[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.
____________________