[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10423-S10440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCTED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Graham):
  S. 2477. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for 
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance may 
be obtained by Federal employees and annuitants; to the Committee on 
Government Affairs.


           civil service long-term care insurance benefit act

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I introduce the Civil 
Service Long-Term Care Insurance Benefit Act. This legislation is an 
important first step in helping Americans prepare for their long-term 
care needs.
  I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Graham of Florida join me 
as a cosponsor of this legislation, which has also been introduced in 
the House of Representatives by Representative John Mica.
  The Civil Service Long-Term Care Insurance Benefit Act will establish 
a program under which long-term care insurance may be obtained by 
current and former employees of the federal government. The premiums 
will not be subsidized by the government and will be paid for entirely 
by the employee or retiree. However, this legislation will make long-
term care insurance more affordable to by using the government's 
purchasing power to negotiate volume discounts.
  It is my belief that the participation of a large employer such as 
the federal government in the long-term care insurance market will act 
as a catalyst to encourage other large employers to offer similar 
plans. This legislation will establish a larger market for long-term 
care insurance and help ensure the availability of competitively 
priced, high quality insurance products.
  This measure will encourage Americans to be pro-active and prepare 
for their long term care needs by making insurance more widely 
available and affordable. I urge my colleagues to support this 
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. 2477

       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 ``Civil Service Long-Term Care 
     Insurance Benefit Act''.

     SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart G of part III of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

``Sec.
``9001. Definitions.
``9002. Availability of insurance.
``9003. Participating carriers.
``9004. Administrative functions.
``9005. Coordination with State laws.
``9006. Commercial items.

     ``Sec. 9001. Definitions

       ``For purposes of this chapter:
       ``(1) Employee.--The term `employee' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 8901, but does not include an individual 
     employed by the government of the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Annuitant.--The term `annuitant' means--
       ``(A) a former employee who, based on the service of that 
     individual, receives an annuity under subchapter III of 
     chapter 83, chapter 84, or another retirement system for 
     employees of the Government (disregarding title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act and any retirement system established for 
     employees described in section 2105(c)); and
       ``(B) any individual who receives an annuity under any 
     retirement system referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     (disregarding those described parenthetically) as the 
     surviving spouse of an employee (including an amount under 
     section 8442(b)(1)(A), whether or not an annuity under 
     section 8442(b)(1)(B) is also payable) or of a former 
     employee under subparagraph (A);

     but does not include a former employee of a Government 
     corporation excluded by regulation of the Office of Personnel 
     Management or the spouse of such a former employee.
       ``(3) Eligible relative.--The term `eligible relative', as 
     used with respect to an employee or annuitant, means each of 
     the following:
       ``(A) The spouse of the employee or annuitant.
       ``(B) The father or mother of the employee or annuitant, or 
     an ancestor of either.
       ``(C) A stepfather or stepmother of the employee or 
     annuitant.
       ``(D) The father-in-law or mother-in-law of the employee or 
     annuitant.
       ``(E) A son or daughter of the employee or annuitant who is 
     at least 18 years of age.
       ``(F) A stepson or stepdaughter of the employee or 
     annuitant who is at least 18 years of age.
       ``(4) Government.--The term `Government' means the 
     Government of the United States, including an agency or 
     instrumentality thereof.
       ``(5) Group long-term care insurance.--The term `group 
     long-term care insurance' means group long-term care 
     insurance purchased by the Office of Personnel Management 
     under this chapter.
       ``(6) Individual long-term care insurance.--The term 
     `individual long-term care insurance' means any long-term 
     care insurance offered under this chapter which is not group 
     long-term care insurance.
       ``(7) Qualified carrier.--A carrier shall be considered to 
     be a `qualified carrier', with respect to a State, if it is 
     licensed to issue group or individual long-term care 
     insurance (as the case may be) under the laws of such State.
       ``(8) Qualified long-term care insurance contract.--The 
     term `qualified long-term care insurance contract' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 7702B of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(9) State.--The term `State' means a State, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust 
     Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and any other territory or possession of the 
     United States.

     ``Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance

       ``(a) In General.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     establish and administer a program through which employees 
     and annuitants may obtain group or individual long-term care 
     insurance for themselves, a spouse, or, to the extent 
     permitted under the terms of the contract of insurance 
     involved, any other eligible relative.

[[Page S10424]]

       ``(b) General Requirements.--Long-term care insurance may 
     not be offered under this chapter unless--
       ``(1) the only insurance protection provided is coverage 
     under qualified long-term care insurance contracts; and
       ``(2) the insurance contract under which such coverage is 
     provided is issued by a qualified carrier.
       ``(c) Requirement That Contract Be Fully Insured.--In 
     addition to the requirements otherwise applicable under 
     section 9001(8), in order to be considered a qualified long-
     term care insurance contract for purposes of this chapter, a 
     contract must be fully insured, whether through reinsurance 
     with other companies or otherwise.
       ``(d) Coverage Not Required for Individuals Who Would Be 
     Immediately Benefit Eligible.--Nothing in this chapter shall 
     be considered to require that long-term care insurance 
     coverage be made available in the case of any individual who 
     would be immediately benefit eligible.

     ``Sec. 9003. Participating carriers

       ``(a) Identification of Participating Carriers.--The Office 
     of Personnel Management shall, before the start of each 
     year--
       ``(1) identify each carrier through whom any long-term care 
     insurance may be obtained under this chapter during such 
     year; and
       ``(2) prepare a list of the carriers identified under 
     paragraph (1), and a summary description of the insurance 
     obtainable under this chapter from each.
       ``(b) Application Requirements, Etc.--In order to carry out 
     its responsibilities under subsection (a), the Office shall 
     annually specify the timetable (including any application 
     deadlines) and other procedures that must be followed by 
     carriers seeking to be allowed to offer long-term care 
     insurance under this chapter during the following year.
       ``(c) Information To Permit Informed Decisionmaking.--The 
     Office shall in a timely manner before the start of each 
     year--
       ``(1) publish in the Federal Register the list (and summary 
     description) prepared under subsection (a) for such year; and
       ``(2) make available to each individual eligible to obtain 
     long-term care insurance under this chapter such information, 
     in a form acceptable to the Office after consultation with 
     the carrier, as may be necessary to enable the individual to 
     exercise an informed choice among the various options 
     available under this chapter.
       ``(d) Policy or Benefit Certificate.--The Office shall 
     arrange to have the appropriate individual or individuals 
     receive a copy of any policy of insurance obtained under this 
     chapter or, in the case of group long-term care insurance, a 
     certificate setting forth the benefits to which an individual 
     is entitled, to whom the benefits are payable, and the 
     procedures for obtaining benefits, and summarizing the 
     provisions of the policy principally affecting the individual 
     or individuals involved. Any such certificate shall be issued 
     instead of the certificate which the insurance company would 
     otherwise be required to issue.

     ``Sec. 9004. Administrative functions

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in section 9003, the 
     sole functions of the Office of Personnel Management under 
     this chapter shall be as follows:
       ``(1) Enrollment periods.--To provide reasonable 
     opportunity (consisting of not less than one continuous 30-
     day period each year) for eligible employees and annuitants 
     to obtain long-term care insurance coverage under this 
     chapter.
       ``(2) Withholdings.--To provide for a means by which the 
     cost of any long-term care insurance coverage obtained under 
     this chapter may be paid for through withholdings from the 
     pay or annuity of the employee or annuitant involved.
       ``(3) Contract authority relating to group long-term care 
     insurance.--To contract for a qualified long-term care 
     insurance contract (in the case of group long-term care 
     insurance) with each qualified carrier that offers such 
     insurance, so long as such carrier submits a timely 
     application under section 9003(b) and complies with such 
     other procedural rules as the Office may prescribe.
       ``(b) Limitations on Authority.--Nothing in this chapter 
     shall be considered to permit or require the Office--
       ``(1) to prevent from being offered under this chapter any 
     individual long-term care insurance under a qualified 
     contract therefor; or
       ``(2) to prescribe or negotiate over the benefits to be 
     offered, or any of the terms or conditions under which any 
     such benefits shall be offered, under this chapter.

     ``Sec. 9005. Coordination with State laws

       ``(a) In General.--The provisions of any contract under 
     this chapter for group long-term care insurance may include 
     provisions to supersede and preempt any provisions of State 
     or local law described in subsection (b), or any regulation 
     issued thereunder.
       ``(b) Description.--This subsection applies with respect to 
     any provision of law which in effect carries out the same 
     policy as section 5 of the long-term care insurance model 
     Act, promulgated by the National Association of Insurance 
     Commissioners (as adopted as of September 1997).

     ``Sec. 9006. Commercial items

       ``For purposes of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act, a long-term care insurance contract under this chapter 
     shall be considered a commercial item, as defined by section 
     4(12) of such Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for part III of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     of subpart G the following:

``90. Long-Term Care Insurance..................................9001''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The Office of Personnel Management shall take such measures 
     as may be necessary to ensure that long-term care insurance 
     coverage under title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     this Act, may be obtained in time to take effect beginning on 
     the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on 
     or after January 1, 2000.

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Grassley, today in introducing legislation that will give many 
Americans a better chance of financial security in retirement, and make 
the Federal Government a role model for American companies.
  The issue is long term care insurance. When starting to work on this 
legislation, several facts seemed most important:
  In 1995 the average cost of nursing home care in the United States 
was $37,000 per year. In some urban areas of the country, that cost can 
reach $70,000 per year. Medicare provides short-term care coverage, but 
the average nursing home stay is two and one-half years. In fact, 
Medicare paid for only five percent of national nursing home costs.
  Not all long term care occurs in nursing homes--85 percent of nursing 
home care is nonskilled care. Again, Medicare does not cover nonskilled 
care, so all of these costs must be covered by the patient and his or 
her family members.
  Medicaid will provide nursing home and some nonskilled care coverage, 
but an individual must be extremely low income, or become low income, 
to qualify for Medicaid. This program currently pays for over half of 
nursing home expenses in the United States. But who wants to see their 
lifetime savings, and their children's inheritance, wiped out to pay 
for the cost of a catastrophic long term illness.
  Unfortunately, many of us will face this circumstance. It is 
estimated that the majority of women and one-third of men who reach the 
age of 60 will need nursing home care before the end of their life. 
Many of the baby boom generation are already facing this issue as they 
deal with their parents' needs.
  Long term care is one of the most important retirement security 
issues facing us today. According to a 1997 survey sponsored by the 
National Council on the Aging, more Americans (69 percent) were worried 
about how to pay for long term care than were worried about how they 
would pay for their retirement (56 percent). This level of concern was 
true for all age groups and income levels among those surveyed.
  Although many companies are considering offering this insurance to 
their employees, as of 1996 only 13.2 percent of long-term care plans 
were employer-sponsored.
  Today, Senator Grassley and I are moving the Federal Government into 
a leadership role by creating a model long term care insurance program 
for Federal employees. I am very pleased to be working, once again, 
with Senator Grassley to develop another proposal in our ongoing 
efforts to improve retirement security for all Americans.
  We are introducing today the Civil Service Long-Term Care Insurance 
Benefit Act, a companion to the legislation by our colleague in the 
House, Representative John Mica of Florida.
  We will offer private companies the opportunity to compete to provide 
long-term care insurance to Federal employees. Our plan will not be at 
a high cost to taxpayers; premiums will be fully paid by Federal 
employees--however, by pooling the numbers of workers in the federal 
government, lower group rates are achieved.
  Only plans qualified under the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996 may offer this insurance to Federal workers 
through our legislation, but beyond that, we will let the marketplace 
determine the cost and services of plans employees may purchase. 
Flexibility is important in this relatively young industry as insurance 
companies are still in the process of determining how to most 
effectively provide this product. Competition among the various 
carriers, group discounts and volume of sales will keep these premiums 
affordable.
  Eleven million individuals, including employees and retirees, their 
spouses,

[[Page S10425]]

parents, and in-laws would be eligible under our proposal. This bill is 
just a first step, but an important one. In encourage your support as 
we continue to improve retirement security, in all of its aspects, for 
all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2478. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 
certain land to FERC permit holders; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


           mount baker snoqualmie national forest legislation

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in recent years, I have become 
increasingly frustrated with the inability of the Forest Service to 
complete work on several small hydroelectric projects located on the 
Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in my State. The Service's 
inability to make important decisions on these renewable energy 
resources is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the President's 
Northwest Forest Plan (``ROD'') which has stopped these projects from 
going forward.
  The President's Northwest Forest Plan states clearly that 
multipurpose uses of the federal forests are not precluded, and that 
the plan must follow existing law applying to such uses. Yet, since its 
adoption in 1994, the Forest Service has and continues to paralyze the 
development of small hydroelectric projects by ignoring laws applying 
to multipurpose. This inaction has delayed and stifled review of such 
projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--the agency 
responsible for issuing federal licenses for hydroelectric projects.
  Forest Service interpretation of the ROD intrudes directly on the 
ability of the Commission to perform its hydroelectric licensing 
function of balancing development and nondevelopment issues. Both the 
Commission, when determining consistency with the purpose of a national 
forest under Section 4(e) of the Act, and the Forest Service, when 
determining whether to issue a special use permit, must apply existing 
law fairly. Forest Service inaction on pending projects (some of which 
have been under review for over a decade) prevents FERC from completing 
its licensing responsibilities.
  In terms of federal forest management, the six small hydroelectric 
projects proposed for the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest are 
virtually inconsequential. All are located well above areas affecting 
anadromous fish, and would occupy a total of 10 to 40 acres each, with 
most of the sites being untouched except for the portions needed for 
project facilities. Adverse impacts to fish, wildlife or other 
environmental resources are subject to mitigation by FERC and the 
Forest Service.
  Project proponents in my state have spent millions of dollars to 
secure approval of six projects located in the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie 
National Forest, including project design and environmental analysis 
necessary to gain approval from the Forest Service and FERC. In spite 
of the fact that the 1994 ROD instructs the Forest Service to use 
``transition'' provisions to approve pending projects, it has not done 
so, and continues to add project review requirements not allowed by the 
ROD or existing law. As a result, the Forest Service is stopping FERC 
from making timely licensing decisions on these projects. Shifting 
standards of review an delay by the Forest Service have deprived 
project proponents of their right to rely upon clear standards for 
project approval before expending funds in reliance on such standards.
  Many aspects of these projects were found to be in compliance with 
prior forest regulations and other environmental laws, and are being 
subjected to duplicative and inconsistent review. Provisions of the ROD 
developed for application to extremely large-scale timber harvest are 
not meant to impact small-scale hydroelectric projects. 
Timber management regulations are totally disproportionate with the 
scale of any potential environmental impacts of small-scale 
hydroelectric facilities. In fact, the ROD itself explicitly recognizes 
that uses other than timber harvest do not require the same level of 
restrictions.

  The Forest Service continues to use the ROD as a reason for imposing 
new study requirements, increasing mitigation demands, and ignoring 
agreements on project compliance with forest plan standards and FERC 
requirements. Each new requirement adds onerous financial burdens on 
project proponents, delays project approval, and undermines the 
regulatory need for an end to project review so a final licensing 
decision can be made by FERC.
  Actions by the Forest Service have placed that agency in direct 
conflict with FERC, a result not intended by the ROD. FERC's 
jurisdiction over hydroelectric project licensing is unaltered by the 
ROD, which itself calls for increased interagency cooperation, not 
confrontation.
  Mr. President, I have tried in recent years through my position as 
Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee responsible 
for funding the Forest Service's annual budget to get some answers from 
this agency as to why it was holding up these hydroelectric projects. 
In 1995, I inserted language directing the Forest Service to ``conduct 
an expeditious review'' of projects covered by the ROD. In subsequent 
hearings, I have continued to ask agency witnesses for a status report. 
To date, none of the responses from the Forest Service have satisfied 
my concerns or adequately addressed this issue.
  For this reason, I am introducing legislation today that would 
expedite the hydroelectric project review process. It will require the 
Forest Service to convey to permit holders and license applicants for 
these projects at fair market value the parcels of land necessary for 
development of these projects. While I would prefer and am still 
hopeful that this issue can be resolved in negotiations between the 
project proponents and the agency, clearly this process is broken and 
needs to be fixed. This legislation should serve as a catalyst for 
resolving outstanding hydroelectric project review issues. Project 
proponents deserve at least that much.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 2479. A bill to establish the Commission on the Advancement of 
Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


  the advancement of women and minorities in science, engineering and 
                       technology development act

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to create a commission on the advancement of women and minorities in 
science, engineering and technology development. The House version, 
H.R. 3007, introduced by my good friend, Congresswoman Morella, passed 
the House under suspension of the rules on Monday.
  Six years ago, I testified before the House Education and Labor 
Committee in support of this legislation, as cochair of the 
Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. It was a priority for the 
Caucus in 1992, and it remains one of the top seven priorities for the 
Caucus this year.
  Since the 102d Congress, when Congresswoman Morella first introduced 
this bill on behalf of the Caucus, we have learned more about the 
barriers facing women and minorities when they try to enter 
nontraditional jobs, such as engineering and research, but 
unfortunately the general facts haven't changed much.
  For example, the National Science Foundation's 1996 report, ``Women, 
Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering,'' 
found that even those women who have obtained a degree and are teaching 
in science and engineering still face barriers to climbing up the 
ladder to success. The report found that a substantial salary gap 
exists between men and women with doctorates in science and 
engineering. It also found that among doctoral scientists and 
engineers, women are far more likely to be employed at 2 year 
institutions and, are far less likely to be employed in research 
universities, and are much more likely to teach part-time.
  And the National Research Council's 1995 report, ``Women Scientists 
and Engineers Employed in Industry: Why so Few?,'' found that women are 
still facing paternalism, sexual harassment, allegations of reverse 
discrimination, lower salaries and different standards for judging the 
work of men and women.
  The purpose of the 11 member Commission created under this bill is to 
review the information on the problems

[[Page S10426]]

facing women and minorities in moving into the areas of science and 
engineering and make recommendations for changes in policy that would 
remove these artificial barriers which currently prevent women and 
minorities from entering and excelling in these fields.
  We are all aware of the important role that technology plays in our 
economy today, and for the nation, a workforce possessing technological 
skills is more than just an earnings issue--it's an issue of meeting 
national employment needs. Today, experts agree that more than half of 
the new jobs being created require some form of technology literacy. 
And by the year 2000, six out of every 10 new jobs will require 
computer and networking skills currently possessed by only 22 percent 
of the labor force. We must bridge the gap between ``skills demanded'' 
and ``skills known'' if our Nation is to even fill the jobs that will 
be available just four years from today.
  In order to meet those demands--which are crucial to the future 
economic growth of our country--we must ensure that women and 
minorities have access to, and are not kept from, jobs in the science, 
engineering and technology fields. The bill I am introducing today will 
help us find ways to level the playing field and take down artificial 
barriers that are keeping women and minorities from careers in these 
areas.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 2480. A bill to prevent the introduction and spread of 
nonindigenous pests and pathogens through the importation of wood 
articles, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                 the invasive pest control act of 1998

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
prevent additional introductions of invasive pests. Last fall, the 
Northeastern states were startled by reports of an Asian longhorned 
beetle infestation in Brooklyn and Amityville, New York. This summer, 
we heard of additional infestations in Chicago and the beetle has been 
found in wood packing material in South Carolina, California, New 
Jersey and Texas. Although the beetle has been found primarily in port 
cities, the shipment of wood packing materials across state lines could 
lead to the spread of this insect into forested areas across the 
country.
  This beetle is a serious pest of hardwood trees in its native 
environment in China, where it has few natural enemies. Here, it has 
none. If this pest becomes established in our forests, it could turn 
into the gypsy moth of the 21st century. And, as we learned from the 
spread of the gypsy month along the East Coast, repeated introductions 
of the Asian Long-Horned Beetle and its spread could have a staggering 
economic and ecological impact on our forests.
  It also seems that the beetle has a sweet tooth--attacking mostly 
Norway and sugar maples. As Vermont and the Northeast begin the leaf 
peeping season this fall, the threat of an Asian longhorned beetle 
invasion has us all checking our trees for possible signs of the pest. 
Not only is the sugar maple the source of our world famous Vermont 
maple syrup, but it is also what turns our treasured Green Mountains 
brilliant yellow, orange and red each year. It is what attracts so many 
visitors to our state this time of year. The wood is also highly prized 
for furniture, paneling and wood flooring.
  Without immediate attention, spread of this insect into forested 
areas of New York, Vermont and Massachusetts could threaten the 
important maple sugar and fall foliage industries of the Northeast. 
These things can chew trees into sawdust. The last thing I want to see 
in my backyard is one of these bark-eating, sap-sucking intruders from 
Asia.
  What is even more alarming is that we do not yet have a way to treat 
this pest. The only way to get rid of it is by destroying all the 
infested trees. The best way to fight this pest, and similar non-native 
wood borers, is to make sure they do not get into our country in the 
first place. That is why I am introducing legislation today to prevent 
additional introductions of the beetle and other invasive pests into 
the United States.
  The ``Invasive Pest Control Act'' will stiffen the requirements for 
treatment of imports that use solid wood products and wood packing 
material like pallets and crates. It will require that these imports 
either be debarked, kiln-dried or fumigated, depending on size, before 
they enter the United States. After five years, the use of these 
packing materials will be prohibited. This will give importers plenty 
of time to find alternative materials to ship their products. It will 
also give us a long-term insurance policy against future pest 
introductions.
  I want to make clear that the Asian longhorned beetle is only one of 
many invasive pests that present a serious threat to our forests. 
Spruce bark beetle and Mediterranean pine engraver beetle are two other 
invasive pests that we should be concerned about. My legislation will 
help prevent all of these stowaways from sneaking into our ports and 
then into our forests.
  This legislation is only a first step in preventing future 
introductions of these pests. We also need to increase funding for the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to increase the number of 
inspectors at our ports and improve shipping information on imports to 
track the source of these pests. We also need to launch a public 
awareness campaign to help detect any infestations within our country. 
In Vermont, we have beetle-identification cards to help the public spot 
the beetle in their backyards or sugarbushes. We need to do this in all 
the high-risk areas.
  All of these steps will help protect our forests and forest economies 
from the Asian longhorned beetle and other pests that could wreak havoc 
if they get their antennas in the door.
  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. 2480

       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 ``Invasive Pest Control Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the importation of unprocessed logs, lumber, and other 
     unmanufactured wood articles into the United States may 
     result in the introduction of nonindigenous pests and 
     pathogens to native North American forests;
       (2) when environmental conditions are favorable, 
     nonindigenous pests and pathogens may prey on and devastate 
     native North American tree species, devastate habitat, 
     disrupt other native species and the environment, and disrupt 
     the economy of affected forest areas;
       (3) the Comptroller General of the United States has 
     reported that the potential economic disruption to 
     communities affected by nonindigenous pests and pathogens 
     entering the United States, including forest pests, costs an 
     estimated $41,000,000,000 annually in lost production and 
     expenses for prevention and control;
       (4) commercial forestry is estimated to lose forest 
     products valued at $4,000,000,000 each year due to 
     infestations of nonindigenous pests and pathogens;
       (5) once introduced into the United States on unprocessed 
     logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles, 
     nonindigenous pests and pathogens are unintentionally or 
     unknowingly transported and introduced into inland forests 
     and habitats by truck transport and train shipment to mills, 
     consumers, and producers and by a variety of other means, 
     including wind, water, and wildlife;
       (6) examples of nonindigenous pests and pathogens infesting 
     forests of the United States that have caused or have the 
     potential to cause adverse economic and ecological effects 
     include--
       (A) Dutch Elm disease, which--
       (i) was introduced into the United States in the 1920's 
     with a shipment of European logs delivered to the Port of New 
     York and then forwarded to the Midwest by train;
       (ii) has spread throughout the United States, now to an 
     estimated 1,000,000 trees; and
       (iii) has decimated the American and other native elm 
     species;
       (B) the Gypsy Moth, which--
       (i) has no natural predators in the United States;
       (ii) spread rapidly and now infests Northeast forest in 
     approximately 200,000 square miles, with smaller infestations 
     occurring in several other areas from the Carolinas to 
     British Columbia; and
       (iii) feeds on hundreds of different tree species and 
     during outbreaks can defoliate many hardwood and shrub 
     species in their path, seriously weakening trees and stunting 
     the growth of, and eventually killing, many of the trees;
       (C) the Asian Long-Horned Beetle, which--
       (i) is a new exotic pest that has been discovered at ports 
     across the United States;
       (ii) has no natural enemies and has attacked mostly Norway 
     and sugar maples,

[[Page S10427]]

     some of the most valuable trees in the Northeast; and
       (iii) is considered a serious threat to the maple sugar 
     industry, lumber industry, homeowner property values, and 
     tourism in the Northeast; and
       (D) more recent nonindigenous pests and pathogens that have 
     become established in the forests of the United States and 
     are causing economic and ecological degradation with respect 
     to the natural forest resources of the United States, 
     including the Port Orford Cedar Root Rot, the Pine Wilt 
     disease, the Eurasian poplar rust fungus (discovered on the 
     West Coast), and the pine shoot beetle (introduced in the 
     Great Lakes area); and
       (7) if preventive management measures are not taken in a 
     timely manner throughout the United States to prevent 
     nonindigenous pests and pathogens from entering the United 
     States on unprocessed wood products or to control their 
     entry, further introductions and infestations of 
     nonindigenous plants and pathogens will occur.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purpose of this Act are--
       (1) to prevent the unintentional introduction and 
     dispersion of nonindigenous pests and pathogens into forests 
     of the United States through the importation of unprocessed 
     logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles;
       (2) to preserve and protect the health of the forests of 
     the United States, the forest-dependent economy of the United 
     States, native North American tree species, and irreplaceable 
     habitat from the potentially devastating effects of 
     nonindigenous pests and pathogens;
       (3) to coordinate federally conducted, funded, or 
     authorized research, prevention, control, information 
     dissemination, and other activities regarding forest pests 
     and pathogens; and
       (4) to understand and minimize the economic and ecological 
     impact of nonindigenous pests and pathogens.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (2) Treatment.--The term ``treatment'' means--
       (A) in the case of--
       (i) a wood article that is greater than 14 centimeters in 
     diameter at the broadest point; and
       (ii) wood chips, sawdust, wood mulch, and wood shavings;
     debarking and heating the wood article until the core reaches 
     at least 71.1 degrees Celsius for at least 75 minutes; and
       (B) in the case of a wood article that is less than 14 
     centimeters in diameter at the broadest point--
       (i) fumigation with an effective fumigant;
       (ii) kiln drying according to the Dry Kiln Operator's 
     Manual, Agriculture Handbook No. 188; or
       (iii) pressure treatment with an effective chemical 
     preservative.
       (3) Wood article.--The term ``wood article'' means a log, 
     lumber, whole tree, cut tree or portion of a tree (not solely 
     consisting of leaves), flower, fruit, bud, seed, bark, cork, 
     lath, hog fuel, sawdust, painted raw wood product, excelsior 
     (wood wool), wood chip, wood mulch, wood shaving, picket, 
     stake, shingle, pallet, wood packing material, humus, 
     compost, or litter, that is unprocessed or has received only 
     primary processing.

     SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS, 
                   BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, PLANT PESTS, 
                   NOXIOUS WEEDS, WOOD ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF 
                   CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     Secretary may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, 
     exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, wood article, or means of conveyance if the 
     Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is 
     necessary to prevent the introduction into the United States 
     or the interstate dispersion of a nonindigenous pest, 
     pathogen, or noxious weed.
       (b) Imported Wood Articles.--Each wood article (other than 
     a pallet, solid wood packing material, or dunnage) to be 
     imported into the United States shall be--
       (1) subject to treatment not more than 24 hours prior to 
     importation, in the exporting country or a hold aboard a ship 
     during transport; and
       (2) subject to treatment not later than 24 hours after 
     importation at the United States port of entry.
       (c) Pallets and Solid Wood Packing Materials.--
       (1) Treatment during interim period.--During the 5-year 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, each 
     pallet, solid wood packing material, and dunnage composed of 
     wood used to import an article into the United States shall 
     be--
       (A) subject to treatment in accordance with its dimensions 
     prior to first importation into the United States; and
       (B) marked with an international symbol designating the 
     treatment method.
       (2) Prohibition after interim period.--Effective beginning 
     on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the importation into the United States of a pallet, 
     packing material, or dunnage composed of wood is prohibited.

     SEC. 6. PLANT HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION TASK FORCE.

       (a) In General.--There is established a ``Plant Health and 
     Ecosystem Protection Task Force''.
       (b) Membership.--The membership of the Task Force shall 
     consist of--
       (1) the Secretary of Agriculture or a designee;
       (2) the Administrator of the Animal and Plant and Health 
     Inspection Service;
       (3) a representative of each Federal agency with 
     responsibility for managing natural resources (as determined 
     by the President), appointed by the head of the agency, 
     including--
       (A) the Forest Service;
       (B) the Bureau of Land Management;
       (C) the National Park Service;
       (D) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
       (E) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
       (F) the Agricultural Research Service;
       (G) the Agricultural Marketing Service;
       (H) the Natural Resource Conservation Service; and
       (I) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (4) a representative of the agency of each State 
     responsible for managing natural resources in the State, 
     appointed by the Governor of the State;
       (5) a representative of each nongovernmental organization 
     with an interest or expertise in plant health and ecosystem 
     protection (as determined by the President), appointed by the 
     head of the organization, including representatives of--
       (A) public interest environmental groups;
       (B) affected industry representatives;
       (C) ecologists; and
       (D) scientists in relevant disciplines.
       (c) Duties.--The Task Force shall develop criteria for 
     establishing precautionary phytosanitary procedures to 
     minimize the likelihood of the introduction or dispersion of 
     nonindigenous pests and pathogens in the course of 
     international or interstate commerce or travel.

     SEC. 7. FEES.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall--
       (1) require a person that imports a wood article into the 
     United States to obtain a permit before the article may be 
     imported into the United States;
       (2) require the person to pay an application fee for the 
     permit, in an amount determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture; and
       (3) transfer all fees collected under paragraph (2) to the 
     Fund established under section 8.

     SEC. 8. PEST REDUCTION IN WOOD ARTICLES FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a revolving fund, to be known as the ``Pest 
     Reduction in Wood Articles Fund'', to be used in accordance 
     with this section (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Fund''), consisting of--
       (1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Fund under 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Fund under subsection (d).
       (b) Transfers to Fund.--There are appropriated to the Fund 
     amounts equivalent to amounts collected as fees and received 
     in the Treasury under section 7.
       (c) Expenditures From Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on request by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall transfer from the Fund to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     such amounts as the Secretary of Agriculture determines are 
     necessary to support the costs of certifying treatment 
     facilities and conducting research to develop appropriate 
     technology for the control of the importation of 
     nonindigenous species on unprocessed logs, lumber, and other 
     unmanufactured wood articles.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--An amount not exceeding 10 
     percent of the amounts in the Fund shall be available in each 
     fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses necessary of 
     carrying out this Act.
       (d) Investment of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary, required to meet current withdrawals. Investments 
     may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the 
     United States.
       (2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (4) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the 
     Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2481. A bill to amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959 to improve 
the process of constructing, altering, and acquiring public buildings, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.

[[Page S10428]]

                the public buildings reform act of 1998

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public 
Buildings Reform Act of 1998. Let me start by expressing my thanks to 
the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator 
Chafee, and the Chairman of the relevant subcommittee, Senator Warner, 
for their support of this bill.
  Mr. President, the Public Buildings Reform Act will go a long way to 
helping Congress make wise decisions on public buildings construction. 
It will help Congress achieve some discipline with respect to the cost 
of new Federal buildings and courthouses. Specifically, the bill will 
bring some sanity to the Federal building and courthouse construction 
program.
  I have been working on Federal building issues for a number of years. 
And the more I have learned about the issue, the more concerned I have 
become. It is very important that we reform the Federal building and 
courthouse construction program. This bill will do just that.
  Why do we need reform? Because of the amount of funding that is 
devoted each year to new courthouse and other Federal building 
projects. We need to spend this money wisely and only on those projects 
that are truly needed.
  The Public Buildings Reform Act will help do just that. It 
accomplishes two major goals--prioritization of courthouse projects and 
other Federal buildings projects; and gaining control of the courthouse 
construction design guide.
  The Public Buildings Reform Act of 1998 is similar to legislation I 
introduced a few years ago. At that time, the Environment and Public 
Works Committee unanimously passed this legislation--which then went on 
to pass the entire Senate.
  However, the House failed to act on this legislation. So we find 
ourselves in the position of trying again. I and my colleagues 
introduce this legislation at this time so that the debate on public 
buildings reform will continue.
  I have been pleased that GSA and the Administrative Office of the 
Courts have made numerous improvements to the public building approval 
process since 1995. But these improvements must be codified so that 
there is no question that they will be continued in the future. Also, 
there are further steps that need to be taken in the area of Federal 
Government asset management.
  It is my hope that in the coming months, Congress will look hard at 
the public buildings approval process and will prepare legislation that 
can be enacted in the next Congress.
  Working with GSA, the Courts and others, I am confident we can take 
the steps necessary to assure the taxpayers that there are appropriate 
cost controls in place. That is our job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2481

       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 ``Public Buildings Reform Act 
     of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. SITE SELECTION.

       Section 5 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 
     604) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Consideration of Costs.--In selecting a site for a 
     project to construct, alter, or acquire a public building, or 
     to lease office or any other type of space, under this Act, 
     the Administrator shall consider the impact of the selection 
     of a particular site on the cost and space efficiency of the 
     project.''.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 
     1959 (40 U.S.C. 606) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking the last sentence;
       (B) in the first sentence, by striking ``In order'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Prerequisites to obligation of funds.--
       ``(B) Approval requirements.--
       ``(i) Construction, alteration, and acquisition.--In 
     order'';
       (C) in the second sentence, by striking ``No'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Lease.--No'';
       (D) in the third sentence, by striking ``No'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(iii) Alteration.--No'';
       (E) by striking ``Sec. 7. (a)'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 7. SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Public buildings plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     President submits to Congress the budget of the United States 
     Government under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a public 
     buildings plan (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `triennial plan') for the first 3 fiscal years that begin 
     after the date of submission. The triennial plan shall 
     specify such projects for which approval is required under 
     paragraph (2)(B) relating to the construction, alteration, or 
     acquisition of public buildings, or the lease of office or 
     any other type of space, as the Administrator determines are 
     necessary to carry out the duties of the Administrator under 
     this Act or any other law.
       ``(B) Contents.--The triennial plan shall include--
       ``(i) a 5-year strategic management plan for capital assets 
     under the control of the Administrator that--

       ``(I) provides for accommodating the office space and other 
     public building needs of the Federal Government; and
       ``(II) is based on procurement mechanisms that allow the 
     Administrator to take advantage of fluctuations in market 
     forces affecting building construction and availability;

       ``(ii) a list--

       ``(I) in order of priority, of each construction or 
     acquisition (excluding lease) project described in 
     subparagraph (A) for which an authorization of appropriations 
     is--

       ``(aa) requested for the first of the 3 fiscal years of the 
     triennial plan referred to in subparagraph (A) (referred to 
     in this paragraph as the `first year');
       ``(bb) expected to be requested for the second of the 3 
     fiscal years of the triennial plan referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     `second year'); or
       ``(cc) expected to be requested for the third of the 3 
     fiscal years of the triennial plan referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) (referred to in this paragraph as the `third 
     year'); and

       ``(II) that includes a description of each such project and 
     the number of square feet of space planned for each such 
     project;

       ``(iii) a list of each lease or lease renewal described in 
     subparagraph (A) for which an authorization of appropriations 
     is--

       ``(I) requested for the first year; or
       ``(II) expected to be requested for the second year or 
     third year;

       ``(iv) a list, in order of priority, of each planned repair 
     or alteration project described in subparagraph (A) for which 
     an authorization of appropriations is--

       ``(I) requested for the first year; or
       ``(II) expected to be requested for the second year or 
     third year;

       ``(v) an explanation of the basis for each order of 
     priority specified under clauses (ii) and (iv);
       ``(vi) the estimated annual and total cost of each project 
     requested in the triennial plan;
       ``(vii) a list of each public building planned to be wholly 
     vacated, to be exchanged for other property, or to be 
     disposed of during the period covered by the triennial plan; 
     and
       ``(viii) requests for authorizations of appropriations 
     necessary to carry out projects listed in the triennial plan 
     for the first year.
       ``(C) Presentation of information in plan.--
       ``(i) First year.--In the case of a project for which the 
     Administrator has requested an authorization of 
     appropriations for the first year, information required to be 
     included in the triennial plan under subparagraph (B) shall 
     be presented in the form of a prospectus that meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (2)(C).
       ``(ii) Second year and third year.--

       ``(I) In general.--In the case of a project for which the 
     Administrator expects to request an authorization of 
     appropriations for the second year or third year, information 
     required to be included in the triennial plan under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be presented in the form of a project 
     description.
       ``(II) Good faith estimates.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Each reference to cost, price, or any 
     other dollar amount contained in a project description 
     referred to in subclause (I) shall be considered to be a good 
     faith estimate by the Administrator.
       ``(bb) Effect.--A good faith estimate referred to in item 
     (aa) shall not bind the Administrator with respect to a 
     request for appropriation of funds for a fiscal year other 
     than a fiscal year for which an authorization of 
     appropriations for the project is requested in the triennial 
     plan.
       ``(cc) Explanation of deviation from estimate.--If the 
     request for an authorization of appropriations contained in 
     the prospectus for a project submitted under paragraph (2)(C) 
     is different from a good faith estimate for the project 
     referred to in item (aa), the prospectus shall include an 
     explanation of the difference.
       ``(D) Reinclusion of projects in plans.--If a project 
     included in a triennial plan is not approved in accordance 
     with this subsection, or if funds are not made available to 
     carry out a project, the Administrator may include the 
     project in a subsequent triennial plan submitted under this 
     subsection.'';
       (F) in paragraph (2) (as designated by subparagraph (B))--
       (i) by inserting after ``(2) Prereq-
     uisites to obligation of funds.--'' the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Administrator

[[Page S10429]]

     may not obligate funds that are made available for any 
     project for which approval is required under subparagraph (B) 
     unless--
       ``(i) the project was included in the triennial plan for 
     the fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) a prospectus for the project was submitted to 
     Congress and approved in accordance with this paragraph.''; 
     and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Prospectuses.--For the purpose of obtaining approval 
     of a proposed project described in the triennial plan, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a prospectus for the 
     project that includes--
       ``(i) a brief description of the public building to be 
     constructed, altered, or acquired, or the space to be leased, 
     under this Act;
       ``(ii) the location of the building to be constructed, 
     altered, or acquired, or the space to be leased, and an 
     estimate of the maximum cost, based on the predominant local 
     office space measurement system (as determined by the 
     Administrator), to the United States of the construction, 
     alteration, or acquisition of the building, or lease of the 
     space;
       ``(iii) in the case of a project for the construction of a 
     courthouse or other public building consisting solely of 
     general purpose office space, the cost benchmark for the 
     project determined under subsection (d); and
       ``(iv) in the case of a project relating to a courthouse--

       ``(I) as of the date of submission of the prospectus, the 
     number of--

       ``(aa) Federal judges for whom the project is to be carried 
     out; and
       ``(bb) courtrooms available for the judges;

       ``(II) the projected number of Federal judges and 
     courtrooms to be accommodated by the project at the end of 
     the 10-year period beginning on the date;
       ``(III) a justification for the projection under subclause 
     (II) (including a specification of the number of authorized 
     positions, and the number of judges in senior status, to be 
     accommodated);
       ``(IV) the year in which the courthouse in use as of the 
     date of submission of the prospectus reached maximum capacity 
     by housing only courts and court-related agencies;
       ``(V) the level of security risk at the courthouse in use 
     as of the date of submission of the prospectus, as determined 
     by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts; and
       ``(VI) the termination date of any lease, in effect as of 
     the date of submission of the prospectus, of space to carry 
     out a court-related activity that will be affected by the 
     project.''; and

       (G) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Emergency authority.--
       ``(A) Overriding interest.--If the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of the Public Buildings 
     Service, determines that an overriding interest requires 
     emergency authority to construct, alter, or acquire a public 
     building, or lease office or storage space, and that the 
     authority cannot be obtained in a timely manner through the 
     triennial planning process required under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator may submit a written request for the authority 
     to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives. The Administrator may carry 
     out the project for which authority was requested under the 
     preceding sentence if the project is approved in the manner 
     described in paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(B) Declared emergencies.--
       ``(i) Lease authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Administrator may enter into an 
     emergency lease during any period of emergency declared by 
     the President pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 
     or any other law, or declared by any Federal agency pursuant 
     to any applicable law, except that no such emergency lease 
     shall be for a period of more than 5 years.
       ``(ii) Reporting.--As part of each triennial plan, the 
     Administrator shall describe any emergency lease for which a 
     prospectus is required under paragraph (2) that was entered 
     into by the Administrator under clause (i) during the 
     preceding fiscal year.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Increases in Costs of Projects.--
       ``(1) Increase of 10 percent or less.--The''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Greater increases.--If the Administrator increases 
     the estimated maximum cost of a project in an amount greater 
     than the increase authorized by paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall, not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the increase, notify the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of the amount 
     of, and reasons for, the increase.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) In the case'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Rescission of Approval.--In the case''; and
       (4) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Development of Cost Benchmarks.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall develop standard 
     cost benchmarks for projects for the construction of 
     courthouses, and other public buildings consisting solely of 
     general purpose office space, for which a prospectus is 
     required under subsection (a)(2). The benchmarks shall 
     consist of the appropriate cost per square foot for low-rise, 
     mid-rise, and high-rise projects subject to the various 
     factors determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Factors.--In developing the benchmarks, the 
     Administrator shall consider such factors as geographic 
     location (including the necessary extent of seismic 
     structural supports), the tenant agency, and necessary 
     parking facilities, and such other factors as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.''.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--Section 11 of the Public 
     Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 610) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 11. (a) Upon'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 11. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) Reports on Uncompleted Projects.--Upon''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) The Administrator'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Building Project Surveys and Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator'';
       (B) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so 
     designated), by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and shall specify whether the project is 
     included in a 5-year strategic capital asset management plan 
     required under section 7(a)(1)(B)(i) or a prioritized list 
     required under section 7(a)(1)(B)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Inclusion of requested building projects in triennial 
     plan.--The Administrator may include a prospectus for the 
     funding of a public building project for which a report is 
     submitted under paragraph (1) in a triennial public buildings 
     plan required under section 7(a)(1).''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 
     U.S.C. 606) is amended by striking ``Committee on Public 
     Works and Transportation'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure''.
       (2) Section 11(b)(1) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 
     (as amended by subsection (b)(2)) is further amended by 
     striking ``Committee on Public Works and Transportation'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT.

       Section 12 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 
     611) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 12. (a) The Administrator'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 12. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) Duties of Administrator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Repository for asset management information.--The 
     Administrator shall use the results of the continuing 
     investigation and survey required under paragraph (1) to 
     establish a central repository for the asset management 
     information of the Federal Government.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) In carrying'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Cooperation Among Federal Agencies.--
       ``(1) By the administrator.--In carrying'';
       (B) by striking ``Each Federal'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) By the agencies.--Each Federal''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Identification and disposition of unneeded real 
     property.--
       ``(A) Identification.--Each Federal agency shall--
       ``(i) identify real property that is or will become 
     unneeded, obsolete, or underutilized during the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date of the identification; and
       ``(ii) annually report the information on the real property 
     described in clause (i) to the Administrator.
       ``(B) Disposition.--The Administrator shall analyze more 
     cost-effective uses for the real property identified under 
     subparagraph (A) and make recommendations to the Federal 
     agency concerning the more cost-effective uses.'';
       (4) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c) Whenever'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Identification of Buildings of Historic, 
     Architectural, and Cultural Significance.--Whenever''; and
       (5) in subsection (d), by striking ``(d) The 
     Administrator'' and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Regard to Comparative Urgency of Need.--The 
     Administrator''.

     SEC. 5. ADDRESSING LONG-TERM GOVERNMENT HOUSING NEEDS.

       (a) Report on Long-Term Housing Needs.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and the end of each 2-year period 
     thereafter, the head of each Federal agency (as defined in 
     section 13(3) of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 
     612(3))) shall review and report to the Administrator of 
     General Services (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``Administrator'') on the long-term housing needs of the 
     agency. The Administrator shall consolidate the agency 
     reports and submit a consolidated report to Congress.
       (2) Assistance and uniform standards.--The Administrator 
     shall--
       (A) assist each agency in carrying out the review required 
     under paragraph (1); and

[[Page S10430]]

       (B) prepare uniform standards for housing needs for--
       (i) executive agencies (as defined in section 13(4) of the 
     Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 612(4))); and
       (ii) establishments in the judicial branch of the Federal 
     Government.
       (b) Reduction in Aggregate Office and Storage Space.--By 
     the end of the third fiscal year that begins after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Federal agencies referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     collectively reduce by not less than 10 percent the aggregate 
     office and storage space used by the agencies (regardless of 
     whether the space is leased or owned) on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. DESIGN GUIDES AND STANDARDS FOR COURT ACCOMMODATIONS.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts, shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives that specifies the characteristics of court 
     accommodations that are essential to the provision of due 
     process of law and the safe, fair, and efficient 
     administration of justice by the Federal court system.
       (b) Design Guides and Standards.--
       (1) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts and after notice and opportunity for comment, 
     shall develop design guides and standards for Federal court 
     accommodations based on the report submitted under subsection 
     (a). In developing the design guides and standards, the 
     Administrator shall consider space efficiency and the 
     appropriate standards for furnishings.
       (2) Use.--Notwithstanding section 462 of title 28, United 
     States Code, the design guides and standards developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be used in the design of court 
     accommodations.

     SEC. 7. DESIGN OF FEDERAL COURTHOUSES.

       The Act entitled ``An Act establishing a Commission on Fine 
     Arts'', approved May 17, 1910 (36 Stat. 371, chapter 243; 40 
     U.S.C. 104), is amended by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following: ``It shall be the duty of the 
     commission, not later than 60 days after submission of a 
     conceptual design to the commission for a Federal courthouse 
     at any place in the United States, to provide advice on the 
     design, including an evaluation of the ability of the design 
     to express the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of 
     the American Government appropriately and within the accepted 
     standards of courthouse design.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2483. A bill to establish programs regarding early detection, 
diagnosis, and interventions for newborns and infants with hearing 
loss; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


  the early hearing loss detection, diagnosis and intervention Act of 
                                  1998

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Early Hearing 
Loss Detection, Diagnosis and Intervention Act of 1998, which will 
serve as a companion bill to H.R. 2923, introduced in the House by 
Representative Jim Walsh. I am pleased to have, as the lead cosponsor, 
my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has long been a champion of 
the hearing impaired.
  We have a tendency to associate hearing problems with the aging 
process, and it is true that the largest group of Americans suffering 
from hearing impairment are those in the 65 to 75 year age range. At 
the other end of the spectrum, however, approximately 1.5 to 3 out of 
every 1000 children--or as many as 33 children per day--are born with 
significant hearing problems. According to the National Institute on 
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, as many as 12,000 infants 
are born each year in the U.S. with some form of hearing impairment.
  In the last several years, scientists have begun to tell us that the 
first years of a child's life are crucial to their future development. 
This makes early detection and intervention of hearing loss a necessity 
if we are to ensure that all our children get the strong start they 
deserve. Currently, the average age of diagnosis of hearing loss is 
close to three years of age. Yet it is believed that speech and oral 
language development can begin as early as 6 months of age. Without 
early diagnosis and intervention, these children are behind the 
learning curve--literally--before they have even started. They should 
not be denied a strong start in life simply for the lack of a simple 
screening test.
  There are many causes of hearing loss, and in many states a newborn 
child is screened only if the physician is aware of some factor that 
puts that baby in a risk category. Our four states--Rhode Island, 
Hawaii, Colorado, and Mississippi--currently require the screening of 
all newborns. in 16 other states, babies are screened only if they are 
believed to be a risk. This screening process, while important, detects 
only 50 percent--or half--of the hearing problems in young children.
  Universal screening is not a new idea. As early as 1965, the Advisory 
Committee on Education of the Deaf, in a report of the Secretary of 
Health, Education and Welfare, recommended the development and 
nationwide implementation of ``universally applied procedures for early 
identification.'' In 1989, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop used 
this year 2000 as a goal for identifying 90 percent of children with 
significant hearing loss before they are one year old. And just last 
year, the National Institutes of Health convened an expert panel at the 
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, and 
the panel made a recommendation that the first hearing screening be 
carried out before three months of age to ensure that treatment can 
begin before six months of age.
  It is time to move beyond the recommendations and achieve the goal of 
universal screening. In addition to the four states that require 
screening, the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health, in conjunction with 
the Centers for Disease Control, is helping 17 states commit to 
achieving universal hearing screening by the year 2000. This plan will 
lead to the screening of more than 1 million newborns a year, but it 
still leaves more than half the states without universal screening 
programs.

  The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to provide the 
additional assistance necessary to help all the states in implementing 
programs to ensure that all our newborns are tested and to ensure that 
those identified with a hearing impairment get help. Specifically, the 
bill:
  (1) Authorizes $5 million for the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to work with the states to develop early detection, diagnosis 
and intervention networks;
  (2) Authorizes $5 million for the Centers for Disease Control to 
provide technical assistance to State agencies and to conduct applied 
research related to infant hearing detection, diagnosis and treatment/
intervention; and
  (3) Authorizes $3 million for the National Institutes of Health to 
carry out research on the efficacy of new screening techniques and 
technology.
  A baby born today will be part of this coutnry's future in the 21st 
century. Surely we owe it to that child to give them a strong start on 
that future by ensuring that if they do have a hearing impairment it is 
diagnosed and treatment started well before their first year of life is 
completed. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Harkin in 
supporting the Early Hearing Loss Detection, Diagnosis and Intervention 
Act of 1998.
 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along 
with my colleague, Senator Snowe, the ``Early Hearing Loss Detection, 
Diagnosis, and Intervention Act of 1998.''
  The Early Hearing Loss Act would help States establish programs to 
detect and diagnose hearing loss in every newborn child and to promote 
appropriate treatment and intervention for newborns with hearing loss. 
The Act also would fund research by the National Institutes of Health 
to determine the best detection, diagnostic, treatment and intervention 
techniques and technologies.
  Every year, about 12,000 children in the United States are born with 
a hearing impairment. Most of them will not be diagnosed as hearing 
imparied until after their second birthday. The consequences of not 
detecting early hearing impairment are significant, but easily 
avoidable.
  Late detection means that crucial years of stimulating the brain's 
hearing centers are lost. It may delay speech and language development. 
Delayed language development can retard a child's educational progress, 
minimize his or her socialization skills, and as a result, destroy his 
or her self-esteem and confidence. On top of all that,

[[Page S10431]]

many children are diagnosed incorrectly as having behavioral or 
cognitive problems, simply because of their undetected hearing loss.
  In 1988, the Commission on Education of the Deaf reported to Congress 
that early detection, diagnosis, and treatment were essential to 
improving the status of education for people who are deaf in the United 
States. This Act is our opportunity to finally implement that common-
sense recommendation.
  Mr. President, this Act would help states develop programs that many 
of them already are working on; it would not impose a single federal 
mandate. Eight states already have mandatory testing programs; nine 
others have legislation pending to establish such programs. Other 
states have achieved universal newborn testing voluntarily. These 
programs can work; they deserve federal help.
  One of the highlights of my Congressional career, indeed, of my life, 
has been working on policies and laws to ensure that people with 
disabilities have an equal opportunity to succeed in our society. This 
is especially meaningful to me, because my brother Frank became deaf as 
a child.
  I watched Frank grow up, and I saw how few options and support 
services were available for people who were deaf. I remember the 
frustrations and challenges Frank faced, and I told myself early on 
that I would do all I could to break down the barriers in our society 
that prevented people who were deaf from reaching their potential. By 
supporting early screening, diagnosis, and treatment programs, this Act 
would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.
  I would like to thank Senator Snowe for her hard work and support of 
this Act, and I hope our colleagues will join us in this worthy 
effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Ms. Moseley-
        Braun, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. 
        Torricelli):
  S. 2484. A bill to combat violent and gang-related crime in schools 
and on the streets, to reform the juvenile justice system, target 
international crime, promote effective drug and other crime prevention 
programs, assist crime victims, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


       SAFE SCHOOLS, SAFE STREETS AND SECURE BORDERS ACT OF 1998

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, joined by Senators Daschle, Biden, 
Moseley-Braun, Murray, and other Democratic Senators, I am introducing 
comprehensive crime legislation, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and 
Secure Borders Act of 1998, to keep the crime rate in this country 
going down. Past Democratic anti-crime initiatives, such as the 1994 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, have resulted in an 
historic decrease in crime rates in the United States. The FBI reports 
that violent crime in 1996 was at the lowest level since 1989, and that 
the overall crime rate was lower than any year since 1984. Preliminary 
figures for 1997 show that serious crime dropped an additional four 
percent last year. These are very good numbers.
  Yet, according to recent reports in the Los Angeles Times, people 
still feel that crime is the number one public policy issue that needs 
attention. Americans still feel vulnerable to becoming crime victims, 
and want policy makers to do more. Thus, even with the decrease in 
crime rates, this is not the time to stop working on additional ways to 
reduce crime. Senate Democrats want to do more. We must do more to 
ensure that the crime rates continue their downward trend next year, 
the year after, and the years after that.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 builds 
on the successful programs we have implemented in the 1994 Crime Law 
and addresses emerging crime problems. The bill is comprehensive. It is 
realistic. It is fully funded, without reaching into any cookie jars. 
It is designed to be enacted, without partisan or ideological 
controversy. In fact, the bill contains a number of initiatives that 
enjoy bipartisan support. We have tried to avoid the easy rhetoric 
about crime that some have to offer in this crucial area of public 
policy. Here is a chance to actually make a difference. It is a ``Can 
Do'' Act.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act targets 
violent crime in our schools, reforms the juvenile justice system, 
combats gang violence, cracks down on the sale and use of illegal 
drugs, enhances the rights of crime victims, and provides meaningful 
assistance to law enforcement officers in the battle against street 
crime, international crime and terrorism. The Act represents an 
important next step in the continuing effort by Senate Democrats to 
enact tough, common-sense and balanced reforms to our criminal justice 
system. That is why the International Brotherhood of Police Officers 
has endorsed this bill.
  The bill has ten comprehensive titles to address crime in our 
schools, crime on our streets, and crime on our borders and abroad. I 
should note that the bill contains no new death penalties and no new or 
increased mandatory minimums. We can be tough without imposing the 
death penalty, and we can ensure certain punishment without removing 
all discretion from the judge at sentencing.
  Title I of the bill deals with proposals for combating violence in 
schools and punishing juvenile crime. This title has four subtitles 
dealing with assistance to schools, reform of the federal juvenile 
system, assisting States on prosecuting and punishing juvenile 
offenders and reducing juvenile crime, and protecting children from 
violence, including violence from the misuse of guns.
  Assistance to Schools. Americans are dismayed and grief-stricken at 
the recent shootings at schools across the country. While homicides at 
American schools have remained relatively constant in recent years, the 
number of students who have experienced a violent crime in school 
increased 23 percent in 1995 compared to 1989. We need to make sure our 
children attend school in a safe environment that fosters learning, not 
fear.
  The bill would provide COPS grants for school-based partnerships 
between schools and law enforcement to combat school-related crime. It 
contains a proposal developed by Senator Bingaman to establish a School 
Security Technology Center using expertise from the Sandia National 
Labs, and provide grants from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program 
enabling schools to access technical assistance for school security.
  Federal Prosecution of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. The 
bill would also make important reforms to the federal juvenile system, 
without federalizing run-of-the-mill juvenile offenses and ignoring the 
traditional prerogative of the States to handle the bulk of juvenile 
crime. One of the significant flaws in the Republican juvenile crime 
bill, S. 10, is that it would--in the words of Chief Justice Rhenquist 
--``eviscerate this traditional deference to state prosecutions, 
thereby increasing substantially the potential workload of the federal 
judiciary.'' The Chief Justice has raised concerns about 
``federalizing'' certain juvenile crimes and has urged that ``federal 
prosecutions should be limited to those offenses that cannot and should 
not be prosecuted in the state courts.'' The Democratic proposals for 
reform of the Federal juvenile justice system heed this sound advice 
and respect our Federal system.
  Among other reforms, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure 
Borders Act would allow federal prosecution of juveniles when the 
Attorney General certifies that the State cannot or will not exercise 
jurisdiction, or when the juvenile is alleged to have committed a 
violent, drug or firearm offense.
  Prosecutors would be given sole, nonreviewable authority to prosecute 
as adults 16 and 17 year olds who are alleged to have committed the 
most serious violent and drug offenses. Limited judicial review is 
provided for prosecutors' decisions to try as adults 13, 14 and 15 year 
old juveniles, and 16 and 17 year olds, who are charged with less 
serious federal offenses. These juveniles are permitted under strict 
time limits to ask a judge for a ``reverse waiver'' and transfer to 
juvenile, rather than adult, status.
  Assistance to States for Prosecuting and Punishing Juvenile 
Offenders, and Reducing Juvenile Crime. The bill would authorize grants 
to the States for incarcerating violent and chronic juvenile offenders 
(with each qualifying State getting at least one percent

[[Page S10432]]

of available money), providing graduated sanctions, reimbursing States 
for the cost of incarcerating juvenile alien offenders, and a pilot 
program to replicate successful juvenile crime reduction strategies.
  Protecting Children from Violence. The bill contains important 
initiatives to protect children from violence, including violence 
resulting from the misuse of guns. Given the recent tragic shootings 
committed by children, Americans want concrete proposals to reduce the 
risk of such incidents recurring. At the same time, I certainly do not 
want to demonize guns or the legitimate use of guns for protection and 
security or for sport.
  The bill would impose a prospective gun ban for juveniles convicted 
or adjudicated delinquent for violent crimes. It would require 
revocation of a firearms dealer's license for failing to have secure 
gun storage or safety devices available for sale with firearms. The 
bill would enhance the penalty for possessing a firearm during the 
commission of a crime of violence or drug offense and for violation of 
certain firearm laws involving juveniles. In addition, the bill would 
authorize competitive grant programs for establishment of juvenile gun 
courts and youth violence courts.
  Title II of the bill addresses the problem of gang violence. We all 
share a concern about the growing gang problem in our cities and in 
rural areas of this country. More than 665,000 gang members belong to 
23,000 youth gangs in the United States, and the numbers are growing.
  This part of the bill would crack down on gangs by making the 
interstate ``franchising'' of street gangs a crime. It will also 
increase penalties for crimes during which the convicted felon wears 
protective body armor or uses ``laser-sighting'' devices to commit the 
crime. The bill also doubles the criminal penalties for using or 
threatening physical violence against witnesses and contains other 
provisions designed to facilitate the use and protection of witnesses 
to help prosecute gangs and other violent criminals. For example, the 
bill would clarify that the federal gratuity statute does not apply to 
cooperation agreements, contrary to the Tenth Circuit's recent 
Singleton decision. The Act also provides funding for law enforcement 
agencies in communities designated by the Attorney General as areas 
with a high level of interstate gang activity.
  Title III of the bill would set forth a number of initiatives in nine 
subtitles to combat violence in the streets. The Safe Schools, Safe 
Streets, and Secure Borders Act continues successful initiatives in the 
1994 Crime Act by putting more police officers on our streets, 
providing for the construction of more prisons, preventing juvenile 
felons from buying handguns, and increasing the security of women and 
children against domestic violence. Specifically, the bill would extend 
COPS funding into 2001 and 2002; increase the state minimum for Violent 
Offender Incarceration grants from .25 to .75 percent, establish a 
state minimum of .75 percent for Truth-in-Sentencing grants, and extend 
both these grant programs into 2001 and 2002; extend authorization for 
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funding and local law enforcement 
grant programs.
  A significant problem that arose this year was the loss of 
confidentiality that had previously attached to the important work of 
the U.S. Secret Service. The Departments of Justice and Treasury and 
even a former Republican President advise that the safety of future 
Presidents may be jeopardized by forcing U.S. Secret Service agents to 
breach the confidentiality they need to do their job by testifying 
before a grand jury. I trust the Secret Service on this issue; they are 
the experts with the mission of protecting the lives of the President 
and other high-level elected officials and visiting dignitaries. I also 
have confidence in the judgment of former President Bush, who has 
written, ``I feel very strongly that [Secret Service] agents should not 
be made to appear in court to discuss that which they might or might 
not have seen or heard.''
  The Safe Schools Act provides a reasonable and limited protective 
function privilege so that in the future Secret Service agents are able 
to maintain the confidentiality they say they need to protect the lives 
of the President, Vice President and visiting heads of state. This 
title of the bill includes a number of provisions to address the 
following matters:
  Domestic violence: In addition to extending authorized funding for 
VAWA, the bill would punish attempts to commit interstate domestic 
violence, expand the interstate domestic violence offense to cover 
intimidation, and punish interstate travel with the intent to kill a 
spouse.
  Protecting Law Enforcement and Judiciary: The Act recognizes that law 
enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day. According 
to the FBI, over 1,000 officers have been killed in the line of duty 
since 1980. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act 
contains provisions to protect the lives of our law enforcement 
officers by extending the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program 
through 2003. It also establishes new crimes and increases penalties 
for killing federal officers and persons working with federal officers, 
including in the prison context, and for retaliation against federal 
officials by threatening or injuring their family members. The Act 
enhances the penalty for assaults and threats against Federal judges 
and other federal officials engaged in their official duties.
  Cargo/Property Theft: The bill also contains an important initiative 
proposed by Senator Lautenberg to deter cargo thefts.
  Sentencing Improvements: This subtitle doubles the maximum penalty 
for manslaughter from 10 to 20 years, consistent with the Sentencing 
Commission's recommendation, applies the sentencing guidelines to all 
pertinent federal statutes (such as criminal prohibitions in statutes 
outside titles 18 and 21 of the United States Code), and other 
improvements.
  Civil Liberties: The bill includes the ``Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act,'' which was originally introduced by Senator Kennedy and has the 
strong bipartisan support of over twenty Members, and other initiatives 
designed to bolster support for enforcement of civil rights.
  These program initiatives are funded by extending the Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund for two more years--from downsizing the Federal 
Government and not from touching the projected Federal budget surplus.
  Title IV of the bill outlines a number of prevention programs that 
are critical to reducing juvenile crime. These programs include grants 
to youth organizations and ``Say No to Drugs'' Community Centers, 
reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, Anti-Drug Abuse 
Programs and Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. Additional sections 
include a program suggested by Senator Bingaman to establish a 
competitive grant program to reduce truancy, with priority given to 
efforts to replicate successful programs.
  The bill would also reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act (JJDPA) similarly to H.R. 1818, which passed the House 
by an overwhelming majority last year. This section creates a new 
juvenile justice block grant program and retains the four core 
protections for youth in detention, while adopting greater flexibility 
for rural areas and modifies the membership of the state advisory 
groups.
  The Republican juvenile crime bill, S. 10, would gut these core 
protections for juveniles in detention. Republican sponsors of this 
bill have scrambled to change this bill since they refused to fix it 
during Committee mark-up, but even as revised this bill remains 
seriously flawed. A letter sent just last week from the National 
Collaboration For Youth (comprised of the American Red Cross, Big 
Brothers, Big Sisters, Boy and Girl Scouts of America, United Way, the 
YMCA and the YWCA, and other prominent voluntary health and social 
welfare organizations), criticized the revised S. 10 for being ``ill-
conceived'' and for exposing youngsters ``to increased risk.'' 
According to these experts who work intensively with children, S. 10 as 
revised ``could ironically lead to more juvenile crime--not less--if 
enacted.'' The Democratic crime bill puts ideology aside, and follows 
the advice of these experts.

  Title V of the bill contains six subtitles on combating illegal drug 
use. Illegal drugs are too often at the heart of crime. This Act would 
help break the cycle of drug use by criminals, requiring States to test 
prisoners for drugs

[[Page S10433]]

and to provide drug treatment programs, so that the convicts would not 
return to the streets still addicted, and still caught up in a cycle of 
crime. It would protect our children by increasing penalties for 
selling drugs to kids and drug trafficking in or near schools, and 
crack down on ``club drugs.'' It would go a step further and encourage 
pharmacotherapy research to develop medications for the treatment of 
drug addiction, a proposal Senator Biden has urged. It would fund drug 
courts, which subject eligible drug offenders to programs of intensive 
supervision. This title also would reauthorize the Drug Czar/Office of 
National Drug Control Policy, as Senator Biden has recommended in 
legislation he has introduced with bipartisan support.
  Title VI of the bill deals with criminal history records and the use 
of new technologies for law enforcement purposes. We can not 
underestimate the usefulness of criminal history records, which can 
help solve crimes and help prevent crimes. The bill contains the 
``Interstate Identification Index''(III) Compact to decentralize the 
FBI's maintenance of the national criminal history database and provide 
access to criminal history records for noncriminal justice purposes in 
accordance with state rules. This provision has bipartisan support and 
has already passed the Senate.
  The compact is a reciprocal, voluntary system of sharing criminal 
history records (including juvenile records) for noncriminal justice 
purposes among the States and FBI that is efficient, more accurate than 
the current system, promises to save money, and allows each 
participating State to effectuate its own access policies.
  In addition, this title contains the ``Crime Identification 
Technology Act,'' to provide $250 million each year for five years in 
grants to States for identification and communications systems and 
forensic labs. This legislation has strong bipartisan support and has 
also already passed the Senate and is pending in the House.
  Title VII of the bill is intended to increase the right of victims 
who unfortunately become involved in the criminal justice system. The 
criminal is only half of the equation. We would guarantee the rights of 
crime victims. All States have some victims' rights laws on the books, 
but they lack the training and resources to make those rights a 
reality. This bill provides a model Bill of Rights for crime victims in 
the federal system, and makes available to the States grants to fund 
the hiring of State and Federal victim-witness advocates, training, and 
the technology necessary for model notification system. This bill would 
make victims' rights a reality.
  Specifically, this title reforms federal law and evidence to enhance 
victims' participation in all stages of criminal proceedings by giving 
victims a right to notice of detention hearings, plea agreements, 
sentencing, probation revocations, escapes or releases from prison, and 
to allocution at hearings, as well as grants for obtaining state-of-
the-art systems for providing notice. In addition, this title would 
provide grant programs to study effectiveness of restorative justice 
approach for victims and to study crimes against persons with 
developmental disabilities and for development of strategies to combat 
such crimes.
  Title VIII of the bill details provisions for combating money 
laundering. Crime increasingly has an international face, from drug 
kingpins to millionaire terrorists, like Usama bin Laden. The money 
laundering provisions of this bill hit these international criminals 
where they live - in the pocketbook.
  These provisions would prove to be a key tool in winning the war on 
drugs. We must have interdiction; we must have treatment programs; we 
must tell kids to say ``No'' to drugs. But we have to do more, and 
taking the profit away from the drug lords is an effective weapon. This 
Democratic crime bill would strengthen these laws.
  FBI Director Freeh recently testified at a hearing before the 
Judiciary Committee that enhanced money laundering provisions would be 
an important tool against the likes of international terrorists, such 
as bin Laden. FBI Director Freeh praised the following provisions set 
forth in this title of the bill.
  Fugitive Disentitlement to stop drug kingpins, terrorists and other 
international fugitives from using our courts to fight to keep the 
proceeds of the very crimes for which they are wanted. Criminals should 
not be able to use our courts at the same time they are evading our 
laws.
  Immediate seizure of U.S. assets of foreign criminals, so terrorists 
and drug lords will not be able to keep their money one step ahead of 
the law enforcement.
  Limits on Foreign Bank Secrecy to stop criminals from hiding behind 
foreign bank secrecy laws while they use U.S. courts.
  These and other money laundering provisions in the bill should find 
bipartisan support for quick passage before the end of this Congress.
  Title IX sets forth important proposals for combating international 
crime. In particular, the bill would punish violent crimes or murder 
against American citizens abroad, deny safe havens to international 
criminals by strengthening extradition, promote cooperation with 
foreign governments on sharing witnesses and evidence, and streamline 
the prosecution of international crimes in U.S. courts. Provisions 
include: giving the FBI authority to investigate and prosecute the 
murder or extortion of U.S. citizens and state and local officials 
involved in federally-sponsored programs abroad; providing for 
extradition under certain circumstances for offenses not covered in a 
treaty or absent a treaty; giving the Attorney General authority to 
transfer and share witnesses with foreign governments, and obtain and 
use foreign evidence in criminal cases; prohibiting fugitives from 
benefitting from time served abroad fighting extradition; adding 
serious computer crimes as predicate offenses for which wiretaps may be 
authorized; and providing court order procedures for law enforcement 
access to stored information on computer networks.
  Finally, Title X contains provisions to strengthen the air, land and 
sea borders of this country. The bill would punish violence at the 
borders, increase authority of maritime law enforcement officers at the 
borders, increase penalties for smuggling contraband and other 
products, strengthen immigration laws to exclude foreign fleeing 
felons, and persons involved in racketeering and arms trafficking. 
Specific sections include: punishing ``port-running,'' which is driving 
or crashing through Customs entry ports; sanctions for not cooperating 
with maritime law enforcement officers by obstructing lawful boarding 
requests and commands to ``heave to''; and denying admission into the 
U.S. of persons whom consular officials have reason to believe are 
involved in RICO acts, arms trafficking, or alien smuggling for profit, 
or are fleeing foreign prosecution.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act is a 
comprehensive Act. Nothing in this bill is just for show or rhetorical 
flourish. Keeping our schools safe, keeping our streets safe, keeping 
our citizens safe when they go abroad, and keeping our borders secure 
are matters on which we can and should make progress. I look forward to 
working for passage of as many parts of this bill as possible in this 
Congress.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Democrats in the Senate are 
introducing a bill--The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders 
Act of 1998, which builds on a legacy of success Senate Democrats have 
had in the area of anti-crime legislation.
  The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 
continues successful initiatives in the 1994 Crime Act, reforms the 
juvenile justice system, combats gang violence, cracks down on the sale 
and use of illegal drugs, ensures the rights of crime victims, and 
provides valuable tools to law enforcement officers as they battle 
international crime and terrorism.
  While this bill goes a long way to fight crime in our communities and 
protect our borders, today I want to speak about the horrific and 
tragic acts of violence that have occurred in no less than 14 of our 
nation's schools over the past 18 months, most recently as schools were 
preparing to close for summmer recess, less than 100 miles from our 
Nation's Capitol--in Richmond, Virginia--and how this bill targets this 
school-based violent crime.
  Over the past 18 months, 18 children and four adults have been killed 
as a result of school shootings.

[[Page S10434]]

  When is it going to stop? The nation had seen enough when two 
students in Jonesboro, Arkansas, ages 11 and 13, began shooting during 
a false fire alarm. Four girls and one teacher died on that terrible 
day in March. Since then, 8 more have fallen prey to these school 
killings.
  The number of students who have experienced a violent crime in school 
continues to rise, with a 23 percent increase between 1989 and 1995.
  Mr. President, if we are looking for reasons why our schools erupted 
in gunfire this year, we need only look at the annual survey released 
recently by the PRIDE organization, a respected non-profit group that 
works with young people and their families and communities to create 
drug-free and safe environments. Their annual PRIDE surveys have been 
used by 5,500 schools, the Office of National Drug Control Policy's 
Performance Measures of Effectiveness, and this Congress to monitor 
student drug use.
  The results of the latest PRIDE survey are appalling. Almost a 
million students--some as young as 10--carry guns to school.
  Even worse, half the students carrying guns are also carrying 
grudges--over half said they had threatened a teacher, and almost two-
thirds had threatened to harm another student.
  What's more, these students are bringing other problems.
  Nearly two-thirds are monthly users of illicit drugs, such as 
cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. According to Dr. 
Thomas J. Gleaton, one of the authors of the study, this means that, on 
average, for every classroom in every school building in America, one 
student showed up with a gun this year. Out of these students, two-
thirds were using drugs regularly and carrying grudges. Add together 
this volatile mix of drugs, guns, and hostility, and the result is what 
we have seen this year.
  If you are not moved by the statistics, look at the shootings. Look 
at the horror visited on those school children in Rhode Island, Oregon, 
Washington, Arkansas, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Look at Texas, 
or Mississippi, Missouri or California, or the tragic events last year 
in Alaska. This is a national plight afflicting all our communities. As 
leaders of our nation, we should all be saddened and discouraged by our 
lack of attention to this critical problem.
  How many more children must die before we face up to this crisis?
  How can we provide our children with hope for tomorrow if they fear 
for their life today?
  I can think of no other issue closer to the hearts and minds of the 
American people than the safety of our children.
  Mr. President, we know some things work to prevent youth violence, 
and we have included these measures in our bill.
  This bill will establish partnerships between schools and local law 
enforcement agencies to put specially trained community-oriented 
officers in schools. We know from the success of the COPS Program that 
a positive relationship between the community and law enforcement is 
critical to successful crime prevention. This approach will also 
benefit schools by providing additional protection and adult 
supervision to curb violence in schools. In addition, this bill creates 
a School Security Technology Center to serve as a national resource to 
local schools trying to make their schools as safe as possible for 
students.
  The PRIDE survey contained some hopeful news as well, Mr. President. 
While drug use is still dangerously high, this past school year, for 
the first time in seven years, the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other 
drugs by young people decreased across the board. Students who were 
heavily involved in after-school activities were more than twice as 
likely to stay away from drugs than students who never participated in 
these activities.
  Mr. President, we should support after-school programs. Let's give 
our kids coaches and mentors now--and they won't need wardens and 
judges later.
  Our bill will protect children from becoming crime victims by 
providing additional funding for proven prevention programs in crime-
prone areas and creating after school ``safe havens'' where children 
are protected from drugs, gangs and crime with activities including 
drug prevention education, academic tutoring, mentoring, and abstinence 
training.
  We recognized the importance of community involvement when we passed 
a bill that I joined my colleagues in introducing--the Drug-Free 
Communities Act. That bill recognized that the entire community must 
become involved to prevent the proliferation of drugs.
  This year, let's increase our support and encouragement for 
prevention programs that include parents and children, law enforcement 
and teachers, mentors and coaches.
  I wish the events of the last 18 months told a different story, but 
unfortunately it has become evident that some safeguards are needed. If 
you doubt that, look at what happened in Greensboro, North Carolina, 
just four months ago when Carlos Gilmer was accidentally shot and 
killed at his sixth birthday party after he and his four-year-old 
playmate found a loaded gun in a purse.
  No new crime bill program, by itself, will solve this problem of 
youth violence. But, we can do something. We know some things that 
work.
  How will we feel if there is another Jonesboro, or Springfield? How 
will we look at ourselves if we have not done everything in our power 
to prevent such a tragedy? Let us act now, so we won't have to face 
those questions. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act 
of 1998 will go a long way to prevent future acts of school violence.
  There is much that divides our two parties. But the issue of our 
children's safety is--or should be--one area on which we can agree. We 
must protect our children from violence and prevent our children from 
becoming violent.
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support 
for the tough, common sense approach to fighting crime that is embodied 
in the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998''. 
I want to urge every one of my colleagues--Democrat and Republican--to 
stand behind this bill and in the closing weeks of this Congress to 
pass these measures to protect Americans from the crime in our streets, 
in our schoolyards, and around the world. With lives on the line, there 
is no time to wait, no time to hesitate, and no time to be partisan.
  Four years ago we came together and passed a crime bill that was 
tough on crime and smart on prevention. I am proud to have helped lead 
the fight four years ago to put 100,000 cops on the street, and now 
it's working. Crime is down 22% in Massachusetts and communities tell 
you it's because we've restored the notion of community policing. In 
Boston, juvenile crime is down to levels we haven't seen since the 
1950's--and Mayor Tom Menino is proving that a combination of tough 
punishment and outreach to at-risk young people is a prescription for 
safety, a prescription for crime prevention. None of this would have 
been possible if this Senate hadn't come together to get serious about 
crime. Now in America we need to get serious again about crime 
prevention.
  This crime bill continues to build on the achievements of the 1994 
Crime Bill, focusing on the new epidemic of crime in our schools, flaws 
in the juvenile justice system, the crisis of gang violence, and the 
sale and use of illegal drugs. We wrote this bill keeping in mind both 
those we are fighting for and those who lead the fight in our streets--
that's why it enhances the rights of victims and gives more tools to 
law enforcement officers as they take on international crime and 
terrorism.
  From expanding the COPS Program, providing additional funds for 
prisons and jails, helping the fight against violence against women, 
and creating partnerships between schools and law enforcement agencies, 
this bill targets resources on the ground where they're needed the 
most. This bill is smart and tough when it comes to building a better 
juvenile justice system--giving federal prosecutors the authority to 
prosecute some juvenile criminals as adults when they commit the most 
heinous of crimes; banning gun purchases by juveniles who have been 
convicted of violent crime; and providing the badly needed funds for 
youth violence courts. These measures respond to the demand from those 
brave social workers, prosecutors, and police working on juvenile

[[Page S10435]]

crime at ground zero with inadequate resources.
  This bill also represents a critical response to the crisis of 
international crime and terrorism. Mr. President, we are facing a 
threat that is global in nature: transnational crime organizations that 
closely resemble multinational corporations; terrorist organizations 
that have pledged to send more and more Americans home in body-bags. 
This bill does more than send the message that we won't tolerate 
terrorism--it makes it clear that we're going to give our law 
enforcement personnel the tools to stop terrorists dead in their 
tracks.
  Mr. President, the clock is ticking on this Congress. But even louder 
is the ticking time-bomb of crime in our schools, violence in our 
streets, and terrorism abroad. This Senate has the chance to act 
decisively to pass the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders 
Act'' to fight crime, to defuse the threats before this nation. We have 
no reason to stall. The time is now to move forward with measures that 
are smart, tough, and effective.
 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my 
colleagues, Senators Daschle, Biden and Leahy, in introducing the Safe 
Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998. This 
comprehensive legislation, which will add to the success of the 1994 
Crime Bill, is based on a tough, common-sense strategy: Put more police 
officers on the street, build more prisons for violent offenders, take 
guns out of the hands of felons, and protect families from the scourge 
of domestic violence.
  In the wake of the historic 1994 Crime bill, we have seen a dramatic 
decline in crime rates across the nation. In 1996, we experienced the 
lowest violent crime rate since 1989. On the whole, the overall crime 
rate was lower than any year since 1984. And it appears that we will 
continue in this success: Preliminary figures released by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation show that nationwide, serious crime dropped an 
additional four percent in 1997.
  While these numbers are impressive, recent events have shown that 
there is still much that must be done in order to equip our nations law 
enforcement agencies and local communities with the tools they need to 
address the latest scourge of violence in our schools, in our nation's 
embassies around the world, and at our borders. This multi-faceted 
legislation has many well-written, well-thought out proposals which I 
believe greatly help our nation continue winning the fight against 
crime and terrorism in our ever-changing world.
  Among the many parts of this legislation, I am most excited about 
additional funding for continuing the fight against domestic violence. 
We first took up this issue with the historic passage of the Violence 
Against Women Act. This legislation, which improves on our commitment 
to fighting against violence against women, will provide additional 
grants dedicated to the arrest and prosecution of batterers, shelter 
for 400,000 abused women and their children, and continued access to 
the National Domestic Violence Hotline. These initiatives are paramount 
in ensuring safety from crimes committed within the home.
  And there are other parts of this legislation that I believe are 
especially poignant given the latest outbreak of violence in our 
nation's schools. This legislation finally brings the juvenile justice 
system up to date with the juvenile crime of the day, by giving Federal 
prosecutors sole, nonreviewable authority to prosecute 16 and 17 year 
olds as adults when they are alleged to have committed the most serious 
federal violent and drug offenses. It would also provide grants to 
States to incarcerate violent juvenile offenders, establish graduated 
sanctions, and encourage pilot programs to replicate successful 
juvenile crime reduction strategies. A proposal to further curb the 
threat of gang violence and crime and to reduce the drug-related crime 
has also been included in this bill. Finally, this legislation would 
provide grants for juvenile gun and youth violence courts, and for 
truancy prevention and comprehensive delinquency prevention activities.
  I am most pleased, however, that this legislation contains two 
provisions that were included in my Safe Communities and Schools Act, 
which I introduced early this month. That legislation, which has been 
incorporated into this bill, will help put an additional 25,000 police 
officers on the street and create new grants under the COPS program for 
school and local law enforcement efforts against school-yard violence.
  As you know, the COPS program has played a vital role in reducing our 
nation's crime rate. Since inception of the program in 1994, the 
Department of Justice has authorized an additional 76,000 police 
officers to walk the beat. These additional police officers have been 
instrumental in helping reduce crime and making people feel safe in 
their communities.
  For example, in my home state of Illinois, the COPS program, which 
has put 4,113 police officers on streets across the state, has been 
extremely effective. Between the time that the Crime Bill was passed 
and the end of last year, serious crime fell by 17 percent. Recent 
statistics show that for the first six months of 1998, serious crime 
throughout Illinois is down 2.8 percent over 1997.
  Despite the positive gains that have been made in the wake of the 
1994 Omnibus Crime bill, the latest influx of violence in our nation's 
schools is evidence that their is still much work to be done. Although 
we are seeing record reductions in the incident of youth-on-youth 
crime, the extremely violent nature of crimes now being committed by 
juveniles is nothing short of stunning. Extending the COPS program and 
making more funds available to communities to combat school violence 
will free the hands of local law enforcement and give them the 
opportunity to develop new and innovative ways of reducing youth crime.
  Finally, this legislation seeks to place reasonable, Constitutional 
restrictions on gun purchases and gun ownership. It would ban 
prospective gun purchases by juveniles who have been adjudicated 
delinquent or convicted of violent crimes and would require gun dealers 
to make gun safety devices available for sale or have their licenses 
revoked. It would also impose tougher penalties for possession of guns 
during the commission of a crime of violence or drug offense.
  Overall, this bill provides a holistic response to the varied nature 
of crime being committed at home and abroad against American citizens. 
It is a sensible approach to a devastating problem. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation, and to push for its immediate 
passage.
 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Safe 
Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 introduced by my 
colleague, Senator Leahy. I urge all my Senate colleagues to support it 
as well.
  Mr. President, there no doubt are many issues that are on the minds 
of Americans. Certainly, crime, particularly juvenile crime, 
delinquency and drug and alcohol abuse, are issues that I hear most 
about when I am in my home state of New Mexico. Although recent crime 
statistics shows a clear downward trend in crime on our nation's 
streets, crime reduction must remain a priority at the federal level.
  This bill comprehensively addresses the problem of juvenile crime, 
and it strikes a balance between the need to deal with serious juvenile 
offenders in a swift and meaningful way and the clear, practical 
necessity to prevent our youth from getting in trouble in the first 
place.
  I am delighted that the managers of this bill have included two 
separate bills which I previously introduced, and I thank Senator Leahy 
for his accommodation. The first, my Truancy Prevention and Juvenile 
Crime Reduction Act, deals with the problem of truancy, which long has 
been neglected as a root cause of juvenile crime. The second, my Safe 
Schools Security Act of 1998, addresses the problem of school violence 
and provides resources, such as technical expertise and security 
technology, to schools that are experiencing the most serious problems 
in their schools.
  I first want to discuss truancy, which not many people realize is the 
top-ranking characteristic of criminals. High rates of truancy directly 
are linked to high daytime crime rates, including violence, burglary 
and vandalism. As much as 44 percent of violent juvenile crime takes 
place during school hours, and as much as 75 percent

[[Page S10436]]

of children ages 13 to 16 who are arrested and prosecuted for crimes 
are truants. It is startling to know that some cities report as many as 
70 percent of daily student absences are unexcused, and the number of 
absences in single city can reach 4,000
  Moreover, society pays a very heavy social and economic price due to 
truancy. Only 34 percent of inmates have completed high school 
education, and we all are well aware of the staggering costs associated 
with incarcerating an individual. Sadly, as many as 17 percent of youth 
under the age of 18 that enter adult prisons have not completed eighth 
grade, 75 percent have not completed 10th grade.
  Most studies indicate that when parents, schools, law enforcement and 
community leaders all work together to prevent truancy, to intervene at 
its early stages, and to create meaningful accountability, we can 
increase school attendance and reduce daytime crime rates.
  One such program is the Daytime Curfew Program in Roswell, New 
Mexico, and the Truancy Intervention Project in Fulton County, Georgia, 
administered by Judge Glenda Hatchett. Another successful program 
included in this Act is the Grade Court, which is Farmington, New 
Mexico, administered by Judge Paul Onuska. All of these programs 
integrate parental involvement with schools, law enforcement, 
judiciary, and other community stakeholders in a collaborative effort 
to reduce truancy and juvenile crime. These are the kinds of programs I 
believe we should be encouraging, but unfortunately we in the Congress 
have not yet met the challenge.
  This Act authorizes $25 million per year targeted at building upon 
integral partnerships between local government, schools, law 
enforcement, and the courts. Without a doubt, $25 million is a very 
small price to pay when you consider the dividends we expect when young 
people stay in school and out of trouble.
  The Youth Law Center, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National 
Network for Youth, which has more than 500 community youth-serving 
organizations and personnel nationwide all agree with the importance of 
combating truancy and enthusiastically have voiced their support for 
this initiative.
  The second provision of this bill I would like to discuss deals with 
the safety of our public schools. We spend a great deal of time here 
talking about improving academic achievement of our nation's school 
children, and I believe we are making great progress. I also believe, 
however, that we cannot expect a child to perform up to his or her 
potential in an environment in which they cannot feel safe and secure. 
Obviously, a learning environment has to be a safe environment. 
However, recent tragedies in Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, 
Pennsylvania, and Oregon, for example, strongly suggest that we can and 
should do much more to keep our school safe.
  Recently, the Department of Education released the results of a 
comprehensive study called Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. 
Public Schools: 1996-97. The study shows that 10 percent of schools 
surveyed had at least one serious violent crime during the 1996-97 
school year. Also, during the 1996-97 school year, approximately 4,000 
incidents of rape or other types of sexual battery were reported in 
public schools across the country. Additionally, there were 
approximately 11,000 incidents of physical attacks or fights in which 
weapons were used and approximately 7,000 robberies in schools that 
year.
  As grim as the statistics are, we also must recognize the emotional 
effect that school crime has on our children. According to a separate 
study, 29 percent of elementary, 34 percent of junior high, and 20 
percent of high school students say they are worried about becoming 
victims of crime at school. Seventy-one percent of children ages 7 to 
10 say they worry they might get shot or stabbed at school. I cannot 
imagine how a child can be expected to achieve up to his or her 
potential if they are worried about their physical safety. Clearly, we 
must respond, and I believe this is an area in which we can make a 
significant difference, and we should take advantage of the resources 
we presently have to address this problem.
  Many people are familiar with the fine work of our National 
Laboratories, which for decades have been leaders in energy and defense 
research and development. These Labs have many years of experience 
supporting and helping to protect high-risk facilities and assets for 
the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, the Department of 
State, and many other federal agencies in some capacity, through the 
use of security technology. The result of this capability is that our 
nation's government facilities enjoy some of the finest security and 
safety programs in the world. This expertise should be fully utilized 
to improve the safety of our schools.
  Alreacy Sandia Laboratories has taken the initiative. Two years ago 
Sandia began a pilot project at Belen High School in New Mexico, 
whereby Sandia security experts implemented a security regimen and 
installed a variety of security technology. Sandia is the first to 
admit that they do not know the first thing about running a public 
school, and Belen readily will admit to a lack of expertise in 
security. Nevertheless, the match was perfect. Working together, Sandia 
and Belen high school officials changed the school by utilizing a 
comprehensive security design and technology, including cameras, metal 
detectors, and sensors.

  The results are very impressive. Since the pilot project was 
implemented at the school, on-campus violence is down 75 percent, 
truancy is down 30 percent, theft from vehicles parked in the school 
parking lot is down 80 percent, vandalism is down 75 percent. These 
statistics are compelling, and with this level of success already 
demonstrated, the effort should be expanded to allow more schools to 
access the expertise and technology.
  This technology is not cheap, and schools already are challenged to 
purchase basic educational materials and equipment. However, I believe 
that with the right technical assistance and technology, not only will 
this help schools become safe for the children, but schools will save 
money. Incredibly, the Belen school principal, Ron Marquez, reported to 
me that before the pilot went into effect, Belen high school had 
approximately $50,000 per year in losses due to stolen school property. 
One year after the pilot, Belen has had only $5,000 in insurance 
claims. The savings translates into, for example, less cost to repair 
vandalized property, or property that has been defaced by graffiti.
  We must take advantage of this success and put this expertise to use 
where it certainly will have very positive results.
  One other provision in this bill that I believe will make a 
tremendous difference to communities that are struggling to reduce 
juvenile crime is the provision that allows communities to replicate 
proven juvenile crime reduction strategies. Specifically, this bill 
provides resources to communities that collaborate with local, state, 
and federal agencies to address the juvenile crime problem. In my state 
of New Mexico, we are helping bring together community leaders, 
schools, judges, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and grass-roots 
community organizations in order to develop and implement the Boston 
Strategy to Reduce Juvenile Violence. As anyone would agree, when 
community leaders work and communicate with one another on a common 
problem, usually good things. The City of Boston has had great success 
in reducing its violent crime rate. For example, after being at or near 
the top of the list among cities in terms of homicide, Boston's 
juvenile homicide rate dropped to zero, and its overall homicide rate 
dropped by sixty percent between 1995 and 1997.
  There is clear value to helping communities do the same kinds of 
things, and this bill helps in a substantial way.
  I thank Senator Leahy for his hard work to craft this important 
legislation and Senator Daschle for his leadership, and I am very 
pleased to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2485. A bill to amend the title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
allow States to use the funds available under the State children's 
health insurance program for enhanced matching rate for coverage of 
additional children under the medicaid program; to the Committee on 
Finance.

[[Page S10437]]

                      children's health equity act

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last year, Congress and the 
President agreed to provide $48 billion over the next 10 years as an 
incentive to states to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-
income children. To receive this money, states must expand eligibility 
levels to children living in families with incomes up to 200% of the 
federal poverty level.
  Washington State has a strong record of ensuring that its low-income 
kids have access to health care. Four year ago, my state decided to do 
what Congress and the President have just last year required other 
states to do. In 1994, Washington expanded its child Medicaid 
eligibility level to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) all the 
way through to the age of 18.
  During the negotiations of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA), 
Congress and the Administration recognized that certain states were 
already undertaking Medicaid expansions up to or above 200 percent of 
FPL, and that they should be allowed to use the new SCHIP funds. 
Unfortunately, this provision was limited to those states that enacted 
expansions on or after March 31, 1997 and disallowed Washington from 
accessing the $230 million in SCHIP funds it had been allocated through 
2002. As a result, Washington State cannot use its SCHIP allotment to 
cover the 90,000 children currently eligible, but not covered for 
health care at or below 200 percent of poverty. Exacerbating this 
inequity is the fact that many states have begun accessing their SCHIP 
allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below Washington's 
current or past eligibility levels.
  The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Murray, corrects 
this technicality and is a top priority for the Washington State 
delegation as we near the end of the 105th Congress. Congresswoman Dunn 
has also introduced a companion measure in the House of Representatives 
that is cosponsored by the entire Washington delegation.
  This bipartisan, bicameral initiative represents a thoughtful, 
carefully-crafted response to the unintended consequences of SCHIP and 
brings much-needed assistance to children currently at-risk. Rather 
than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA, this 
initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as 
incentives for our state to find those 90,000 uninsured kids because we 
feel strongly that they receive the health coverage for which they are 
eligible.
  This bill does not take money from other states nor does it provide 
additional federal subsidies for children the state is now covering, it 
simply allows Washington to continue to do the good work they have 
already started by focusing on new, uninsured children at low income 
levels first.
 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
colleague Senator Gorton in introducing legislation to improve access 
to health insurance for low income children in Washington State. This 
bill would amend the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 
to allow our State access to their allotment of federal funds to 
provide health coverage to an additional 90,000 eligible children.
  This is not an effort to supplant state funds. This does not take 
funds from other states. It simply allows Washington to access their 
allotment of SCHIP funds to cover those children who currently lack any 
health security. Because of their lack of access to health insurance, 
these children have little or no access to health care and no access to 
preventive services.
  These are children whose parents work hard but do not have access to 
health insurance or cannot afford the cost of premiums. These parents 
work hard and pay taxes, unfortunately they have little discretionary 
income to provide important health security for their children.
  Last year, this Congress made a commitment to cover the 10 million 
uninsured children in this country. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
included an expansion in children's health insurance benefits as a down 
payment on meeting the needs of these 10 million vulnerable children. 
This Congress took the right step in working to achieve the goal of 
guaranteeing every child in this country a healthy childhood. What we 
are attempting to do in this legislation that we are introducing today, 
is to honor this commitment to the children in Washington State.
  In 1994 Washington State stood up for our vulnerable children. We 
implemented an expansion in our Medicaid program to cover children up 
to 200% of poverty. We knew at the time that it was a huge undertaking, 
but we recognized that investing in our children's health was a wise 
investment. Because of the final language adopted in the Balanced 
Budget Act, Washington could not access their SCHIP funds to cover 
newly enrolled children below the 200% of poverty threshold and above 
the federal Medicaid requirement.
  As a result, Washington State was penalized for being a leader in 
children's health. We are here today proposing a technical fix that 
rewards Washington State and allows them to cover an additional 60,000 
to 90,000 children. This is not done at the expense of other States, 
but rather by using Washington's existing allotment.
  I can assure my colleagues that Washington State will honor our 
commitment to our children. But without access to these funds, 
enrolling these children will be almost impossible. If we all share the 
same goal of insuring these 10 million children, we must enact this 
legislation. The health care needs of low income children in Washington 
are just as great and just as important as they are for low income 
children in other states.
  I am hopeful that we can act on this legislation. This technical 
remedy will go a long way in meeting our shared goal of guaranteeing 
access to quality, and affordable health care for all children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 2487. A bill to amend the Equal Access Act to provide equal access 
for elementary and secondary school groups to expense reimbursement and 
materials, and to provide equal access for community groups to meeting 
space; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                      equal access improvement act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
furthers an important object of government--promoting religious liberty 
and the free exercise of religion. Specifically, I rise to introduce 
the Equal Access Improvement Act, a bill that would ensure that 
benefits currently provided to non-curricular school groups and 
community groups be extended on a non-discriminatory basis to all 
groups without regard to the religious nature of the organization.
  This bill reflects and reinforces an important principle that 
pervades the Supreme Court's decisions concerning religious liberty--
the principle of non-discrimination. The Supreme Court has recognized 
again and again that neutral laws that provide benefits without regard 
to the religious nature of recipients do not run afoul of our 
constitutional traditions. What is more, laws that specifically exclude 
religious entities from a class of beneficiaries are inconsistent with 
our Constitution's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Laws 
that discriminate against specific religions or against religious 
organizations in general are incompatible with our nation's founding 
document and with a fundamental respect for people of faith.
  The bill would ensure that student prayer clubs are provided the same 
access to school facilities as other non-curricular school clubs. Our 
schools reflect many of the problems that plague our larger culture. 
Just as in the larger culture, prayer can play an inimitable role in 
dealing with violence, drugs, and the other challenges in the schools. 
Denying access to school facilities for student prayer groups, while 
similar groups are granted access, sends precisely the wrong message. 
Prayer is an answer. Prayer is not the problem. There is no reason to 
deny benefits to a group because they engage in prayer or because they 
have some other religious component.
  Nothing in this bill provides any special treatment to religious 
groups. The bill removes discrimination against religious groups and 
religious activities. It does not introduce any new discrimination in 
favor of religious groups. The bill enshrines the principal of 
neutrality that is at the heart of the Constitution's guarantees of 
religious liberty.

  The Equal Access Improvement Act builds on the work of the 98th 
Congress, which passed the original Equal

[[Page S10438]]

Access Act. The bill extends those provisions to reflect subsequent 
Supreme Court and lower court decisions and to reflect the experience 
we have had with the Equal Access Act in the last fourteen years. I 
have consulted with organizations and individuals who have litigated 
cases under the Equal Access Act and incorporated many of their 
suggestions for improving the law.
  Specifically, the bill extends the existing law's provision ensuring 
equal access to meeting space to include equal access to school 
facilities, including expense reimbursement. Just as a school prayer 
club should not be denied access to a class room when it is open to the 
chess club, so too if the school pays to print a newsletter or pays for 
refreshments for one club, it should not discriminate on the basis of 
the religious content of the group's speech or activities. In the same 
way that the original Equal Access Act extended and reinforced the 
Supreme Court's decision in Windmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981), 
beyond the public university context, this legislation would extend and 
reinforce the Supreme Court's decision in Rosenberger v. Rector and 
Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
  The legislation also guarantees students a right to distribute 
literature without regard to the religious content of the literature. 
It guarantees access to community groups to school facilities on an 
equal basis without regard to the religious character of the group. 
Finally, the legislation extends equal access guarantees to 
intermediate school students.
  Let me emphasize that this bill, like the original Equal Access Act, 
creates no obligation for a school to provide meeting space or other 
facilities to any non-curriculum based group or any community group. 
The legislation simply provides that if a school does make its 
facilities available to non-curriculum based groups or to community 
groups, then the school cannot discriminate against other groups on the 
basis of the religious content of their speeches or activities. What is 
more, the legislation expressly preserves the ability of schools to 
enforce content-neutral policies denying or limiting access to all 
groups.
  Passage of this legislation would have many benefits. However, none 
more important than to reinforce the principle that nothing in the 
Constitution requires--or permits--the government to discriminate 
against groups on the basis of the religious nature of their speech or 
activities. As the Supreme Court recognized long ago, when the 
government accommodates religious practice and eliminates 
discrimination based on religion ``it follows the best of our 
traditions.'' Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952). I believe 
this bill also follows the best of our traditions, and I look forward 
to working toward its enactment.
  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. 2487

       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 ``Equal Access Improvement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. EQUAL ACCESS TO EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 802 of The Equal Access Act (20 
     U.S.C. 4071) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as 
     subsections (g) through (i), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c), the following:
       ``(d)(1) Subject to subsection (i), it shall be unlawful 
     for any public intermediate school or secondary school that--
       ``(A) receives Federal financial assistance;
       ``(B) maintains a limited open forum as described in 
     subsection (b); and
       ``(C) provides for the reimbursement of the expenses of one 
     or more noncurriculum-related student groups or students 
     pursuing noncurriculum-related activities;

     to deny equal treatment, to any student group or student, 
     respectively, seeking reimbursement for similar expenses, on 
     the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or 
     other content of the speech or activity engaged in by such 
     student group or student, respectively.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     prevent a public intermediate school or secondary school from 
     granting or denying a reimbursement request pursuant to a 
     neutral policy administered without regard to the religious, 
     political, philosophical, or other content of the speech or 
     activity engaged in by the student group or student seeking 
     the reimbursement.''.
       (b) Construction.--Subsection (g) of section 802 of The 
     Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071), as amended in subsection 
     (a), is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``beyond'' the 
     following: ``the reimbursement of expenses on a 
     nondiscriminatory basis as provided for in subsection (d), 
     and payment of'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or activity'' after 
     ``meeting'' each place it appears; and
       (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or activities'' after 
     ``meetings''.

     SEC. 3. EQUAL ACCESS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS.

       Section 802 of The Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071) is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (d), as added by 
     section 2, the following:
       ``(e)(1) Subject to subsection (i), it shall be unlawful 
     for any public intermediate school or secondary school that--
       ``(A) receives Federal financial assistance;
       ``(B) maintains a limited open forum as described in 
     subsection (b); and
       ``(C) permits one or more noncurriculum-related student 
     groups or students pursuing noncurriculum-related activities 
     to distribute newsletters or other written materials;

     to deny equal treatment, to any student group or student, 
     respectively, seeking a similar opportunity to distribute 
     newsletters or other written materials, on the basis of the 
     religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the 
     speech or activity engaged in by such student group or 
     student, respectively.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     prevent a public intermediate school or secondary school from 
     granting or denying a request to distribute newsletters or 
     other written materials pursuant to a neutral policy that--
       ``(A) is administered without regard to the religious, 
     political, philosophical, or other content of the speech or 
     activity engaged in by the student group or student making 
     the request; and
       ``(B) imposes reasonable time, place, and manner 
     restrictions on the distribution of newsletters or other 
     written materials consistent with the first and 14th 
     amendments to the Constitution.''.

     SEC. 4. EQUAL ACCESS FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS.

       (a) In General.--Section 802 of The Equal Access Act (20 
     U.S.C. 4071) is amended by inserting after subsection (e), as 
     added by section 3, the following:
       ``(f)(1) Subject to subsection (i), it shall be unlawful 
     for any public elementary school, intermediate school, or 
     secondary school that--
       ``(A) receives Federal financial assistance; and
       ``(B) has a limited community forum with respect to 
     noncurriculum-related community groups or individuals from 
     the community pursuing noncurriculum-related activities as 
     described in paragraph (2);

     to deny equal access to, or discriminate against, any 
     community group or any individual from the community, 
     respectively, who desires to conduct a meeting, or otherwise 
     use school facilities, within that limited community forum, 
     on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or 
     other content of the speech or activity engaged in by such 
     community group or individual, respectively.
       ``(2) In this subsection, a public elementary school, 
     intermediate school, or secondary school has a limited 
     community forum if such school grants an offering to or 
     opportunity for one or more noncurriculum-related community 
     groups or individuals from the community pursuing 
     noncurriculum-related activities to meet on school premises 
     or otherwise use school facilities during noninstructional 
     time.
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     prevent a public elementary school, intermediate school, or 
     secondary school from granting or denying a request by a 
     community group or individual from a community to meet on 
     school premises or otherwise use school facilities pursuant 
     to a neutral policy administered without regard to the 
     religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the 
     speech or activities engaged in by the community group or 
     individual.
       ``(4) In this subsection, the term `elementary school' 
     means a school that provides elementary education, as defined 
     by State law.''.
       (b) Construction.--Subsection (g) of section 802 of The 
     Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071), as amended in section 2, 
     is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or meetings initiated 
     by a community group or individual from a community'' after 
     ``student-initiated meetings''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or community groups'' 
     after ``groups of students''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF EQUAL ACCESS GUARANTEES TO PUBLIC 
                   INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Section 802 of The Equal Access Act (20 
     U.S.C. 4071) is amended by striking subsections (a) through 
     (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Subject to subsection (i), it shall be unlawful for 
     any public intermediate school or secondary school that 
     receives Federal financial assistance and that has a limited

[[Page S10439]]

     open forum with respect to noncurriculum-related student 
     groups or students pursuing noncurriculum-related activities 
     to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or 
     discriminate against, any student group or student, 
     respectively, who wishes to conduct a meeting, or otherwise 
     use school facilities, within that limited open forum, on the 
     basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other 
     content of the speech or activity at such meetings.
       ``(b) In this subsection, a public intermediate school or 
     secondary school has a limited open forum if such school 
     grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more 
     noncurriculum-related student groups or students pursuing 
     noncurriculum-related activities to meet on school premises 
     or otherwise use school facilities during noninstructional 
     time.
       ``(c) Schools shall be deemed to offer a fair opportunity 
     to student groups and students who wish to conduct a meeting, 
     or otherwise use school facilities, within its limited open 
     forum if such school uniformly provides that--
       ``(1) the meeting or use of facilities is voluntary and 
     student-initiated;
       ``(2) there is no sponsorship of the meeting or use of 
     facilities by the school, the government, or its agents or 
     employees;
       ``(3) employees or agents of the school or government are 
     present at religious meetings or activities involving the use 
     of facilities only in a nonparticipatory capacity;
       ``(4) the meeting or use of facilities does not materially 
     and substantially interfere with the orderly conduct of 
     educational activities within the school; and
       ``(5) nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, 
     or regularly attend activities of student groups or 
     students.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 803 of the The Equal Access Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 4072) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) The term `intermediate school' means a public school 
     that provides education to students in grade 6 or higher and 
     that does not provide education to students in grade 5 or 
     lower.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY:
  S. 2488. A bill to establish the Northwest Straits Advisory 
Commission; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


        The Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act

 Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague 
in the House, Representative Jack Metcalf, to introduce the Northwest 
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act.
  Mr. President, I have always believed that the best way to solve 
problems is to bring people together and find consensus on an issue. 
The Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act is the direct 
outgrowth of just such an approach.
  The Northwest Straits include the marine waters of the Strait of Juan 
de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, and the northern portion of Puget Sound. 
It is a scenic and unique ecosystem critical to a broad array of 
sensitive fish and wildlife, including orcas, sea birds, salmon, bottom 
fish, and bald eagles.
  Recognizing the importance of this precious marine ecosystem, the 
Northwest Straits were proposed for inclusion in the National Marine 
Sanctuaries program in some capacity as far back as 1979 when the 
National Marine Sanctuary Program was in its infancy. Although the 
Northwest Straits lie entirely within state waters, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) spent the next seventeen 
years evaluating the inclusion of this special area into the marine 
sanctuary program. This process involved substantial public 
participation. In recent years, it became clear there was insufficient 
local support to move forward with a Northwest Straits Marine Sanctuary 
designation for the area.
  In response to these local concerns, Rep. Metcalf and I included a 
provision in the 1996 reauthorization of the Marine Sanctuaries program 
barring final designation of a Northwest Straits Marine Sanctuary 
without Congressional approval. Having thus put the marine sanctuary 
process on hold, in the Spring of 1997 we established a Citizen's 
Advisory Commission (the Commission) to identify the key marine 
resources and values of the Northwest Straits, as well as the threats 
to them, and recommend appropriate protective measures and a means of 
coordinating related federal, state, and local actions. The Commission 
is broadly representative of local interests including County and Port 
Commissioners, environmental and conservation groups, shipping 
interests, academics, and Indian Tribes.
  The Commission met diligently for eighteen months to fulfill their 
mission. In addition to the Commission members, a representative of 
Governor Gary Locke participated in meetings and federal, state, and 
local agencies provided information and technical assistance. All 
Commission meetings have been open to the public and interested 
parties. The Commission has researched and reviewed the issues 
surrounding the Northwest Straits exhaustively and presented their 
formal recommendation to Representative Metcalf and myself on August 
20.
  The Commission has concluded that the very fabric of the Northwest 
Straits is unraveling, manifesting problems and trends that cross 
geographic and jurisdictional lines. While the ecosystem is 
complicated, the trends are simple: bottom fish, sea birds, 
invertebrates, salmon, and even some marine mammals have declined 
precipitously since 1980. This depletion of marine resources has hurt 
economies and communities around the Northwest Straits and further 
degradation portends far more serious impacts in the future. Existing 
management schemes, while sufficient in terms of legal authority, have 
failed to achieve the coordination and focus to change these trends.
  While the Commission has not reached a consensus to endorse or reject 
any future alternative management scheme, the Commission recommends a 
set of steps that would not displace current management 
responsibilities but seek to compliment them by supplying key missing 
ingredients for success: sound science and broad support for solutions. 
These steps include the establishment of a network of local, county-
based Marine Resources Committees (MRCs) committed to making all 
possible progress at the local level to protect and conserve the 
resources of the Northwest Straits using existing state and local 
authorities, and based on sound scientific information and the overall 
needs of the Northwest Straits ecosystem. The MRCs will coordinate 
activities through a Northwest Straits Commission consisting of 
representatives of the MRCs, Indian Tribes, the scientific community, 
and state agencies. The Commission will provide technical assistance, 
integrate science, develop an ecosystem-level coordination, and 
coordinate funding.
  In addition, the Commission will assess the performance of the MRCs 
against a series of benchmarks. These Benchmarks of Performance shall 
include the assessment and establishment of a scientifically-based 
regional system of Marine Protected Areas, the assessment and 
establishment of a scientifically-based regional system to protect 
nearshore habitat, a net gain in open shellfish harvest areas, and 
discernable increases in bottom fish and other key marine indicators. 
Should these benchmarks fail to be met, further consideration of 
alternative approaches, including a marine sanctuary designation may be 
resumed.
  In addition, this bill calls for a review of the effort after 5 years 
by the National Research Council, with particular emphasis on the 
achievement of the Benchmarks of Performance. With the authorization 
for this ``Local Marine Conservation Initiative'' expiring in 6 years, 
this NRC report will help us assess the accomplishments of this effort 
to determine whether it should be continued.
  Mr. President, the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative 
Act represents the right way to address environmental challenges. By 
pulling all of the interested parties together to analyze and research 
not only the issue, but each other's perspectives, partnerships can be 
forged that will provide long-term benefits. This pragmatic and 
achievable proposal will truly improve resource protection in the 
Northwest Straits. It is an innovative, exciting way to address the 
marine conservation challenges before us. I am excited about this 
approach and the way it empowers local communities and local citizens 
to take the initiative to protect their home waters. In many ways, this 
approach is a test or experiment. The local leaders have the next 
several years to demonstrate that a coordinated, informed, and 
empowered local decision-making process can provide true protection for 
the Northwest Straits. I believe they can meet this challenge. I look 
forward to Congress' timely consideration of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of commission 
members

[[Page S10440]]

and a letter from Governor Gary Locke be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Murray/Metcalf Northwest Straits Local Citizen's Advisory Commission 
                                Members

       Lew Moore, co-facilitator.
       Dan Evans, co-facilitator.
       Brain Calvert, Friday Harbor Port Commissioner.
       Donn Charnley, former State Legislator.
       Dwain Colby, former County Commissioner.
       Jim Darling, Executive Director, Port of Bellingham.
       Kathy Fletcher, People for Puget Sound.
       Dave Fluharty, University of Washington/School of Marine 
     Affairs.
       Don Hopkins, Port of Everett Commissioner/Longshoreman.
       Harry Hutchins, Steam Ship Operators.
       Cheryl Hymes, former State Legislator/Evergreen Freedom 
     Foundation.
       Phill Kitchel, Clallam County Commissioner.
       Mac McDowell, Island County Commissioner.
       Andrew Palmer, local marine conservationist.
       Doug Scott, Friends of the San Juans.
       Terry Williams, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission/
     Tulalip Tribes.
       Dennis Willows, University of Washington/Friday Harbor 
     Marine Labs.


                           technical support

       Kelly Balcomb, Center for Whale Research.
       Tom Cowen, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team.
       Daniel Farber, WA State Parks and Recreation Commission.
       Todd Jacobs, NOAA--Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary Manager.
       Dan James, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association.
       Eric Johnson, WA Public Ports Association.
       Bob Nichols, Governor Gary Locke's Office.
       Lisa Randlette, WA State Dept. of Natural Resources.
       Terry Swanson, WA State Dept. of Ecology.
       Kathy Soudere, Naval Air Station--Whidbey Island.
       Shirley Waters, Office of Clallam County Commissioners.
                                  ____

                                              State of Washington,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Olympia, WA, August 20, 1998.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Hon. Jack Metcalf,
     Northwest Straits Citizens Advisory Commission, Padilla Bay 
         National Estuarine Research Reserve, Mount Vernon, WA.
       Dear Senator Murray, Congressman Metcalf, and Advisory 
     Commission Members: I am writing to congratulate you on your 
     success in developing a thoughtful, broadly-supported 
     framework for restoring the marine resources of northern 
     Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca--the regional gem 
     we call the Northwest Straits. I also want to express my 
     appreciation for your willingness to dedicate so much of your 
     time and talent over the last year-and-a-half to this effort.
       This Commission's report has special credibility and value 
     because its preparation engaged high-level community leaders 
     representing a wide spectrum of interests. In joining forces 
     across the political aisle to solve pressing regional 
     problems, the convenors have followed the highest and best 
     tradition of the Washington Congressional delegation.
       I am pleased to see that the Commission has approached the 
     problems of the Northwest Straits in a thoughtful and 
     strategically targeted manner. Instead of proposing a new 
     regulatory authority or layer of bureaucracy, you have wisely 
     sought to complement the roles of existing federal, state, 
     and local authorities by bringing in additional science and 
     creating a forum to build the broad support necessary to 
     advance resource protection.
       Again, I want to commend you for your work in developing 
     this proposed partnership to restore and protect the 
     magnificent marine resources of the Northwest Straits. My 
     administration and I look forward to working with you as you 
     develop a congressional proposal and work to implement the 
     report's recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Gary Locke,
     Governor.

                          ____________________