[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).
____________________