by means of the Equal
Access to Justice Act has proven ineffective and has been
underutilized by these small entities in their actions before
the National Labor Relations Board.
(3) The greater expertise and resources of the National
Labor Relations Board as compared with those of small
businesses and labor organizations necessitate a standard
that awards fees and costs to certain small entities when
they prevail against the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
(1) to ensure that certain small businesses and labor
organizations will not be deterred from seeking review of, or
defending against, actions brought against them by the
National Labor Relations Board because of the expense
involved in securing vindication of their rights;
(2) to reduce the disparity in resources and expertise
between certain small businesses and labor organizations and
the National Labor Relations Board; and
(3) to make the National Labor Relations Board more
accountable for its enforcement actions against certain small
businesses and labor organizations by awarding fees and costs
to these entities when they prevail against the National
Labor Relations Board.
SEC. 302. AMENDMENT TO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.
The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``awards of attorneys' fees and costs
``Sec. 20. (a) Administrative Proceedings.--An employer
who, or a labor organization that--
``(1) is the prevailing party in an adversary adjudication
conducted by the Board under this or any other Act, and
``(2) had not more than 100 employees and a net worth of
not more than $1,400,000 at the time the adversary
adjudication was initiated,
shall be awarded fees and other expenses as a prevailing
party under section 504 of title 5, United States Code, in
accordance with the provisions of that section, but without
regard to whether the position of the Board was substantially
justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. For
purposes of this subsection, the term `adversary
adjudication' has the meaning given that term in section
504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Court Proceedings.--An employer who, or a labor
organization that--
``(1) is the prevailing party in a civil action, including
proceedings for judicial review of agency action by the
Board, brought by or against the Board, and
``(2) had not more than 100 employees and a net worth of
not more than $1,400,000 at the time the civil action was
filed,
shall be awarded fees and other expenses as a prevailing
party under section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code,
in accordance with the provisions of that section, but
without regard to whether the position of the United States
was substantially justified or special circumstances make an
award unjust. Any appeal of a determination of fees pursuant
to subsection (a) or this subsection shall be determined
without regard to whether the position of the United States
was substantially justified or special circumstances make an
award unjust.''.
SEC. 303. APPLICABILITY.
(a) Agency Proceedings.--Subsection (a) of section 20 of
the National Labor Relations Act (as added by section 302)
applies to agency proceedings commenced on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Court Proceedings.--Subsection (b) of section 20 of the
National Labor Relations Act (as added by section 302)
applies to civil actions commenced on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
____________________