[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5787-S5798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2143. A bill to amend chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, 
to authorize the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice to 
accept voluntary services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


                  supreme court volunteer legislation

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, year after year, millions of people flock 
to Washington D.C. to visit the seat of American government. They come 
from every state of the union and most of the nations of the Earth to 
view for themselves the workings of the oldest democracy in the world. 
This city, through its historic edifices, tells the story of our 
nation. I am grateful for the thousands of professionals and volunteers 
who help to share that story with all who come to hear it.
  Over one million of these visitors come to the Supreme Court Building 
each year. They come to see, experience, and learn about the workings 
of American justice. Meeting this large demand can be taxing on the 
resources of the Court. To satisfy this need, without adding an undue 
burden to the budget, the Court has asked Congress to enact legislation 
permitting volunteers from the Supreme Court Historical Society to 
conduct public tours of the Supreme Court building.
  This legislation will provide the Court with the same benefits that 
have recently been extended to the Congress. Currently, 35 volunteers 
from the Capitol Guide Service assist Capitol visitors by providing 
historical perspective and insight. I have been told by the Capitol 
Guide Service that the influx of volunteers, allowed by legislation in 
the 104th Congress, enabled them to increase the volume of their tours 
of the Capitol by approximately twenty-five percent. Moreover, it 
provided the personnel necessary to expand their service to the 
exterior of the Capitol. Guides positioned outside the Capitol help 
direct visitors and provide information about the historic external 
architecture of this building. The use of volunteers has improved the 
experience of citizens visiting the Capitol grounds.
  The proposed legislation, like that covering congressional 
volunteers, will have no adverse fiscal impact, nor will it displace 
any Supreme Court employees. The legislation will, however, 
dramatically improve the ability of the Supreme Court to educate the 
public about this distinctly American institution.
  I believe that upon passage of this legislation, all Americans who 
visit our seat of Justice will appreciate the expanded services made 
available by its enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Moseley-
        Braun):
  S. 2145. A bill to modernize the requirements under the National 
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and 
to establish a balanced consensus process for the development, 
revision, and interpretation of Federal construction and safety 
standards for manufactured homes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.


                  manufactured housing improvement act

 Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I introduce a bipartisan bill 
with my colleagues, Senators John Rockefeller and Carol Moseley-Braun. 
Entitled the ``Manufactured Housing Improvement Act,'' (MHIA) this bill 
is designed to modernize the requirements under the National 
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and 
to establish a balanced consensus process for the development, 
revision, and interpretation of Federal construction and safety 
standards for manufactured homes.
  Many do not realize that the manufactured homes of today are 
completely different from those of twenty or even ten years ago. They 
also do not realize that this is the fastest growing segment of the 
housing industry, and that it accounts for one out of every three new 
single family homes sold. Between 1980 and 1990, the industry 
experienced a 60 percent growth in market share, and last year set a 
twenty year sales record. There are good consumer-oriented reasons for 
this tremendous growth--manufactured housing offers quality and 
aesthetically pleasing housing at an average cost of $37,300, excluding 
the land. Today, manufactured housing has lowered the threshold to the 
American Dream of home ownership for millions of Americans, including 
first-time home buyers, senior citizens, young families, and single 
parents.
  At a time when home ownership is becoming harder for the average 
American to attain, and with more than 5.3 million Americans paying 
more than 50 percent of their incomes on rent, I believe it is 
imperative to update the laws that regulate the private sector solution 
to affordable housing. In order for the manufactured housing industry 
to remain competitive, Congress must modernize the National 
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974.
  My bill would do just that. MHIA would establish a consensus 
committee that would submit recommendations to the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD) for developing, amending and revising both 
the Federal Manufactured Home Construction

[[Page S5788]]

and Safety Standards. This provision will allow the manufactured 
housing industry to update and create applicable building codes and 
standards just like other participants in the housing industry. In 
addition, the committee would be authorized to interpret the standards, 
thereby eliminating confusion and uncertainty in the market place.
  The Manufactured Housing Improvement Act would authorize the 
Secretary of HUD to use industry labeling fees for the administration 
of the consensus committee and the hiring of additional HUD staff. The 
Secretary of HUD would also be authorized to use industry label fees to 
promote the availability and affordability of manufactured housing.
  This legislation is a very significant step forward in that both the 
Manufactured Housing Institute and the Manufactured Housing Association 
for Regulatory Reform endorse this legislation. The industry 
participants have modernized the quality and technology of manufactured 
housing. Congress must now modernize the laws that regulate an industry 
that provides affordable housing and contributes more than $23 billion 
annually to our nation's economy.
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I join today with Senator 
Shelby to introduce legislation intended to strengthen the manufactured 
housing industry. Manufactured housing provides a major source of 
affordable housing for American families and seniors. This industry 
represents almost 30 percent of new single-family homes sold in the 
United States. In my state of West Virginia, manufactured housing 
represents more than 60 percent of new homes.
  Manufactured housing should play a strong role to increase the 
availability of affordable housing. This issue will be especially 
important to seniors. According to a recent national survey, 45 percent 
of households living in manufactured homes are headed by a person more 
than 50 years old.
  Manufactured housing is affordable housing, and it is the fastest 
growing type of housing nationally. The average cost of a new 
manufactured home without land in 1997 was $38,400. Even with land and 
installation fees, this cost is well below the typical costs of a newly 
constructed site-built home.
  But this industry faces challenges. Unlike other housing, 
manufactured housing is regulated by the 1974 National Manufactured 
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, (HUD). Because of reform in HUD 
management, the federal officials overseeing manufactured housing have 
declined from a staff of 34 to only eight. This decline in staff has 
occurred at the same time that the industry has grown. Unfortunately, 
due to a lack of staff, HUD cannot keep pace with the need to update 
the code on a consistent basis and timely manner. For example, there 
are new nationally recognized standards for fire protection prepared by 
the National Fire Protection Association and endorsed by the National 
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). However, there is no 
indication that HUD is ready to act on using these new standards to 
upgrade its codes for manufactured housing. In fact, between 1989 and 
1996, a consensus committee has made 140 suggestions to HUD about 
changes for the federal codes on manufactured housing. More than 80 of 
these provisions are still pending in the Department.
  In 1990, Congress established a National Commission on Manufactured 
Housing and pushed the commission to forge a consensus on key issues 
for this important industry. Unfortunately that effort collapsed in 
1994.
  This legislation is a new effort to address the challenges facing the 
industry. Introduction of the bill is just a first step. We all 
understand that the legislative process is designed to seek a consensus 
and improve legislation. I believe that we must work hard to forge a 
consensus between the industry and the consumers. This will be a 
challenge, but the potential rewards can be great for both sides. The 
industry can win and prosper with a more effective, streamlined 
regulatory process that keeps pace with improvements and standards. 
Consumers will win if safety standards and regulations are adopted more 
efficiently, such as the pending fire safety standards. Also, if the 
industry can use newer standards to provide better housing, 
manufactured housing could be designed to meet a wider variety of needs 
including modules for assisted living and stack able units for urban 
sites.
  My hope is that all sides will see this legislation as an opportunity 
to come together and develop a new, improved program for manufactured 
housing. Affordable housing is a major issue for families and 
communities. Manufactured housing is playing a key role in affordable 
housing, but more could and should be done. To achieve success, we need 
to develop a bipartisan, consensus approach. We need to help the 
industry and assure consumers that safety and standards will be 
retained and improved, not weakened. This is worth our combined effort 
to provide more affordable housing.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 2146. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain lands within 
the State of Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


              UTAH SCHOOLS AND LANDS EXCHANGE ACT OF 1998

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, nearly 2 years ago, President Clinton 
announced, from the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, the formation of the 
country's newest national monument, the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
Monument in southern Utah.
  Because of the clandestine manner by which the Administration made 
this decision and planned its announcement, what should have been cause 
for celebration among Utahns resulted in feelings of exploitation and 
abuse. Public trust in our federal government reached an all time low 
in southern Utah, and many wounds inflicted then still exist today.
  Today, I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague Senator 
Bennett, which, if passed, will help restore trust in our government 
and assist the healing process among our rural citizens in Utah.
  The Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 1998 codifies a recently 
signed agreement brokered by the Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, 
and Utah Governor Michael Leavitt to exchange Utah School Trust lands 
located within Utah's national parks, monuments, recreation areas, and 
forests for cash and federal assets in other parts of Utah. The 
collaboration that should have taken place prior to the establishment 
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument has finally taken place to 
mitigate one of the severest impacts of that presidential declaration.
  This agreement is the result of a lengthy and somewhat fragile 
negotiation, which included such critical issues as achieving the 
effective management of the public's land, preserving the environment, 
and consummating a fair and equitable exchange between the federal 
government and the State of Utah. The result is a mutually beneficial 
exchange of state and federal property that deserves the support and 
approval of the Congress.
  As my colleagues may recall, when Utah achieved statehood in 1896, a 
number of sections within each township were set aside for the support 
of the common schools. By law, these lands, known as School Trust 
Lands, are to be managed in the best possible way to generate revenue 
for Utah's school children. Several western states have a similar 
revenue plan for their public school systems.
  Utah's checkerboard pattern of land owernship--squares of federal, 
state, and private land intermingled throughout the state--has 
historically created difficulties between the federal and state 
governments. Conflicts of interest between federal and state land 
managers became more obvious and divisive as national parks, forests, 
or monuments were created.
  When federal land is set aside or designated as a national park, 
forest, or monument in Utah, our School Trust Lands are captured within 
their boundaries. In effect, the state loses its ability to generate 
revenues from these lands because they have been surrounded by lands in 
a specially protected designation. By 1990, over 200,000 acres of 
school trust land were isolated within federal designations.
  In 1993, Congress passed legislation I sponsored along with other 
delegation members--the Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act of 1993, 
P.L. 103-93--

[[Page S5789]]

to help resolve this land management situation. But implementation has 
been unsatisfactory. There have been endless arguments over appraisals 
and literally millions of dollars in expenses to the state for legal 
and research activities. For this reason alone, the legislation we are 
introducing today is necessary.
  During his announcement to establish the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument, President Clinton voiced his firm commitment that 
Utah's school children would not be negatively affected by the creation 
of the Monument. In other words, those School Trust Lands captured 
within the Monument's boundaries would be withdrawn and made fully 
available, and thus profitable, for the benefit of Utah's public 
education system. The principal purpose of this bill is to put the 
bipartisan, federal-state negotiated agreement into effect and to 
ensure that the President's promise to protect Utah's school children 
does not ring hollow. This is accomplished in several ways.
  First, as I mentioned, this bill will transfer approximately 350,000 
acres of School Trust Lands that are located within Utah monuments, 
recreations areas, national parks, and forests, to the federal 
government. These lands are similar in nature to the adjacent federal 
lands and are deserving of the same designation and special management 
considerations as their federal neighbors. This exchange harmonizes the 
land ownership pattern within Utah's national parks, forests and 
monuments, thus eliminating any competing management objectives within 
these designations. The American people will be greatly benefited once 
the entire acreage within a park or forest is federal land.
  Let me assure my colleagues that those lands to be acquired by the 
federal government are just as extraordinary as the adjacent federal 
lands.
  For example, this acreage includes: Eye of the Whale Arch, located in 
Arches National Park; the Perfect Ruin (an Anasazi ruin) and the Jacob 
Hamblin Arch of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; several hundred 
foot red rock cliffs located within in the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument; and the high mountain alpine area in the Wasatch-
Cache National Forest known as Franklin Basin. It includes many other 
exciting natural wonders, such as ancient Native American rock art 
panels in Dinosaur National Monument and unique geologic formations of 
the Waterpocket Fold within Capitol Reef National Park.
  Our proposal will protect these and other precious land forms by 
transferring their ownership to the federal government.
  For its part, the State of Utah will receive $50,000,000 in cash 
previously set aside in the 103rd Congress for P.L. 103-93. This money 
has already been appropriated and thus there is no budgetary impact 
caused by this bill. An additional $13,000,000 produced from unleased 
coal sales will also be forthcoming to the State. These funds will all 
be deposited to the Utah Permanent School Fund for the benefit of 
Utah's current and future school children.
  In addition, under the terms of the agreement, the State will gain 
access to 160 million tons of coal, 185 billion cubic feet of coal bed 
methane resources, 139,000 acres of land and minerals located in nine 
Utah counties, and a variety of minerals including limestone, tar 
sands, oil, and gas.
  Coal reserves the state will receive include the Mill Fork Tract and 
North Horn Tract in Emery County; the West Ridge Tract in Carbon 
County; and the Muddy Creek and Dugout Canyon Tracts located in both 
Carbon and Emery Counties.
  The coal bed methane resources acquired by the state are situated in 
the Ferron Field, located in Carbon and Emery counties, and totals 
58,000 acres.
  Finally, the agreement provides for additional state acquisitions, 
including limestone deposits, oil and gas properties, and Tar Sands, 
and several properties identified in 1993 will be transferred to state 
control: the Blue Mountain Telecommunication Site, located in Uintah 
County, and the Beaver Mountain ski resort in Cache County.
  Mr. President, in closing let me mention one important point 
regarding the Babbitt-Leavitt agreement to be effectuated by the 
legislation we are introducing today. The entire exchange is of 
approximately equal value. This is a delicately structured package that 
includes an exchange of state lands for federal assets. Each party to 
the agreement recognizes this fact, which is the glue keeping this 
agreement together.
  And, while protecting the interests of both the State of Utah and the 
federal government, the agreement and the bill also protect existing 
stakeholders, such as the affected local governments and the valid 
existing rights of permittees, such as ranchers and mining leases. As I 
mentioned earlier, the important fact to keep in mind is there is no 
impact to the federal budget from this legislation.
  Mr. President, Secretary Babbitt and Governor Leavitt have achieved 
an historic agreement that is truly remarkable. The State of Utah has 
been trying to exchange School Trust Lands captured within federal 
reservations for decades, thus allowing these lands to be profitably 
utilized for the benefit of Utah's school children. We now have an 
opportunity through this agreement to reach this worthwhile goal.
  I hope that the Senate will seriously review this agreement and this 
legislation will add its support with little, if any, alteration. I 
believe this proposal is necessary and will provide substantial benefit 
to the people of Utah and the citizens of this country.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator 
Hatch in introducing the Utah School Lands Exchange Act. This 
legislation is the result of months of negotiations between the Utah 
School and Institutional Trust Administration (SITLA), the Governor of 
Utah and the Secretary of Interior.
  Utah is a mosaic of land ownership and the federal government is the 
largest landlord. With 22 million acres under BLM management alone, 
eight million acres under the United States Forest Service and another 
three million in National Parks and Monuments, public lands issues 
command considerable attention in my state. This is complicated by the 
1894 Enabling Act which created a checkerboard pattern of state 
ownership among federal lands, intermingling five sections of state 
lands in every township. The federal government and the state of Utah 
have been trying to resolve the thorny issue of how to manage or 
dispose of these trust lands for well over a half century now. My 
father attempted to bring some resolution to the issue when he served 
in this body more than forty years ago.
  In 1993, after extensive negotiations, Congress passed P.L. 103-93 
which set in motion a process to exchange lands out of Utah's National 
Parks and Forest lands for other parcels within the state. The process 
was marginally successful at best, due to the complex process of 
appraisals and arbitration established by the legislation. Of the 500 
plus parcels identified in that exchange over five years ago, less than 
forty have actually been exchanged to date. The trust lands issue was 
further complicated by the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument in September of 1996. Without going into details, 
176,000 acres of School Trust Lands were locked up by the creation of 
the Monument. President Clinton promised to use his office to 
facilitate the prompt exchange of these lands. Most Utahns were 
skeptical that this would actually happen. In fact, SITLA and the Utah 
Association of Counties filed suit over the creation of the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
  Now, nearly two years later, the Clinton Administration has reached a 
historic agreement with the Governor of Utah and SITLA to exchange 
376,000 acres of state lands for 138,000 acres of federal lands. This 
agreement fulfills the President's commitment to the schoolchildren of 
Utah and reduces the uncertainty over the future management of the 
Monument. I hope my colleagues understand that it is in the best 
interest of the federal government to exchange these lands promptly.
  This proposal benefits the school children of Utah as well as the 
visitors and users of public lands. In exchange for lands encumbered 
within parks, forests and the Monument, the state of Utah will receive 
just compensation in the form of mineral assets, comparable lands 
within the state and a sizable cash payment. These assets will be 
administered by the State Institutional

[[Page S5790]]

Trust Lands Administration for the improvement of public education in 
Utah. In that context, we must support this agreement. We have a 
responsibility to help SITLA fulfill its mandate and utilize these 
lands for the greatest benefit to the children of Utah. Without this 
exchange, these lands, despite their significant mineral potential, 
will remain unproductive.
  At a time of competing interests and lack of consensus regarding land 
use in Utah, this is a step in the right direction. I believe that the 
agreement reached between the state and the Department of Interior 
bridges the gap that has existed for decades. While some interests are 
not totally satisfied, I believe the legislation we are introducing 
today is a fair and equitable agreement. I am also confident that the 
Committee will listen closely to those parties and make a good-faith 
effort to resolve any lingering concerns.
  I appreciate the good work of my colleague Senator Hatch, Governor 
Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt, as well as our colleagues in the House. 
I am confident that we will see a resolution to this longstanding 
debate in the 105th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill 
and bring this issue to closure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2147. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a deduction for two-earner married couples, to allow self-employed 
individuals a 100-percent deduction for health insurance costs, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                      marriage penalty tax relief

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to introduce 
legislation to encourage family and work and to facilitate the purchase 
of affordable health insurance by self-employed individuals.
  It is no secret to many married Americans that the tax code often 
penalizes marriage. An estimated 21 million American couples with two 
breadwinners pay more than if they had remained single and filed 
separate tax returns--an average of nearly $1,400 more.
  The marriage penalty is justifiably one of the most unpopular aspects 
of our tax system, second only to the complexity of the tax code. The 
federal government should be encouraging family and work, not 
discouraging them through disincentives in the tax code or any other 
area of public policy.
  The bill I am introducing today would significantly reduce the added 
tax burden that many middle and lower income couples face when both 
spouses work. It will do so by providing an above-the-line 20 percent 
deduction against the earnings of the lesser earning spouse. The 20 
percent deduction would be phased out between family adjusted gross 
incomes of $50,000 and $60,000. It would also be applied against the 
calculation of earned income for the purpose of determining eligibility 
for the Earned Income Credit, increasing the size of these refundable 
credits for a large number of families with incomes between $10,000 and 
$30,000. Finally, the bill would accelerate the date at which health 
insurance costs incurred by the self-employed become fully deductible. 
This is necessary to place farmers and small businessmen and women on 
the same footing as large, established companies when they purchase 
health insurance.
  Congress has wrestled with the marriage penalty problem several times 
during the past century in an attempt to reconcile two goals that 
cannot always be satisfied simultaneously in the context of a 
progressive tax system. The first is to ensure that a couple's total 
tax is the same, irrespective of the breakdown of earnings between 
spouses. The second is to ensure that couples will be taxed the same 
irrespective of whether they are married or still single.
  Before 1969, the tax code treated married couples as if they were 
composed of two single individuals. This avoided penalties on marriage, 
but it created higher rates on single taxpayers than married couples in 
cases in which one spouse earned all or most of the couple's income. 
Joint returns were computed by applying the normal rates to one-half of 
the couple's aggregate taxable income and multiplying the resulting 
amount by two. Single taxpayers' returns were computed by applying the 
normal rates to the full taxable income, causing a greater amount of 
the income to be taxed at a higher marginal rate.
  When Congress acted in 1969 to redress the perceived inequity to 
single taxpayers, it created the modern-day marriage penalty by causing 
some married couples who file a joint return to pay more tax than would 
two single persons with the same total income. Congress based its 
action on the assumption that a married couple's expenses are lower 
than those of two single persons having separate households.
  The time has come to reexamine this tradeoff, which was made nearly 
thirty years ago. Doing so, however, will require us to confront hard 
budgetary realities. Complete elimination of the marriage penalty 
without also eliminating the marriage bonus would cost an estimated $29 
billion per year, a sum that is far in excess of what can be afforded 
while maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget and the use of 
budget surpluses for Social Security reform. While the drive to pay 
down the national debt and save Social Security will make comprehensive 
reform of the marriage penalty difficult any time soon, more targeted 
efforts are not only possible, they are the right thing to do.
  We have an historic opportunity to redress the unjustified added tax 
burden we place on some married couples without undermining our 
commitment to pass an effective national tobacco policy and enact 
reforms to save Social Security. My bill would sharply reduce the 
marriage tax penalty for most couples with incomes of less than $60,000 
at a fraction of the budgetary cost of other marriage penalty tax 
proposals, such as that offered by Senator Gramm of Texas to increase 
deductions for all married couples. The reason is that these other 
proposals fail to distinguish between couples who incur a penalty and 
those who enjoy a marriage bonus. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that about 29 million families, those in which one spouse 
earns much more than the other, currently pay less than if they had 
filed single returns--an average of $1,300 less. Senator Gramm's 
proposal and others like it dilute the amount of tax relief they are 
able to deliver to penalized couples by providing just as much of a tax 
cut to couples who receive a bonus.
  By targeting its tax relief more directly on the couples who 
experience a marriage penalty, my bill would reduce this penalty far 
more for most families with incomes below $60,000 than competing 
approaches. For Example, in the case of a couple making $35,000, split 
$20,000 and $15,000 between the two spouses, my proposal would provide 
an additional tax deduction of $3,000 (i.e., 15% of $15,000). This is 
over twice as much marriage penalty tax relief as could be provided at 
a comparable cost by a proposal to increase the deduction for all joint 
filers. Similarly, for a couple making $50,000 divided evenly between 
the two spouses, my bill would provide a $5,000 deduction (20% of 
$25,000), representing more than three times as much tax as a proposal 
that costs the same but extends a supplemental deduction to all married 
couples.
  We simply do not have the luxury of applying tax relief 
indiscriminately if we are to make good on our other commitments, 
whether they be passage of an effective tobacco bill that reduces youth 
smoking or preservation of budget surpluses for the difficult task of 
shoring up the financing of the Social Security system. The legislation 
I introduce today is aimed at demonstrating that we can reconcile our 
competing priorities. We can do right by married couples incurring a 
tax penalty and farmers and small businesses who must purchase their 
own health insurance at the same that we do right by our children and 
our growing population of seniors.
  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. 2147

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

     SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR TWO-EARNER MARRIED COUPLES.

       (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of

[[Page S5791]]

     1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for 
     individuals) is amended by redesignating section 222 as 
     section 223 and by inserting after section 221 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 222. DEDUCTION FOR MARRIED COUPLES TO ELIMINATE THE 
                   MARRIAGE PENALTY.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a joint return under 
     section 6013 for the taxable year, there shall be allowed as 
     a deduction an amount equal to the applicable percentage of 
     the qualified earned income of the spouse with the lower 
     qualified earned income for the taxable year.
       ``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means 
     20 percent, reduced by 2 percentage points for each $1,000 
     (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer's modified 
     adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds $50,000.
       ``(2) Transition rule for 1999 and 2000.--In the case of 
     taxable years beginning in 1999 and 2000, paragraph (1) shall 
     be applied by substituting `10 percent' for `20 percent' and 
     `1 percentage point' for `2 percentage points'.
       ``(3) Modified adjusted gross income.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means 
     adjusted gross income determined--
       ``(A) after application of sections 86,219, and 469, and
       ``(B) without regard to sections 135, 137, and 911 or the 
     deduction allowable under this section.
       ``(4) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of any 
     taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2002, the 
     $50,000 amount under paragraph (1) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-
     living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
     calendar year in which the taxable year begins, except that 
     subparagraph (B) thereof shall be applied by substituting 
     `calendar year 2002' for `calendar year 1992'. If any amount 
     as adjusted under this paragraph is not a multiple of $2,000, 
     such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of 
     $2,000.
       ``(c) Qualified Earned Income Defined.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified earned income' means an amount equal to the excess 
     of--
       ``(A) the earned income of the spouse for the taxable year, 
     over
       ``(B) an amount equal to the sum of the deductions 
     described in paragraphs (1), (2), (7), and (25) of section 62 
     to the extent such deductions are properly allocable to or 
     chargeable against earned income described in subparagraph 
     (A).

     The amount of qualified earned income shall be determined 
     without regard to any community property laws.''
       ``(2) Earned income.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `earned income' means income which is earned income 
     within the meaning of section 911(d)(2) or 401(c)(2)(C), 
     except that--
       ``(A) such term shall not include any amount--
       ``(i) not includible in gross income,
       ``(ii) received as a pension or annuity,
       ``(iii) paid or distributed out of an individual retirement 
     plan (within the meaning of section 7701(a)(37)),
       ``(iv) received as deferred compensation, or
       ``(v) received for services performed by an individual in 
     the employ of his spouse (within the meaning of section 
     3121(b)(3)(A)), and
       ``(B) section 911(d)(2)(B) shall be applied without regard 
     to the phrase `not in excess of 30 percent of his share of 
     net profits of such trade or business'.''
       (b) Deduction To Be Above-the-Line.--Section 62(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross 
     income) is amended by adding after paragraph (17) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Deduction for two-earner married couples.--The 
     deduction allowed by section 222.''
       (c) Earned Income Credit Phaseout To Reflect Deduction.--
     Section 32(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (defining earned income) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Marriage penalty reduction.--Solely for purposes of 
     applying subsection (a)(2)(B), earned income for any taxable 
     year shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount of the 
     deduction allowed to the taxpayer for such taxable year under 
     section 222.''
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 222 and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 222. Deduction for married couples to eliminate the marriage 
              penalty.
``Sec. 223. Cross reference.''

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS FOR SELF-
                   EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Allowance of deduction.--In the case of an individual 
     who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), 
     there shall be allowed as a deduction under this section an 
     amount equal to 100 percent (75 percent in the case of 
     taxable years beginning in 1999 and 2000) of the amount paid 
     during the taxable year for insurance which constitutes 
     medical care for the taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 2148. A bill to protect religious liberty; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


              THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PROTECTION ACT of 1998

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of 
Rights is the freedom to believe and to put those beliefs into practice 
as we think right, without government interference. This promise of 
freedom of worship is, for many, this country's founding principle--the 
pilgrims' reason for braving thousands of miles of dark and dangerous 
seas, and countless privations once here. The Constitutional guarantee 
of the free exercise of religion for all has been a beacon to the world 
throughout our history.
  In America, priests should not be punished for declining to violate 
the confidence of the confessional to turn state's evidence against 
religious confessors. In America, the ability of citizens to hold 
private Bible studies in their own homes or the freedom of synagogues 
and churches to locate near their members should not be left entirely 
to the whims of local zoning boards. Congregants of any faith should 
not be told by the government who they can and cannot have as religious 
leaders and teachers. No, not in America.
  Last year, when the Supreme Court struck down part of the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act in the case of City of Boerne versus Flores 
(117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997))--an Act that sought to redress a threat to 
religious liberty of the Court's own making--we who value the free 
exercise of religion vowed we would rebuild our coalition and craft a 
solution which appropriately defers to the Court's decision. Well, we 
have done so, and we are ready to move forward.
  We introduce today legislation that uses the full extent of our 
powers to make government cognizant of and solicitous of the freedom of 
each American to serve his or her concept of God. Where adjustment in 
general rules can possibly be made to accommodate this most basic 
liberty, it ought and must be made. As our government exists to 
guarantee such freedoms, government should only in the rarest instances 
itself infringe on this most basic and foundational freedom.
  We have worked together across party lines and with a coalition of 
truly remarkable breadth to fashion federal legislation to protect 
religious liberty that is consistent with both the vision of the 
Framers of the First Amendment and the ruling of the current Supreme 
Court about Congress' power to legislate in this area.
  The legislation that we introduce today will subject to strict 
scrutiny laws that substantially burden religious exercise in those 
areas within legitimate federal reach through either the commerce or 
spending powers, and provides procedural helps to ensure a full day in 
court for believers who must litigate to vindicate Free Exercise claims 
in areas of predominantly state jurisdiction. The legislation seeks to 
protect religious activity even in the face of general legislative 
rules that make that worship difficult or impossible through 
unawareness, insensitivity, or hidden hostility
  We believe we have constructed legislation that can merit the support 
of all who value the free exercise of religion, our first freedom. We 
commend it to our colleagues in the Congress, and to all those who wish 
to keep the Framers' promise of religious freedom alive for all 
Americans of all faiths.
  Mr. President, I commend this important legislation to my colleagues 
for their support. It is backed by an unprecedented coalition ranging 
from Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the Southern 
Baptist Convention to People for the American Way and the ACLU. I also 
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and an explanatory 
section by section analysis be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2148

       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 ``Religious Liberty Protection 
     Act of 1998''.

[[Page S5792]]

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE.

       (a) General Rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     government shall not substantially burden a person's 
     religious exercise--
       (1) in a program or activity, operated by a government, 
     that receives Federal financial assistance; or
       (2) in or affecting commerce with foreign nations, among 
     the several States, or with the Indian tribes;

     even if the burden results from a rule of general 
     applicability.
       (b) Exception.--A government may substantially burden a 
     person's religious exercise if the government demonstrates 
     that application of the burden to the person--
       (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental 
     interest; and
       (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that 
     compelling governmental interest.
       (c) Funding Not Affected.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize the United States to deny or withhold 
     Federal financial assistance as a remedy for a violation of 
     this Act.
       (d) State Policy Not Commandeered.--A government may 
     eliminate the substantial burden on religious exercise by 
     changing the policy that results in the burden, by retaining 
     the policy and exempting the religious exercise from that 
     policy, or by any other means that eliminates the burden.
       (e) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``government'' means a branch, department, 
     agency, instrumentality, subdivision, or official of a State 
     (or other person acting under color of State law);
       (2) the term ``program or activity'' means a program or 
     activity as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 606 of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a); and
       (3) the term ``demonstrates'' means meets the burdens of 
     going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

       (a) Procedure.--If a claimant produces prima facie evidence 
     to support a claim of a violation of the Free Exercise 
     Clause, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on 
     all issues relating to the claim, except any issue as to the 
     existence of the burden on religious exercise.
       (b) Land Use Regulation.--
       (1) Limitation on land use regulation.--No government shall 
     impose a land use regulation that--
       (A) substantially burdens religious exercise, unless the 
     burden is the least restrictive means to prevent substantial 
     and tangible harm to neighboring properties or to the public 
     health or safety;
       (B) denies religious assemblies a reasonable location in 
     the jurisdiction; or
       (C) excludes religious assemblies from areas in which 
     nonreligious assemblies are permitted.
       (2) Full faith and credit.--Adjudication of a claim of a 
     violation of this subsection in a non-Federal forum shall be 
     entitled to full faith and credit in a Federal court only if 
     the claimant had a full and fair adjudication of that claim 
     in the non-Federal forum.
       (3) Nonpreemption.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     preempt State law that is equally or more protective of 
     religious exercise.
       (4) Nonapplication of Other Portions of this Act.--Section 
     2 does not apply to land use regulation.

     SEC. 4. JUDICIAL RELIEF.

       (a) Cause of Action.--A person may assert a violation of 
     this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and 
     obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to 
     assert a claim or defense under this section shall be 
     governed by the general rules of standing under article III 
     of the Constitution.
       (b) Attorneys' Fees.--Section 722(b) of the Revised 
     Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 
     1998,'' after ``Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,''; 
     and
       (2) by striking the comma that follows a comma.
       (c) Prisoners.--Any litigation under this Act in which the 
     claimant is a prisoner shall be subject to the Prison 
     Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (including provisions of law 
     amended by that Act).
       (d) Liability of Governments.--
       (1) Liability of states.--A State shall not be immune under 
     the 11th amendment to the Constitution from a civil action, 
     for a violation of the Free Exercise Clause under section 3, 
     including a civil action for money damages.
       (2) Liability of the united states.--The United States 
     shall not be immune from any civil action, for a violation of 
     the Free Exercise Clause under section 3, including a civil 
     action for money damages.

     SEC. 5. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Religious Belief Unaffected.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to authorize any government to burden any 
     religious belief.
       (b) Religious Exercise Not Regulated.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall create any basis for regulation of religious exercise 
     or for claims against a religious organization, including any 
     religiously affiliated school or university, not acting under 
     color of law.
       (c) Claims to Funding Unaffected.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall create or preclude a right of any religious 
     organization to receive funding or other assistance from a 
     government, or of any person to receive government funding 
     for a religious activity, but this Act may require government 
     to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a 
     burden or a substantial burden on religious exercise.
       (d) Other Authority To Impose Conditions on Funding 
     Unaffected.--Nothing in this Act shall--
       (1) authorize a government to regulate or affect, directly 
     or indirectly, the activities or policies of a person other 
     than a government as a condition of receiving funding or 
     other assistance; or
       (2) restrict any authority that may exist under other law 
     to so regulate or affect, except as provided in this Act.
       (e) Effect on On Other Law.--Proof that a religious 
     exercise affects commerce for the purposes of this Act does 
     not give rise to any inference or presumption that the 
     religious exercise is subject to any other law regulating 
     commerce.
       (f) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or of an 
     amendment made by this Act, or any application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments 
     made by this Act, and the application of the provision to any 
     other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

     SEC. 6. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, 
     interpret, or in any way address that portion of the first 
     amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an 
     establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Establishment Clause''). Granting government funding, 
     benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the 
     Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of 
     this Act. As used in this section, the term ``granting'', 
     used with respect to government funding, benefits, or 
     exemptions, does not include the denial of government 
     funding, benefits, or exemptions.

     SEC. 7. AMENDMENTS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 5 of the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb-2) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a State, or subdivision 
     of a State'' and inserting ``a covered entity or a 
     subdivision of such an entity'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``term'' and all that 
     follows through ``includes'' and inserting ``term `covered 
     entity' means''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking all after ``means,'' and 
     inserting ``an act or refusal to act that is substantially 
     motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the act or 
     refusal is compulsory or central to a larger system of 
     religious belief.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6(a) of the Religious 
     Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb-3(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``and State''.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``religious exercise'' means an act or refusal 
     to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, 
     whether or not the act or refusal is compulsory or central to 
     a larger system of religious belief;
       (2) the term ``Free Exercise Clause'' means that portion of 
     the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws 
     prohibiting the free exercise of religion and includes the 
     application of that proscription under the 14th amendment to 
     the Constitution; and
       (3) except as otherwise provided in this Act, the term 
     ``government'' means a branch, department, agency, 
     instrumentality, subdivision, or official of a State, or 
     other person acting under color of State law, or a branch, 
     department, agency, instrumentality, subdivision, or official 
     of the United States, or other person acting under color of 
     Federal law.
                                  ____



 Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998--Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 1. This section provides that the title of the Act 
     is the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998.
       Section 2. Section 2(a) tracks the substantive language of 
     the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, providing that 
     government shall not substantially burden a person's 
     religious exercise, and applies that language to cases within 
     the spending power and the commerce power. Section 2(b) also 
     tracks RFRA. It states the compelling interest exception to 
     the general rule that government may not substantially burden 
     religious exercise.
       Section 2(a)(1) specifies the spending power applications. 
     The bill applies to programs or activities operated by a 
     government and receiving federal financial assistance. 
     ``Government'' is defined in Sec. 2(e)(1) to include persons 
     acting under color of state law. In general, a private-sector 
     grantee acts under color of law only when the government 
     retains sufficient control that ``the alleged infringement of 
     federal rights [is] `fairly attributable to the State.' '' 
     Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982). Private-
     sector grantees not acting under color of law are excluded 
     from the bill for multiple reasons: because it is difficult 
     to foresee the consequences of applying the bill to such a 
     diverse range of organizations, because applying the bill to 
     religious organizations would create conflicting rights under 
     the same statute and might restrict religious liberty rather 
     than protect it, and because the free exercise of religion 
     has historically been protected primarily against government 
     action and this bill is not designed to change that.

[[Page S5793]]

       Section 2(a)(2) applies the bill to religious exercise in 
     or affecting commerce among the States, with foreign nations, 
     or with the Indian tribes. The language is unqualified and 
     exercises the full constitutional limit of the commerce 
     power, whatever that may be. The provision is tautologically 
     constitutional; to the extent that the commerce power does 
     not reach some religious activities, the bill does not reach 
     them either. To the extent that this leaves some religious 
     exercise outside the protections of the bill, that is an 
     unavoidable consequence of constitutional limitations on 
     Congressional authority.
       Section 2(c) prevents any threat of withholding all federal 
     funds from a program or activity. The exclusive remedies are 
     set out in Sec. 4.
       Section 2(d) emphasizes that this bill does not require 
     states to pursue any particular public policy or to abandon 
     any policy, but that each State is free to choose its own 
     means of eliminating substantial burdens on religious 
     exercise.
       Section 2(e) contains definitions for purposes of Sec. 2.
       The definition of ``government'' in Sec. 2(e)(1) tracks 
     RFRA, except that the United States and its agencies are 
     excluded. The United States remains subject to the 
     substantially identical provisions of RFRA and need not be 
     included here.
       Section 2(e)(2) incorporates part of the definition of 
     ``program or activity'' from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964--the part that describes programs and activities 
     operated by governments. This definition ensures that federal 
     regulation is confined to the program or activity that 
     receives federal aid, and does not extend to everything a 
     state does. The constitutionality of the Title VI definition 
     has not been seriously questioned.
       The definition of ``demonstrates'' in Sec. 2(e)(3) is taken 
     verbatim from RFRA.
       Section 3. This section enforces the Free Exercise Clause 
     as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Section 3(a) provides 
     generally that if a complaining party produces prima facie 
     evidence of a free exercise violation, the government then 
     bears the burden of persuasion on all issues except burden on 
     religious exercise.
       This provision applies to any means of proving a free 
     exercise violation recognized under judicial interpretations. 
     See generally Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City 
     of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993); Employment Division v. 
     Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Thus, if the claimant shows a 
     burden on religious exercise and prima facie evidence of an 
     anti-religious motivation, government would bear the burden 
     of persuasion on the question of motivation. If the claimant 
     shows a burden on religious exercise and prima facie evidence 
     that the burdensome law is not generally applicable, 
     government would bear the burden of persuasion on the 
     question of general applicability. If the claimant shows a 
     burden on religion and prima facie evidence of a hybrid 
     right, government would bear the burden of persuasion on the 
     claim of hybrid right. In general, where there is a burden on 
     religious exercise and prima facie evidence of a 
     constitutional violation, the risk of nonpersuasion is to be 
     allocated in favor of protecting the constitutional right.
       Section 3(b) provides prophylactic rules to prevent 
     violations of the Court's constitutional tests as applied to 
     land use regulation. Land use regulation is administered 
     through highly individualized processes, often without 
     generally applicable rules. These individualized processes 
     are conducive to discrimination that is difficult to prove in 
     any individual case, but there appears to be a pattern of 
     religious discrimination when large numbers of cases are 
     examined. Section 3(b)(1) provides that land use regulation 
     may not substantially burden religious exercise, except where 
     necessary to prevent substantial and tangible harm, that 
     jurisdictions may not deny religious assemblies a reasonable 
     location somewhere within each jurisdiction, and that 
     religious assemblies may not be excluded from areas where 
     nonreligious assemblies are permitted.
       Subsection 3(b)(2) guarantees a full and fair adjudication 
     of land use claims under subsection (b). Procedural rules 
     before land use authorities may vary widely; any procedure 
     that permits full and fair adjudication of the federal claim 
     would be entitled to full faith and credit in federal court. 
     But if, for example, a zoning board with limited authority 
     refuses to consider the federal claim, does not provide 
     discovery, or refuses to permit introduction of evidence 
     reasonably necessary to resolution of the federal claim, 
     its determination would not be entitled to full faith and 
     credit in federal court. And if in such a case, a state 
     court confines the parties to the record from the zoning 
     board, so that the federal claim still can not be 
     effectively adjudicated, the state court decision would 
     not be entitled to full faith and credit either.
       Subsection 3(b)(3) provides that equally or more protective 
     state law is not preempted. Subsection 3(b)(4) provides that 
     Sec. 2 shall not apply to land use cases. The more detailed 
     standards of Sec. 3(b) control over the more general language 
     of Sec. 2.
       Section 4. This section provides remedies for violations. 
     Sections 4(a) and (b) track RFRA, creating a cause of action 
     for damages, injunction, and declaratory judgment, creating a 
     defense to liability, and providing for attorneys' fees.
       Section 4(c) subjects prisoner claims to the Prison 
     Litigation Reform Act. This permits meritorious prisoner 
     claims to proceed while effectively discouraging frivolous 
     claims; prisoner claims generally dropped nearly a third in 
     one year after the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Crawford-El 
     v. Britton, 66 U.S.L.W. 4311, 4317 n.18 (May 4, 1998).
       Section 4(d)(1) overrides the states' Eleventh Amendment 
     immunity in cases in which the claimant shows a violation of 
     the Free Exercise Clause, enforced under Sec. 3. Section 
     4(d)(2) waives the sovereign immunity of the United States in 
     the same cases. This override of state immunity and waiver of 
     federal immunity do not apply to statutory claims under 
     Sec. 2.
       Section 5. This section states several rules of 
     construction designed to clarify the meaning of all the other 
     provisions. Section 5(a) tracks RFRA, providing that nothing 
     in the bill authorizes government to burden religious belief. 
     Section 5(b) provides that nothing in the bill creates any 
     basis for regulating or suing any religious organization not 
     acting under color of law. These two subsections serve the 
     bill's central purpose of protecting religious liberty, and 
     avoid any unintended consequence of reducing religious 
     liberty.
       Sections 5(c) and 5(d) were carefully designed to keep this 
     bill neutral on all disputed questions about government 
     financial assistance to religious organizations and religious 
     activities. Section 5(c) states neutrality on whether such 
     assistance can or must be provided at all. Section 5(d) 
     states neutrality on the scope of existing authority to 
     regulate private entities as a condition of receiving such 
     aid. Section 5(d)(1) provides that nothing in the bill 
     authorizes additional regulation of such entities; 
     Sec. 5(d)(2), in an abundance of caution, provides that 
     existing regulatory authority is not restricted except as 
     provided in the bill. Agencies with authority to regulate the 
     receipt of federal funds retain such authority, but their 
     specific regulations may not substantially burden religious 
     exercise without compelling justification.
       Section 5(e) provides that proof that a religious exercise 
     affects commerce for purposes of this bill does not give rise 
     to an inference or presumption that the religious exercise is 
     subject to any other statute regulating commerce. Different 
     statutes exercise the commerce power to different degrees, 
     and the courts presume that federal statutes do not regulate 
     religious organizations unless Congress manifested the intent 
     to do so. NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, 440 U.S. 490 (1990).
       Section 5(f) states that each provision and application of 
     the bill shall be severable from every other provision and 
     application.
       Section 6. This section is taken verbatim from RFRA. It is 
     language designed to state neutrality on all disputed issues 
     under the Establishment Clause.
       Section 7. This section amends RFRA to delete any 
     application to the states and to leave RFRA applicable only 
     to the federal government. Section 7(a)(3) amends the 
     definition of ``religious exercise'' in RFRA to clarify that 
     religious exercise need not be compulsory or central to a 
     larger system of religious belief.
       Section 8. This section defines important terms used 
     throughout the Act.
       Section 8(1) defines ``religious exercise'' to clarify two 
     issues that had divided courts under RFRA: religious exercise 
     need not be compulsory or central to a larger system of 
     religious belief.
       Section 8(2) defines ``Free Exercise Clause'' to include 
     the First Amendment clause, which binds the United States, 
     and also the incorporation of that clause into the Fourteenth 
     Amendment, which binds the States.
       Section 8(3) defines ``government'' to include both state 
     and federal entities and persons acting under color of either 
     state or federal law. This tracks the RFRA definition. The 
     free exercise enforcement provisions of Sec. 3 and the 
     remedies provisions of Sec. 4 supplement RFRA, and these 
     provisions are subject to the rules of construction in 
     Sec. 5; each of these sections applies to both state and 
     federal governments. This definition does not apply in 
     Sec. 2, which has its own definition that reaches only state 
     entities and persons acting under color of state law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 2149. A bill to transfer certain public lands in northeastern 
Nevada; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           the northeastern nevada public lands transfer act

 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to introduce The Northeastern 
Nevada Public Lands Transfer. This Act provides for the transfer of 
Federal land to the Cities of Wendover, Carlin, and Wells and the Town 
of Jackpot, all in Elko County, Nevada.
  Mr. President, the rural communities in northeastern Nevada, are 
growing. For example, in 1997, the City of West Wendover was certified 
as Nevada's fastest growing city. These communities are surrounded by 
Federal lands, with every little private land available for expansion 
and growth. In addition, because over 71 percent of the land in Elko 
County is in Federal ownership, these local governments do not have the 
resources to just go out and buy more land.

[[Page S5794]]

  Mr. President, the property being conveyed in this Act has been 
determined to be important to the industrial, commercial, residential, 
infrastructure, and recreational needs of the citizens of Elko County. 
Conveying these lands in one transaction provides the county certainty 
about its future, which will allow it to diversify its economy and 
develop these properties in a planned and orderly manner.
  Mr. President, Elko County has valid concerns about its future. The 
gaming and tourism industry is the primary employer, and every 
indication is that it will remain healthy. However, an economy, based 
on a single industry, bears an inherent risk of failure.
  Mr. President, the City of West Wendover, in conjunction with the 
North Eastern Development Authority, has recently completed a 
countywide Economic Development Plan, which emphasizes the importance 
of economic diversification as its primary goal. This plan promotes 
quality development which enhances the quality of life for Elko County 
residents. West Wendover, Nevada has currently spent $100,000 for the 
Environmental Assessment and the Baseline Assessment, an Air Force 
prerequisite for land conveyance. In addition, the West Wendover City 
Council and the Nevada Rural Development Authority have indicated that 
they are committed to working together to ensure that economic 
development in the area is accomplished through a logical, well 
considered development plan.
  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the Northeastern 
Nevada Public Lands Transfer Act to be printed in the Record.

                                S. 2149

       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 ``Northeastern Nevada Public 
     Lands Transfer Act''.

     SEC. 2. AIR FORCE LAND CONVEYANCE, WENDOVER AIR FORCE BASE 
                   AUXILIARY FIELD, NEVADA

       (a) Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and subject to subsection (c), the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall convey, without 
     consideration, to the City of West Wendover, Nevada (in this 
     section referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the property 
     described in paragraph (2), for purposes of permitting the 
     City to develop the parcels for economic and public purposes.
       (2) Property description.--The property described in this 
     paragraph is the land consisting of approximately 15,093 
     acres of land, including any improvements, located within the 
     Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field, described as 
     follows: Township 32 North, Range 69 East; Township 32 North, 
     Range 70 East; and Township 33 North, Range 70 East; Mount 
     Diablo Base and Meridian, being more particularly described 
     as: All of Section 24 less the United States Alternate Route 
     93 right-of-way and those portions of sections 12 and 13 east 
     of the east right-of-way line of United States Alternate 
     Route 93 in Township 32 North, Range 69 East; all of sections 
     3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and the 
     portions of sections 6 and 7 east of the east right-of-way 
     line of United States Alternate Route 93 in Township 32 
     North, Range 70 East; all of sections 22, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 
     and the portions of sections 16, 20, 21, 29, 30, and 31 east 
     of the east right-of-way line of United States Alternate 
     Route 93 and the portion of section 15 east of the east 
     right-of-way line of U.S. Alternate Route 93 and south of the 
     south right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad Company 
     right-of-way in Township 33 North, Range 70 East, not 
     including the land comprising the Lower Jim's Mobile Home 
     Park, Scobie Mobile Home Park, Ventura Mobile Home Park, 
     Airport Way, Scobie Drive, or Opal Drive.
       (b) Exception from Screening Requirement.--The Secretary 
     shall make the conveyance under subsection (a) without regard 
     to the requirement under section 2696 of title 10, United 
     States Code, that the property be screened for further 
     Federal use in accordance with the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (c) Hazardous Materials.--
       (1) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete hazardous 
     material surveys with respect to the property to be conveyed 
     under subsection (a) in order to identify any needed 
     corrective actions that are required with respect to such 
     property.
       (2) Corrective actions.--The Secretary shall take any 
     corrective actions that are identified by the surveys under 
     paragraph (1) as soon as practicable after the surveys.
       (3) Postponement of conveyance.--The Secretary may not 
     carry out the conveyance of any property under subsection (a) 
     that is identified under paragraph (1) as requiring 
     corrective actions until the Secretary completes the 
     corrective actions.
       (d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey mutually 
     satisfactory to the Secretary and the City. The cost of the 
     survey shall be borne by the City.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
       (f) Withdrawal.--The public land described in subsection 
     (a) is withdrawn from the operation of the mining and mineral 
     leasing laws of the United States.

     SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS TO THE CITY OF 
                   CARLIN, THE CITY OF WELLS, AND THE TOWN OF 
                   JACKPOT, NEVADA.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, shall 
     convey without consideration, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States, subject to all valid existing rights, 
     in and to the property described in subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Property.--
       (1) City of carlin, nevada.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the City of Carlin, Nevada, in accordance with subsection (a) 
     the property consisting of approximately 60 acres located in 
     the SW\1/4\SW\1/4\ and the E\1/2\SE\1/4\SW \1/4\ of section 
     22, Township 33 North, Range 52 East, Mount Diablo meridian.
       (2) City of wells, nevada.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the City of Wells, Nevada, in accordance with subsection (a) 
     the property consisting of approximately 4,767 acres located 
     in the E\1/2\SE\1/4\ of section 1, the W\1/2\ of section 2, 
     the E\1/2\ and the NW\1/4\ of section 3, S\1/2\NW\1/4\ of 
     section 4, section 6, the NW\1/4\, the SW\1/4\, and a portion 
     of the SE\1/4\ of section 11, the N\1/2\ of section 12, 
     section 14, the N\1/2\NW\1/4\ of section 16, section 18, the 
     W\1/2\ of section 20, and section 23, all of Township 37 
     North, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo meridian.
       (3) Town of jackpot, nevada.--The Secretary shall convey to 
     the Town of Jackpot, Nevada, the property, consisting of 
     approximately 532 acres located in a portion of the NE\1/
     4\NW\1/4\ and the NW\1/4\NE\1/4\ of section 6, the W\1/
     2\NW\1/4\, the NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, and the SW\1/4\SW\1/4\ of 
     section 7, and the NW\1/4\NW\1/4\ of section 18, all of 
     Township 47 North, Range 65 East, Mount Diablo meridian and 
     portions of section 1, portions of section 12, and the NE\1/
     4\NE\1/4\ of section 13, Township 47 North, Range 64 East, 
     Mount Diablo meridian.
       (4) Surveys.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may require such surveys as 
     the Secretary considers necessary to determine the exact 
     acreage and legal description of the property to be conveyed 
     under this section.
       (B) Cost.--The cost of the surveys shall be borne by the 
     City of Carlin, the City of Wells, and the Town of Jackpot, 
     Nevada.
       (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary may require such additional terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       (d) Withdrawal.--The public land described in subsection 
     (b) is withdrawn from the operation of the mining and mineral 
     leasing laws of the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Torricelli):


       national bone marrow registry reauthorization act of 1998

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Bone 
Marrow Registry Reauthorization Act of 1998. Transplantation of bone 
marrow is a procedure that offers hope to patients and their families 
and has saved the lives of many patients with leukemia and other life 
threatening conditions. As a physician, I know first-hand the heartache 
of waiting for a donor, and how the gift of bone marrow can change a 
patient's life. Of patients needing bone marrow transplants, 70% do not 
have a family member with matching bone marrow. These patients must 
rely on an unrelated donor. The National Marrow Donor Registry helps 
patients needing a bone marrow transplant find that unrelated donor 
with matching bone marrow.
  Since its inception in 1987, the National Marrow Donor Program has 
grown to include more than 3 million volunteers willing to donate bone 
marrow to an unrelated patient. The program has facilitated over 6,500 
marrow transplants around the world. The annual number of transplants 
rose from 840 in 1994 to over 1,280 in 1997.
  This bill is companion legislation to H.R. 2202, introduced by 
Congressman Bill Young which has 218 co-sponsors. Congressman Bill 
Young helped found the National Marrow Donor Program and has long been 
a champion of bone marrow transplantation. The companion House bill was 
unanimously voice voted out of the House Commerce Committee on May 14 
and was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives on May 19, 
1998. This kind of bipartisan

[[Page S5795]]

support stems from the enormous need for this program. In this short 
legislative year, it is a must-pass bill.
  The statutory authority for the legislation expired in 1994. An Act 
reauthorizing both the solid organ and bone marrow programs passed the 
Senate in 1996, but failed to pass the House.
  This bill is the result of a collaborative effort by the House and 
Senate to reauthorize the National Bone Marrow Registry. In April, 
during National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, the Senate Labor 
Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety and the House Commerce 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a joint hearing on 
increasing bone marrow donation and transplantation. During the 
hearing, we heard from patients and their families, including testimony 
from Robert Wedge, a young man who continues to wait for a matching 
donor to be found. Robert's brother, Cornell, is a member of my staff. 
Our office has partnered with his loving family and the Congressional 
Black Caucus to hold a bone marrow drive here in Congress. We also 
heard from a father whose son's life was saved by a bone marrow 
transplant. We heard from professionals involved in the operation of 
the program, and the message throughout the hearing was consistent. The 
need for bone marrow donation is urgent, and we must continue to 
address the unique issues surrounding recruitment and transplantation 
of bone marrow among minorities.
  The National Bone Marrow Registry clearly helps save lives. However, 
there is room for improvement in recruitment of donors and in the 
services provided to patients needing transplant.
  Racial and ethnic minority populations are underrepresented in the 
Registry. The registry is working to increase the number of racial and 
ethnic minority donors. Today, the Registry includes more than 700,000 
minority volunteers, a growth of almost 150%. However, more potential 
donors are needed before the probability of a match for a minority 
patient is comparable to that of a patient who is not a minority. This 
bill addresses the need for increasing the number and availability of 
minority donors. By directing special attention to informational and 
educational activities to recruit minority donors, including African 
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed 
racial heritage, the registry will increase the number of potential 
donors and help save lives.
  To help patients and their families with the search for a bone marrow 
donor, the bill also establishes an Office of Patient Advocacy. The 
office will provide information to patients about the search process, 
the costs of the transplants, and patient outcomes at different 
transplant centers, and will also help resolve difficulties with the 
transplant process.
  To facilitate donation, the bill will provide services for those 
volunteering as potential donors. Activities will help keep the 
registry of donors up-to-date, and case-management services will be 
provided to those donors who may be suitably matched to a patient 
needing bone marrow.
  Bone marrow transplantation is a proven life-saving procedure. In 
recent years, the same type of blood cells used in transplants have 
been found in the umbilical cord after a baby is delivered. Using cells 
from umbilical cords may provide an alternative source of cells, but 
many questions, including those of ethics and safety, need to be 
answered. In 1996, the National Institutes of Health began a five-year, 
multi-center study to see if the use of umbilical cord blood cells is a 
safe and effective alternative to bone marrow transplantation for 
children and adults with a variety of cancers, blood diseases, and 
genetic disorders. The ongoing study includes a review of the data 
throughout the investigation.
  The current bill does not include the use of umbilical cord blood 
cells, but the report language for the House bill includes a request 
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services keep the appropriate 
Congressional Subcommittees informed of advances in knowledge about the 
uses of blood cells from umbilical cords. If the study addresses the 
concerns about the use of blood cells from umbilical cords, we can then 
proceed to address possible expansion of the Registry to include this 
source of blood cells.
  The bill also proposes a significant increase in funds to carry out 
the activities for recruitment and retention of potential donors, and 
for the patients needing transplants and their families. As I noted 
earlier, the current authorization expired in 1994. The bill proposes 
authorization of the program at $18 million (an increase from $15.27 
million appropriated in fiscal year 1998).
  Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today and 
encourage my fellow Senators to support this life-saving program. I 
hope my colleagues will pass this legislation quickly, so that we can 
send it to the President for signature this year. I also want to note 
that this bill has unanimous support from the National Institutes of 
Health, the Health Resources Services Administration, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the National Marrow Donor Program, the Red Cross, and 
the American Association of Blood Banks. Others have voiced their 
support as well, and this simply underscores the importance of this 
program, and this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President, and 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. 2150

       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 Bone Marrow 
     Registry Reauthorization Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Establishment of Registry.--Section 379(a) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(referred to in this part as the 
     `Registry') that meets'' and inserting ``(referred to in this 
     part as the `Registry') that has the purpose of increasing 
     the number of transplants for recipients suitably matched to 
     biologically unrelated donors of bone marrow, and that 
     meets'';
       (2) by striking ``under the direction of a board of 
     directors that shall include representatives of'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``under the 
     direction of a board of directors meeting the following 
     requirements:
       ``(1) Each member of the board shall serve for a term of 
     two years, and each such member may serve as many as three 
     consecutive two-year terms, except that such limitations 
     shall not apply to the Chair of the board (or the Chair-
     elect) or to the member of the board who most recently served 
     as the Chair.
       ``(2) A member of the board may continue to serve after the 
     expiration of the term of such member until a successor is 
     appointed.
       ``(3) In order to ensure the continuity of the board, the 
     board shall be appointed so that each year the terms of 
     approximately \1/3\ of the members of the board expire.
       ``(4) The membership of the board shall include 
     representatives of marrow donor centers and marrow transplant 
     centers; recipients of a bone marrow transplant; persons who 
     require or have required such a transplant; family members of 
     such a recipient or family members of a patient who has 
     requested the assistance of the Registry in searching for an 
     unrelated donor of bone marrow; persons with expertise in the 
     social sciences; and members of the general public; and in 
     addition nonvoting representatives from the Naval Medical 
     Research and Development Command and from the Division of 
     Organ Transplantation of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration.''.
       (b) Program for Unrelated Marrow Transplants.--
       (1) In general.--Section 379(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k(b)) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (7) as paragraph (8), and by striking paragraphs 
     (2) through (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) carry out a program for the recruitment of bone 
     marrow donors in accordance with subsection (c), including 
     with respect to increasing the representation of racial and 
     ethnic minority groups (including persons of mixed ancestry) 
     in the enrollment of the Registry;
       ``(3) carry out informational and educational activities in 
     accordance with subsection (c);
       ``(4) annually update information to account for changes in 
     the status of individuals as potential donors of bone marrow;
       ``(5) provide for a system of patient advocacy through the 
     office established under subsection (d);
       ``(6) provide case management services for any potential 
     donor of bone marrow to whom the Registry has provided a 
     notice that the potential donor may be suitably matched to a 
     particular patient (which services shall be provided through 
     a mechanism other than the system of patient advocacy under 
     subsection (d)), and conduct surveys of donors and potential 
     donors to determine the extent of satisfaction with such 
     services and to identify ways in which the services can be 
     improved;
       ``(7) with respect to searches for unrelated donors of bone 
     marrow that are conducted

[[Page S5796]]

     through the system under paragraph (1), collect and analyze 
     and publish data on the number and percentage of patients at 
     each of the various stages of the search process, including 
     data regarding the furthest stage reached; the number and 
     percentage of patients who are unable to complete the search 
     process, and the reasons underlying such circumstances; and 
     comparisons of transplant centers regarding search and other 
     costs that prior to transplantation are charged to patients 
     by transplant centers; and''.
       (2) Report of inspector general; plan regarding 
     relationship between registry and donor centers.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure that, not 
     later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry (under section 
     379 of the Public Health Service Act) develops, evaluates, 
     and implements a plan to effectuate efficiencies in the 
     relationship between such Registry and donor centers. The 
     plan shall incorporate, to the extent practicable, the 
     findings and recommendations made in the inspection conducted 
     by the Office of the Inspector General (Department of Health 
     and Human Services) as of January 1997 and known as the Bone 
     Marrow Program Inspection.
       (c) Program for Information and Education.--Section 379 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k) is amended by 
     striking subsection (j), by redesignating subsections (c) 
     through (i) as subsections (e) through (k), respectively, and 
     by inserting after subsection (b) the following subsection:
       ``(c) Recruitment; Priorities; Information and Education.--
       ``(1) Recruitment; priorities.--The Registry shall carry 
     out a program for the recruitment of bone marrow donors. Such 
     program shall identify populations that are underrepresented 
     among potential donors enrolled with the Registry. In the 
     case of populations that are identified under the preceding 
     sentence:
       ``(A) The Registry shall give priority to carrying out 
     activities under this part to increase representation for 
     such populations in order to enable a member of such a 
     population, to the extent practicable, to have a probability 
     of finding a suitable unrelated donor that is comparable to 
     the probability that an individual who is not a member of an 
     underrepresented population would have.
       ``(B) The Registry shall consider racial and ethnic 
     minority groups (including persons of mixed ancestry) to be 
     populations that have been identified for purposes of this 
     paragraph, and shall carry out subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to such populations.
       ``(2) Information and education regarding recruitment; 
     testing and enrollment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out the program under 
     paragraph (1), the Registry shall carry out informational and 
     educational activities for purposes of recruiting individuals 
     to serve as donors of bone marrow, and shall test and enroll 
     with the Registry potential donors. Such information and 
     educational activities shall include the following:
       ``(i) Making information available to the general public, 
     including information describing the needs of patients with 
     respect to donors of bone marrow.
       ``(ii) Educating and providing information to individuals 
     who are willing to serve as potential donors, including 
     providing updates.
       ``(iii) Training individuals in requesting individuals to 
     serve as potential donors.
       ``(B) Priorities.--In carrying out informational and 
     educational activities under subparagraph (A), the Registry 
     shall give priority to recruiting individuals to serve as 
     donors of bone marrow for populations that are identified 
     under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Transplantation as treatment option.--In addition to 
     activities regarding recruitment, the program under paragraph 
     (1) shall provide information to physicians, other health 
     care professionals, and the public regarding the 
     availability, as a potential treatment option, of receiving a 
     transplant of bone marrow from an unrelated donor.''.
       (d) Patient Advocacy and Case Management.--Section 379 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k), as amended by 
     subsection (c) of this section, is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (c) the following subsection:
       ``(d) Patient Advocacy; Case Management.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Registry shall establish and 
     maintain an office of patient advocacy (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `Office').
       ``(2) General functions.--The Office shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       ``(A) The Office shall be headed by a director.
       ``(B) The Office shall operate a system for patient 
     advocacy, which shall be separate from mechanisms for donor 
     advocacy, and which shall serve patients for whom the 
     Registry is conducting, or has been requested to conduct, a 
     search for an unrelated donor of bone marrow.
       ``(C) In the case of such a patient, the Office shall serve 
     as an advocate for the patient by directly providing to the 
     patient (or family members, physicians, or other individuals 
     acting on behalf of the patient) individualized services with 
     respect to efficiently utilizing the system under subsection 
     (b)(1) to conduct an ongoing search for a donor.
       ``(D) In carrying out subparagraph (C), the Office shall 
     monitor the system under subsection (b)(1) to determine 
     whether the search needs of the patient involved are being 
     met, including with respect to the following:
       ``(i) Periodically providing to the patient (or an 
     individual acting on behalf of the patient) information 
     regarding donors who are suitability matched to the patient, 
     and other information regarding the progress being made in 
     the search.
       ``(ii) Informing the patient (or such other individual) if 
     the search has been interrupted or discontinued.
       ``(iii) Identifying and resolving problems in the search, 
     to the extent practicable.
       ``(E) In carrying out subparagraph (C), the Office shall 
     monitor the system under subsection (b)(1) to determine 
     whether the Registry, donor centers, transplant centers, and 
     other entities participating in the Registry program are 
     complying with standards issued under subsection (e)(4) for 
     the system for patient advocacy under this subsection.
       ``(F) The Office shall ensure that the following data are 
     made available to patients:
       ``(i) The resources available through the Registry.
       ``(ii) A comparison of transplant centers regarding search 
     and other costs that prior to transplantation are charged to 
     patients by transplant centers.
       ``(iii) A list of donor registries, transplant centers, and 
     other entities that meet the applicable standards, criteria, 
     and procedures under subsection (e).
       ``(iv) The posttransplant outcomes for individual 
     transplant centers.
       ``(v) Such other information as the Registry determines to 
     be appropriate.
       ``(G) The Office shall conduct surveys of patients (or 
     family members, physicians, or other individuals acting on 
     behalf of patients) to determine the extent of satisfaction 
     with the system for patient advocacy under this subsection, 
     and to identify ways in which the system can be improved.
       ``(3) Case management.--
       ``(A) In general.--In serving as an advocate for a patient 
     under paragraph (2), the Office shall provide individualized 
     case management services directly to the patient (or family 
     members, physicians, or other individuals acting on behalf of 
     the patient), including--
       ``(i) individualized case assessment; and
       ``(ii) the functions described in paragraph (2)(D) 
     (relating to progress in the search process).
       ``(B) Postsearch functions.--In addition to the case 
     management services described in paragraph (1) for patients, 
     the Office may, on behalf of patients who have completed the 
     search for an unrelated donor, provide information and 
     education on the process of receiving a transplant of bone 
     marrow, including the posttransplant process.''.
       (e) Criteria, Standards, and Procedures.--Section 379(e) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 274k), as 
     redesignated by subsection (c) of this section, is amended by 
     striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) standards for the system for patient advocacy 
     operated under subsection (d), including standards requiring 
     the provision of appropriate information (at the start of the 
     search process and throughout the process) to patients and 
     their families and physicians;''.
       (f) Report.--Section 379 of the Public Health Service Act, 
     as amended by subsection (c) of this section, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(l) Annual Report Regarding Pretransplant Costs.--The 
     Registry shall annually submit to the Secretary the data 
     collected under subsection (b)(7) on comparisons of 
     transplant centers regarding search and other costs that 
     prior to transplantation are charged to patients by 
     transplant centers. The data shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary through inclusion in the annual report required in 
     section 379A(c).''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 379 of the Public 
     Health Service Act, as amended by subsection (c) of this 
     section, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
       (2) in subsection (k), by striking ``subsection (c)(5)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (e)(5)(A)'' and by striking 
     ``subsection (c)(5)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (e)(5)(B)''.

     SEC. 3. RECIPIENT REGISTRY.

       Part I of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 274k et seq.) is amended by striking section 379A and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 379A. BONE MARROW SCIENTIFIC REGISTRY.

       ``(a) Establishment of Recipient Registry.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Registry under section 379 (in this 
     section referred to as the `Registry'), shall establish and 
     maintain a scientific registry of information relating to 
     patients who have been recipients of a transplant of bone 
     marrow from a biologically unrelated donor.
       ``(b) Information.--The scientific registry under 
     subsection (a) shall include information with respect to 
     patients described in subsection (a), transplant procedures, 
     and such other information as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the 
     scientific and clinical status of transplantation involving 
     recipients of bone marrow from biologically unrelated donors.
       ``(c) Annual Report on Patient Outcomes.--The Registry 
     shall annually submit to the Secretary a report concerning 
     patient

[[Page S5797]]

     outcomes with respect to each transplant center. Each such 
     report shall use data collected and maintained by the 
     scientific registry under subsection (a). Each such report 
     shall in addition include the data required in section 379(l) 
     (relating to pretransplant costs).''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by transferring section 378 from the current placement 
     of the section and inserting the section after section 377; 
     and
       (2) in part I, by inserting after section 379A the 
     following section:

     ``SEC. 379B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $18,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1999, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2003.''.

     SEC. 5. STUDY BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       (a) In General.--During the period indicated pursuant to 
     subsection (b), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the National Bone Marrow Donor 
     Registry under section 379 of the Public Health Service Act 
     for purposes of making determinations of the following:
       (1) The extent to which, relative to the effective date of 
     this Act, such Registry has increased the representation of 
     racial and ethnic minority groups (including persons of mixed 
     ancestry) among potential donors of bone marrow who are 
     enrolled with the Registry, and whether the extent of 
     increase results in a level of representation that meets the 
     standard established in subsection (c)(1)(A) of such section 
     379 (as added by section 2(c) of this Act).
       (2) The extent to which patients in need of a transplant of 
     bone marrow from a biologically unrelated donor, and the 
     physicians of such patients, have been utilizing the Registry 
     in the search for such a donor.
       (3) The number of such patients for whom the Registry began 
     a preliminary search but for whom the full search process was 
     not completed, and the reasons underlying such circumstances.
       (4) The extent to which the plan required in section 
     2(b)(2) of this Act (relating to the relationship between the 
     Registry and donor centers) has been implemented.
       (5) The extent to which the Registry, donor centers, donor 
     registries, collection centers, transplant centers, and other 
     appropriate entities have been complying with the standards, 
     criteria, and procedures under subsection (e) of such section 
     379 (as redesignated by section 2(c) of this Act).
       (b) Report.--A report describing the findings of the study 
     under subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Congress not 
     later than October 1, 2001. The report may not be submitted 
     before January 1, 2001.

     SEC. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE OF 
                   PATIENT ADVOCACY.

       With respect to requirements for the office of patient 
     advocacy under section 379(d) of the Public Health Service 
     Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure 
     that, not later than 180 days after the effective date of 
     this Act, such office is in compliance with all requirements 
     (established pursuant to the amendment made by section 2(d)) 
     that are additional to the requirements that under section 
     379 of such Act were in effect with respect to patient 
     advocacy on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act takes effect October 1, 1998, or upon the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, whichever occurs later.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Frist 
on this important legislation, which is strongly supported by the 
Clinton Administration, patient groups, and the American Association of 
Blood Banks.
  The National Marrow Donor Program was established in 1986 to meet the 
need for a single large, nationwide registry of bone marrow donors. For 
those facing the diagnosis of leukemia or other life-threatening 
diseases, the registry can literally save their lives.
  Of particular importance is the need for identifying potential donors 
for African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and Native 
Americans, since each individual's likelihood of finding a matching 
donor, apart from family members, is higher in the individual's racial 
or ethnic group. By cooperation with international registries and 
targeted campaigns to increase the representation of minorities, the 
NMDP has made remarkable progress in improving the likelihood that 
patients of every racial and ethnic group can find suitable donors.
  Through skillful work and commitment, the NMDP has grown rapidly in 
recent years. It now maintains a registry of over three million 
volunteer bone marrow donors. The very important work of the registry 
must be continued. Its success in identifying matching donors and 
recipients is bringing the miracle of better health to families across 
the country. Congress has a responsibility to support this critical 
work.
  In fact, this reauthorization is long overdue, and I hope that 
Congress will act expeditiously so that the National Marrow Donor 
Program can continue its life-saving work.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coats, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Helms, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Grams, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 2151. A bill to clarify Federal law to prohibit the dispensing or 
distribution of a controlled substance for the purpose of causing, or 
assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any 
individual; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1998

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senators Lott, 
Coats, Inhofe, Helms, Murkowski, Grams of Minnesota, Faircloth, Bond, 
Enzi, Sessions, Hagel, and Coverdell to introduce the Lethal Drug Abuse 
Prevention Act of 1998. This legislation will clarify that physicians 
entrusted by the federal government with the authority to prescribe and 
dispense controlled substances may not abuse that authority by using 
them in assisted suicides. It also strongly reaffirms that physicians 
should use federally controlled substances for the legitimate medical 
purpose of relieving pain and discomfort.
  Last year, Congress passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction 
Act of 1997 without a dissenting vote in the Senate and by an 
overwhelming margin of 398-16 in the House. The President signed the 
bill, saying it ``will allow the Federal Government to speak with a 
clear voice in opposing these practices,'' and warning that ``to 
endorse assisted suicide would set us on a disturbing and perhaps 
dangerous path.''
  The distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs is prohibited 
by federal law under the Controlled Substances Act. Under this law 
physicians may get a special federal license from the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA), called a DEA registration, that allows them to 
prescribe these federally controlled drugs for ``legitimate medical 
purposes.'' This was confirmed last November in a letter by Thomas 
Constantine, Administrator of the DEA, who concluded that ``delivering, 
dispensing or prescribing a controlled substance with the intent of 
assisting a suicide would not be under any current definition a 
legitimate medical purpose.''
  It is important to understand that while physicians receive their 
license to practice medicine from state medical boards, they receive 
this separate DEA registration to prescribe controlled substances from 
the federal DEA. Each time a doctor orders a controlled substance they 
must fill our a form in triplicate and one copy goes to the DEA. 
Physicians must be prepared to explain to DEA officials their use of 
these drugs, and they lose their registration and even risk criminal 
penalties if they prescribe such drugs for any reason but ``Legitimate 
medical purposes.''
  On June 5, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a decision which 
overturned the DEA ruling. According to the Attorney General, the 
Controlled Substances Act does not restrict the use of federally 
controlled dangerous drugs for the purpose of assisted suicide. It is 
for this reason I am introducing this legislation.
  I have long been a strong advocate of states' rights and the limited 
role of the federal government, so let me make clear what this 
legislation does. It simply clarifies that the dispensing of controlled 
substances for the purpose of assisted suicide is prohibited under 
longstanding federal law, the Controlled Substance Act.
  This is not the first time the federal government has acted to ensure 
that federally regulated drugs are not used for purposes that violate 
federal law. The current Administration is committed to enforcing 
federal prohibitions on the use of marijuana, despite state referenda 
that seeks to legitimize such use for what some see as medicinal use. 
By the same token, one state's referendum rescinding local criminal 
penalties for assisting a suicide does not magically transform a lethal 
act into a legitimate medical practice within the meaning of federal 
law.

[[Page S5798]]

  Congress cannot remain silent now. Congress acted with one voice to 
ensure that no federal program, facility or employee is involved in 
assisted suicide. Enactment of the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 
1998 will ensure that federal authorization to prescribe DEA-regulated 
drugs does not include the authority to prescribe such drugs to cause a 
patient's death.
  I urge my colleagues to support and swiftly enact this urgently 
needed legislation.
  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. 2151

       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 ``Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention 
     Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the use of certain narcotics and other dangerous drugs 
     is generally prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act;
       (2) under the Controlled Substances Act and implementing 
     regulations, an exception to this general prohibition permits 
     the dispensing and distribution of certain controlled 
     substances by properly registered physicians for legitimate 
     medical purposes;
       (3) the dispensing or distribution of controlled substances 
     to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose and 
     should not be construed to be permissible under the 
     Controlled Substances Act;
       (4) the dispensing or distribution of certain controlled 
     substances for the purpose of relieving pain and discomfort 
     is a legitimate medical purpose under the Controlled 
     Substances Act and physicians should not hesitate to dispense 
     or distribute them for that purpose when medically indicated; 
     and
       (5) for the reasons set forth in section 101 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801), the dispensing and 
     distribution of controlled substances for any purpose, 
     including that of assisting suicide, affects interstate 
     commerce.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide explicitly that Federal law is not intended 
     to license the dispensing or distribution of a controlled 
     substance with a purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, 
     the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual; 
     and
       (2) to encourage physicians to prescribe controlled 
     substances as medically appropriate in order to relieve pain 
     and discomfort, by reducing unwarranted concerns that their 
     registration to prescribe controlled substances will thereby 
     be put at risk, if there is no intent to cause a patient's 
     death.

     SEC. 3. LETHAL DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION.

       (a) Denial of Registration.--Section 303 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Denial of Registration.--The Attorney General shall 
     determine that registration of an applicant under this 
     section is inconsistent with the public interest if--
       ``(1) during the 5-year period immediately preceding the 
     date on which the application is submitted under this 
     section, the registration of the applicant under this section 
     was revoked under section 304(a)(4); or
       ``(2) the Attorney General determines, based on clear and 
     convincing evidence, that the applicant is applying for the 
     registration with the intention of using the registration to 
     take any action that would constitute a violation of section 
     304(a)(4).''.
       (b) Suspension or Revocation of Registration.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(a) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) has intentionally dispensed or distributed a 
     controlled substance with a purpose of causing, or assisting 
     in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any 
     individual, except that this paragraph does not apply to the 
     dispensing or distribution of a controlled substance for the 
     purpose of relieving pain or discomfort (even if the use of 
     the controlled substance may increase the risk of death), so 
     long as the controlled substance is not also dispensed or 
     distributed for the purpose of causing, or assisting in 
     causing, the death of an individual for any reason;''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 304(a)(5) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5)) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) is amended 
     by inserting ``other'' after ``such''.
       (c) Pain Relief.--Section 304(c) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c) Before'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Procedures.--
       ``(1) Order to show cause.--After any hearing under 
     paragraph (2), and before''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Medical review board on pain relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall by regulation 
     establish a board to be known as the Medical Review Board on 
     Pain Relief (referred to in this subsection as the `Board').
       ``(B) Membership.--The Attorney General shall appoint the 
     members of the Board--
       ``(i) from among individuals who, by reason of specialized 
     education or substantial relevant experience in pain 
     management, are clinical experts with knowledge regarding 
     standards, practices, and guidelines concerning pain relief; 
     and
       ``(ii) after consultation with the American Medical 
     Association, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative 
     Medicine, the National Hospice Organization, the American 
     Geriatrics Society, and such other entities with relevant 
     expertise concerning pain relief, as the Attorney General 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(C) Duties of board.--
       ``(i) Hearing.--If an applicant or registrant claims that 
     any action (or, in the case of a proposed denial under 
     section 303(i)(2), any potential action) that is a basis of a 
     proposed denial under section 303(i), or a proposed 
     revocation or suspension under subsection (a)(4) of this 
     section, is an appropriate means to relieve pain that does 
     not constitute a violation of subsection (a)(4) of this 
     section, the applicant or registrant may seek a hearing 
     before the Board on that issue.
       ``(ii) Findings.--Based on a hearing under clause (i), the 
     Board shall make findings regarding whether the action at 
     issue is an appropriate means to relieve pain that does not 
     constitute a violation of subsection (a)(4). The findings of 
     the Board under this clause shall be admissible in any 
     hearing pursuant to an order to show cause under paragraph 
     (1).''.

     SEC. 4. CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act or the amendments made 
     by this Act shall be construed to imply that the dispensing 
     or distribution of a controlled substance before the date of 
     enactment of this Act for the purpose of causing, or 
     assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy 
     killing of any individual is not a violation of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
       (b) Incorporated Definitions.--In this section, the terms 
     ``controlled substance'', ``dispense'', and ``distribute'' 
     have the meanings given those terms in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).

                          ____________________