[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11971-S11989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2579. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood products; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


           legislation amending the fair labor standards act

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths (those exempt 
from attending school) between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in 
sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. 
While I realize that this legislation cannot be enacted so late in the 
session, I believe it is important to introduce the bill and promote a 
serious discussion on this issue.
  As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased 
funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections 
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, 
that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from 
compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is 
extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be 
provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer 
employment where they live.
  The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish 
community. Earlier this week I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster 
County, Pennsylvania, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my 
Amish constituency. They explained that while the Amish once made their 
living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand 
into other occupations as farmland disappears in many areas due to 
pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to 
rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish 
culture expects youth upon the completion of their education at the age 
of 14 to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become 
productive members of society. In many areas work in sawmills is one of 
the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system 
limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are 
currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they 
reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and 
lifestyle of the Amish.
  The House has already passed by a voice vote H.R. 4257, introduced by 
my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, which is 
similar to the bill I am introducing today. I am aware that concerns to 
H.R. 4257 exist: safety issues have been raised by the Department of 
Labor and Constitutional issues have been raised by the Department of 
Justice. I have addressed these concerns in my legislation.
  Under my legislation youths would not be allowed to operate power 
machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as 
sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires 
that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris 
and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult 
supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to 
insure that they are enforced.
  The Department of Justice has stated that H.R. 4257 would ``raise 
serious concerns'' under the Establishment Clause. The House measure 
confers benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect 
or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal 
education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of 
working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the 
Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion 
to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome 
such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all 
youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the 
eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create 
a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are 
legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities.
  I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in 
Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. Yoder held that Wisconsin's 
compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school 
until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise clause. The Court found 
that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free 
exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the 
eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of 
the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with 
respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows 
and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, 
trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the 
continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills 
denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self-
reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish 
do not need the final two years of public education.
  At this stage in the legislative process, so close to the end of the 
105th Congress, passage of my bill requires a unanimous consent 
agreement. I have already been notified that there are Senators who 
would object to such an agreement, and I do understand that a measure 
of this nature cannot be rushed through the Senate. Nevertheless, I 
offer my legislation in the hope of beginning a dialogue on this 
important issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Hollings, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 2580. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                     THE TRADE FAIRNESS ACT OF 1998

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce legislation responding to the critical steel import crisis 
along with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, who 
serves with me as co-chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, Senator 
Hollings, and Senator Santorum. Our bill is entitled the ``Trade 
Fairness Act of 1998'' because it would amend the Trade Act of 1974 to 
remove statutory provisions which put our domestic industry at a 
significant disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors. 
Specifically, this bill makes technical corrections to the so-called 
``Section 201'' provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 to harmonize our 
laws with international laws administered by the World Trade 
Organization.
  While I know it is very late in the 105th legislative session, we 
intend that the introduction of this legislation will demonstrate our 
bipartisan commitment to responding to the current steel import crisis. 
Further, this should send a strong signal to the administration that it 
is high time that we respond.
  Yesterday, Senator John D. Rockefeller, Congressman Ralph Regula and 
Congressman Jim Oberstar, and I met with representatives of the Clinton 
administration, specifically Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Commerce 
Secretary William Daley, United States Trade Representative Ambassador 
Charlene Barshefsky and National Economic Council Advisor Gene 
Sperling, to discuss the steel import issue. At that meeting, 
representatives of the Clinton administration assured us that they are 
looking into actions that the administration can take to respond to the 
illegal dumping of foreign steel on the U.S. market but have yet to 
make a final decision on their response.
  While I appreciate their efforts to take a closer look at the 
problem, I am disturbed by the Administration's failure to take 
immediate action up to this time to prevent more cheap steel from 
flooding the American market. I am further disturbed by the fact that 
senior administration officials could

[[Page S11972]]

not give me a specific date or timetable as to when we could expect a 
response from the administration on this crucial and pressing issue.
  The urgency of this crisis and the failure of the administration to 
take action was evident from testimony presented on September 10, 1998, 
where, as Chairman of the Senate Steel Caucus, I joined House Chairman 
Regula in convening a joint meeting of the Senate and House Steel 
Caucuses to hear from executives from the United Steelworkers of 
America and a number of the nation's largest steel manufacturers about 
the current influx of imported steel into the United States. At that 
meeting, I expressed my profound concern regarding the impact on our 
steel companies and Steelworkers of the current financial crises in 
Asia and Russia, which have generated surges in U.S. imports of Asian 
and Russian steel.
  The past three months have been the highest monthly import volumes in 
U.S. history and, with Asia and Russia in economic crisis and with 
other major industrial nations not accepting their fair share of the 
adjustment burden, U.S. steel companies and employees are being damaged 
by this injurious unfair trade.
  The United States has become the dumping ground for foreign steel. 
Russia has become the world's number one steel exporting nation and 
China is now the world's number one steel-producing nation, while 
enormous subsidies to foreign steel producers have continued. In fact, 
the Commerce Department recently revealed that Russia, one of the 
world's least efficient producers, was selling steel plate in the 
United States at more than 50 percent, or $110 per ton, below the 
constructed cost to make steel plate. The dumping of this cheap steel 
on the American market ultimately costs our steel companies in lost 
sales and results in fewer jobs for American workers.
  Specifically, in the first half of 1998, total U.S. steel imports 
were 18.2 million net tons, which is a 12.4 percent increase over 
1997's record level of 16.2 million net tons for the same period. For 
the month of June 1998, total U.S. imports of steel mill products 
totaled over 3.7 million net tons, which is up 39.2 percent from the 
June, 1997 level of 2.6 million net tons. In June 1998, U.S. imports of 
finished steel imports were a record 3 million net tons, a 41.6 percent 
increase over the June 1997 2.1 million net tons.
  Also in the first half of 1998, compared to the same period in 1997, 
steel imports from Japan are up 114 percent, steel imports from Korea 
are up 90 percent, and imports from Indonesia are up 309 percent. Most 
significantly, the U.S. steel industry currently employs 163,000 people 
down from 500,000 people in the 1980's. This situation is untenable for 
the American steelworkers, steel manufacturers, their customers, and 
the American people in general.
  I believe that the growing coalition of steel manufacturers, 
steelworkers, and Congress must work together to remedy this import 
crisis before it is too late and the U.S. steel industry is forced to 
endure an excruciatingly painful economic downturn. The United States 
has many of the tools at its disposal to protect our steel industry 
from unfair and illegally dumped steel; therefore, I submitted Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 121 on September 29, 1998, to call on the 
President to take all necessary measures to respond to the surge of 
steel imports resulting from the Asian and Russian financial crises. 
Specifically, the resolution called on the President to: pursue 
enhanced enforcement of the U.S. trade laws; pursue all tools available 
to ensure that other nations accept a more equitable sharing of these 
steel imports; establish a task force to closely monitor U.S. imports 
of steel; and, report to Congress by January 5, 1999, on a 
comprehensive plan to respond to this surge of steel imports. I am 
pleased to state that as of today's date, twenty-nine of my Senate 
colleagues have joined me in sponsoring this resolution.
  While this resolution is an appropriate way for Congress to express 
our concerns and request immediate actions by the administration to 
respond to the steel import crisis, I think it is also important to 
give the administration all the necessary tools to fight the surges of 
foreign steel. After reviewing the U.S. trade laws with Senator 
Rockefeller, we discovered that our laws regarding safeguard actions 
actually put the United States at a disadvantage in the international 
trade arena. Safeguard actions, or section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, 
provide a procedure whereby the President has the discretion to grant 
temporary import relief to a domestic industry seriously injured by 
increased imports. Our laws in this area are actually more strict than 
those agreements made during the Uruguay Round negotiations on the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). That agreement, which 
the Senate considered and passed on December 1, 1994, established the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) to administer these trade agreements.
  One such trade agreement established rules for the application of 
safeguard measures. The agreement provides that a member of the WTO may 
apply a safeguard measure to a product if the member has determined 
that such product is being imported into its territory in such 
increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and 
under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury 
to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive 
products. The comparable U.S. statute, referred to as section 201, goes 
further than this agreement by requiring that foreign imports are the 
substantial cause of the injury. It just does not make sense to hinder 
the administration by placing this additional burden on it in 
evaluating a claim of injury due to surges of imports. We need to level 
the playing field so that all countries are playing by the same rules. 
This oversight is one example of the technical corrections that must be 
made to U.S. trade laws to bring them in line with WTO's rules.
  Specifically, the bill that Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing 
today, the Trade Fairness Act of 1998, makes three technical changes. 
First, it removes the requirement that imports must be a 
``substantial'' cause of the serious injury by deleting the word 
``substantial.'' The WTO's Safeguards Agreement does not require that 
increased imports be a ``substantial'' cause of serious injury. This 
change will lower the threshold to prove that the influx of imports 
were the cause of injury to the affected industry and will make U.S. 
law consistent with the WTO rules.
  Second, the legislation clarifies that the International Trade 
Commission (ITC) shall not attribute to imports injury caused by other 
factors in making a determination that imports are a cause of serious 
injury. This provision will require the ITC to evaluate causation to 
determine which factors are causing injury. If serious injury is being 
caused by increased imports, whether or not other factors are also 
causing injury, safeguard relief is justified. This provision is a more 
faithful implementation of the GATT Agreement and will prevent 
circumstances such as a recession from blocking invocation of Section 
201 by the administration.
  Finally, this legislation brings the definition of ``serious injury'' 
in line with the definition codified in the GATT Agreement. The bill 
strikes the definition of serious injury and replaces it with the WTO's 
language regarding evaluation of whether increased imports have caused 
serious injury to a domestic industry. Specifically, it states ``with 
respect to serious injury'', the ITC should consider ``the rate and 
amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute 
and relative terms; the share of the domestic market taken by increased 
imports; changes in the levels of sales; production; productivity; 
capacity utilization; profits and losses; and, employment.'' These 
factors are important guidance to the ITC in evaluating a petition of 
serious injury. Again, I think it is appropriate to be consistent with 
the WTO language as America increasingly interacts on a global scale.
  The U.S. steel industry has become a world class industry with a very 
high-quality product. This has been achieved at a great cost: $50 
billion in new investment to restructure and modernize; 40 million tons 
of capacity taken out of the industry; and a work force dramatically 
downsized from 500,000 to 170,000. With these technical changes, the 
Administration will be armed with ammunition to bring a self-initiated 
Section 201 action on behalf

[[Page S11973]]

of the steel industry that has been harmed not only by the onslaught of 
cheap imports on a daily basis but by U.S. law that has prevented swift 
and immediate action by the U.S. government. This legislation is 
essential to allow the President to respond promptly to the current 
steel import crisis. It will allow steel companies to compete in a more 
fair trade environment, preventing bankruptcies that would cause the 
loss of thousands of high-paying jobs in the steel industry. Too many 
steelworkers have lost their jobs due to unfair cheap imports.
  Mr. President, to summarize, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Santorum, Senator 
Hollings and myself, to try to deal with a very serious surge of steel 
imports into the United States, which is threatening to decimate the 
steel industry and take thousands of jobs from American steelworkers in 
a way which is patently unfair and in violation of free trade 
practices.
  It is obvious that the matter is a sensitive one where imports are 
coming from Russia illustratively. The Russians are having enormous 
economic problems, and they are dumping steel in the United States far 
below cost to try to remedy their economic situation. Sympathetic as we 
may be to the problems of the Russians, when they dump, unload steel in 
the United States far under their cost, it violates international trade 
laws and it violates the trade laws of the United States.
  To reiterate our meeting yesterday was one where those of us in 
Congress on the steel caucus asked the administration to take 
administrative action. We have requested a meeting with the President 
for tomorrow before the session ends to try to persuade him to take 
this action. Our requests are not protectionism. They are not 
protectionism because they come within the definition of ``free trade'' 
where our laws are defined consistent with GATT and the World Trade 
Organization to prohibit subsidized goods and dumped goods from coming 
into this country.
  Again, the legislation we are proposing today would remove the 
requirement that imports must be a substantial cause of the serious 
injury and only require that the damages be caused by the imports, by 
striking the word ``substantial,'' which is consistent with GATT, and 
with the World Trade Organization. We have a higher standard than we 
have to. Our laws ought to be changed to eliminate ``substantial 
cause'' to ``cause in fact.''
  Secondly, this bill would change the existing law by not seeking an 
excuse where there are other factors which may result in the imports.
  A third part of the bill changes the definition of ``serious injury'' 
to include a consideration by the International Trade Commission of 
factors such as the rate and amount of increase of imports of the 
product, the market share taken by the increased imports, changes in 
level of sales, profits, losses, production, productivity, capacity, 
utilization, and employment.
  Stated succinctly, what we are seeking to do is to amend existing 
trade laws to conform to international rules of the World Trade 
Organization and GATT so that we may see to it that our own steel 
industry is not victimized by foreign imports and is not victimized by 
standards under our own trade laws, which are tougher and more 
stringent than international trade laws.
  We realize that in introducing this legislation today that it cannot 
be enacted before the end of the session. But we do want to make a 
point with the administration as to where we are heading in the 
future--a resolution which was introduced which has some 29 cosponsors 
in the U.S. Senate.
  The House of Representatives has a similar resolution. There are more 
than 100 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is our hope 
that the administration will provide some relief which will be fair, 
equitable, and just.
  In the absence of relief by the administration, then it will be 
necessary for the Congress to move ahead in a more forceful manner.
  I have introduced legislation over the past decade which calls for a 
private right of action, which I believe is the realistic answer, where 
an injured party could go into the Federal court and get injunctive 
relief which would be immediate.
  Under the trade actions which have been filed by the United 
Steelworkers and by quite a number of companies, filed on September 30, 
it is possible under a complicated timetable to grant relief effective 
as of November 20 where duties would be imposed to try to stop this 
flooding and this dumping in U.S. markets.
  In the interim, the President could act, and in the interim, the 
Congress ought to consider ways to amend our trade laws so that we are 
not at a disadvantage in dealing with this very serious problem to our 
steel industry, which is so important for national defense and domestic 
purposes, and so important for the steelworkers themselves where the 
number of steelworkers has declined from some 500,000 to 163,000 at the 
present time.
  It is an urgent matter. The Congress ought to consider it. The 
administration ought to act on it. For these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of legislation to 
bring fairness to our trade laws.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will help the President deal with the flood of dirt-cheap steel 
imports from our trading partners. The Section 201 reform bill I am 
proposing with my colleague and Senate steel caucus co-chair, Senator 
Specter, will strengthen the President's ability to help domestic 
industries receive the relief they need and deserve when imports are a 
cause of serious injury.
  Import relief is what the U.S. steel industry desperately needs right 
now. West Virginia steel makers deserve help now, before this crisis 
worsens, as I fear it will. All U.S. steel manufacturers deserve that 
assistance. That's why I am introducing this legislation before 
Congress recesses. I intend to push to improve our ability to remedy 
harm against domestic industries and at the same time remain consistent 
with rules we expect our world trading partners to live by. We can be 
tough and fair on trade at the same time and the bill I am introducing 
today proves it.
  In my state of West Virginia, our two largest steel manufacturers, 
Weirton Steel and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel have both already begun to 
suffer the effects of the steel import crisis. Weirton has laid off 200 
workers and reports that their fourth quarter earnings and lack of 
pending orders could force the companies to consider additional lay 
offs in the near future. Wheeling Pittsburgh is also worried about the 
affect of the crisis on their bottomline. Laying off workers is never 
easy, but this crisis is forcing such hard decisions. West Virginia 
steel makers are producing world-class products as efficiently as any 
foreign competitors, but when foreign competitors are blatantly dumping 
their product at prices which are sometimes actually below the cost of 
production, it cuts the legs out from under American companies--but 
such unfair practices are absolutely unacceptable. U.S. industry, the 
U.S. steel industry and other industries, deserve just remedies when 
competitors unfairly dump their product on the U.S. market. We want to 
give the President the policy tools he needs to deal with unfair import 
competition.
  Import data tells the story of a worsening steel crisis--the first 
two quarters of 1998 have shown a 27% increase in imports of hot-rolled 
steel. Japanese imports increased by an astounding 114% in that same 
time frame. Steel imports from South Korea increased 90%. There is no 
end in sight. Russia and Brazil are nations who are other prime 
offenders.
  The tragedy of this crisis is that the U.S. steel industry has spent 
over a decade reinventing itself, adjusting and modernizing, in order 
to become a top-notch competitor as we approach the 21st century. This 
industry is a true success story--productivity has shot up and we can 
beat any producer in the world on price and quality when provided with 
a level playing field. For decades, I have worked with leaders in the 
steel industry at Weirton Steel, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Wheeling-Nisshin, 
and others. I have watched and encouraged these steelmakers and unions 
working together to make the tough, necessary decision to modernize.
  Unfortunately, just as United States steel manufacturers are 
realizing the gains of such investments, they are

[[Page S11974]]

facing a flood of imported steel being sold at rock bottom prices--
again, below the cost of production in some instances. We cannot 
compete against that kind of unfair competition. The legislation 
Senator Specter and I are introducing today will give the President an 
improved tool to ensure that when there is serious injury as a result 
of imports, the U.S. can respond.
  Specifically, our legislation will reform Section 201 which permits 
the President to grant domestic industries import relief in 
circumstances where imports are the substantial cause of serious 
injury.
  Under current law, domestic industries must show that increased 
imports are the ``substantial cause'' of serious injury--which means a 
cause that is important and not less than any other cause. This imposes 
an unfair, higher burden of proof on domestic industries than is 
required to prove injury under World Trade Organization standards. The 
Safeguards Code of the World Trade Organization was established to make 
sure that fair trade did not mean countries had to put up with unfair 
practices. The WTO standard requires only that there be a causal link 
between increased imports and serious injury. I believe that U.S. law 
should not impose a tougher standard for American companies of harm 
than the WTO uses for the international community. Applying the WTO 
standard is responsible and reasonable. In this bill, we propose to 
establish the same standard for the U.S. as is used by the WTO. Free 
trade must mean fair trade.
  In addition, in this bill we also intend to conform U.S. law to the 
standard in the WTO Safeguards Code when considering the overall test 
for judging when there has been serious harm to a domestic industry. We 
clarify that the International Trade Commission (ITC) should review the 
overall condition of the domestic industry in determining the degree of 
that injury by making it clear that it is the effect of the imports on 
the overall state of the industry that counts, not solely the effect on 
any one of the particular criteria used in the evaluation.
  It is our sincere hope that Congress will act on this legislation and 
send the message that the United States will fight for the right of its 
industries to complete on a level playing field in world trade. If 
imports flood our markets, we will act to protect American industries 
against the consequences.
  I am someone who adamantly believes the promotion of free trade is 
essential to our country's continued economic growth. If we are to 
continue to expand the trade base of our economy we need U.S. industry 
to know that we will keep it fair. American industry and American 
workers can deal with fair trade, but they shouldn't be asked to sit 
still for unfair trade practices that hurt workers and their families, 
while robbing the profit-margins of U.S. companies.
  I intend to work in Congress, with my colleagues on the Finance 
Committee and those in the Administration responsible for trade policy 
to give the President better, more effective tools to ensure that our 
country can insist trade be free and fair. Our steel industry, indeed 
all U.S. industries, deserve no less. I will carefully monitor the 
steel import crisis and consider other appropriate actions as we see 
how this situation develops.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 2581. A bill to authorize appropriations for the motor vehicle 
safety and information programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration for fiscal years 1999-2001; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Authorization Act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my purpose today is to introduce 
legislation that would increase the authorization level of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The recently passed TEA-21 
legislation authorized NHTSA at its requested level, approximately 
$87.4 million. The Office of Management and Budget recently asked that 
NHTSA receive $99.9 million in the budget request.
  Although the Department of Transportation had requested $87.4 
million, we are now informed by Secretary Slater that this 
authorization level will not permit the funding of ``key safety 
initiatives.''
  I know that no one in this body wants a situation where highway 
safety is degraded in any way. I also know that there is no opportunity 
that this legislation can be passed yet this Congress. This is an issue 
that we will address in the next Congress. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to address this important issue of highway safety in 
a manner that provides an appropriate funding level to meet safety 
needs while also meeting our budget obligations and the consensus of 
the Appropriations Committee.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 2582. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for a prospective payment system for services furnished by 
psychiatric hospitals under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on 
Finance.


  Medicare Psychiatric Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1998

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today my colleague Connie Mack and 
I are introducing legislation that would improve Medicare inpatient 
psychiatric care by reforming how Medicare pays for services provided 
in free-standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part psychiatric 
units of general hospitals. The Medicare Psychiatric Hospital 
Prospective Payment System Act of 1998 would establish over time a 
prospective payment system (PPS) for these providers. Currently 
psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS. Their costs are 
reimbursed under provisions in the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act, or TEFRA.
  The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 made significant changes to the 
TEFRA payment system by reducing incentive payments and imposing a 
limit on what Medicare will pay for services provided in psychiatric 
facilities, regardless of a facility's costs. The result is that many 
of these providers will be hit hard by deep and sudden cuts, with no 
transition period to adjust to the changes. I believe that moving 
psychiatric hospitals to a prospective payment system will ensure that 
these changes do not reduce patient access to psychiatric care.
  Our legislation proposes to transition psychiatric inpatient 
hospitals to a prospective payment system--a system that will be more 
efficient, allow for better planning, and lead to improved patient 
care. This legislation also addresses the short-term viability of many 
of these facilities to enable patients to continue receiving the 
specialized care these providers offer. For that reason, our 
legislation includes immediate financial relief to those psychiatric 
facilities hardest hit by the BBA: twenty-five percent of facilities in 
the first year, about thirteen percent in year two, and approximately 
ten percent in year three. The relief will then be paid back when a 
prospective payment is implemented in year four to ensure that this 
bill is budget neutral by the end of year five. Specifically, the 
Breaux-Mack bill would limit an individual facility's payment 
reductions to no more than five percent in the first year, seven and 
one-half percent in the second year, and ten percent in year three. 
After the third year, a PPS based on per diems would be phased in. In 
the first two years of the new PPS, the per-diem rates would be 
adjusted downward to pay back the savings lost to the Medicare program 
as a result of the ``hold harmless'' provisions of the bill. 
Consequently, our bill is budget-neutral over five years, yet it 
provides some measure of relief to those Medicare providers most 
severely affected by the BBA and guarantees that beneficiaries will not 
lose vital services. But perhaps the most important feature of our bill 
is that it moves the last of the TEFRA providers--psychiatric 
facilities--out of a cost-based payment system and into a

[[Page S11975]]

system where they will be paid prospectively, like most other Medicare 
providers.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece 
of 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. 2582

       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 ``Medicare Psychiatric 
     Hospital Prospective Payment System Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR PSYCHIATRIC 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Establishment of Prospective Payment System.--Section 
     1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Prospective Payment System for Inpatient Psychiatric 
     Services.--
       ``(1) Amount of payment.--
       ``(A) During transition period.--Notwithstanding section 
     1814(b), but subject to the provisions of section 1813, the 
     amount of payment with respect to the operating and capital-
     related costs of inpatient hospital services of a psychiatric 
     facility (as defined in paragraph (7)(C)) for each day of 
     services furnished in a cost reporting period beginning on or 
     after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2003, is equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(i) the TEFRA percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(D)) 
     of the facility-specific per diem rate (determined under 
     paragraph (2)); and
       ``(ii) the PPS percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(B)) 
     of the applicable Federal per diem rate (determined under 
     paragraph (3)).
       ``(B) Under fully implemented system.--Notwithstanding 
     section 1814(b), but subject to the provisions of section 
     1813, the amount of payment with respect to the operating and 
     capital-related costs of inpatient hospital services of a 
     psychiatric facility for each day of services furnished in a 
     cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 2003, 
     is equal to the applicable Federal per diem rate determined 
     under paragraph (3) for the facility for the fiscal year in 
     which the day of services occurs.
       ``(C) New facilities.--In the case of a psychiatric 
     facility that does not have a base fiscal year (as defined in 
     paragraph (7)(A)), payment for the operating and capital-
     related costs of inpatient hospital services shall be made 
     under this subsection using the applicable Federal per diem 
     rate.
       ``(2) Determination of facility-specific per diem rates.--
       ``(A) Base year.--The Secretary shall determine, on a per 
     diem basis, the allowable operating and capital-related costs 
     of inpatient hospital services for each psychiatric facility 
     for its cost reporting period (if any) beginning in the base 
     fiscal year (as defined in paragraph (7)(A)), such costs 
     determined as if subsection (b)(8) did not apply.
       ``(B) Updating.--The Secretary shall update the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (A) for each cost reporting 
     period after the cost reporting period beginning in the base 
     fiscal year and before October 1, 2003, by a factor equal to 
     the market basket percentage increase.
       ``(3) Determination of the federal per diem rate.--
       ``(A) Base year.--The Secretary shall determine, on a per 
     diem basis, the allowable operating and capital-related costs 
     of inpatient hospital services for each psychiatric facility 
     for its cost reporting period (if any) beginning in the base 
     fiscal year (as defined in paragraph (7)(A)), such costs 
     determined as if subsection (b)(8) did not apply.
       ``(B) Updating to first fiscal year.--The Secretary shall 
     update the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each 
     cost reporting period up to the first cost reporting period 
     to which this subsection applies by a factor equal to the 
     market basket percentage increase.
       ``(C) Computation of standardized per diem rate.--The 
     Secretary shall standardize the amount determined under 
     subparagraph (B) for each facility by--
       ``(i) adjusting for variations among facilities by area in 
     the average facility wage level per diem; and
       ``(ii) adjusting for variations in case mix per diem among 
     facilities (based on the patient classification system 
     established by the Secretary under paragraph (4)).
       ``(D) Computation of weighted average per diem rates.--
       ``(i) Separate rates for urban and rural areas.--Based on 
     the standardized amounts determined under subparagraph (C) 
     for each facility, the Secretary shall compute a separate 
     weighted average per diem rate--

       ``(I) for all psychiatric facilities located in an urban 
     area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)); and
       ``(II) for all psychiatric facilities located in a rural 
     area (as defined in subsection (d)(2)(D)).

       ``(ii) For hospitals and units.--Subject to paragraph 
     (7)(C), in the areas referred to in clause (i) the Secretary 
     may compute a separate weighted average per diem rate for--

       ``(I) psychiatric hospitals; and
       ``(II) psychiatric units described in the matter following 
     clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).

     If the Secretary establishes separate average weighted per 
     diem rates under this clause, the Secretary shall also 
     establish separate average per diem rates for facilities in 
     such categories that are owned and operated by an agency or 
     instrumentality of Federal, State, or local government and 
     for facilities other than such facilities.
       ``(iii) Weighted average.--In computing the weighted 
     averages under clauses (i) and (ii), the standardized per 
     diem amount for each facility shall be weighted for each 
     facility by the number of days of inpatient hospital services 
     furnished during its cost reporting period beginning in the 
     base fiscal year.
       ``(E) Updating.--The weighted average per diem rates 
     determined under subparagraph (D) shall be updated for each 
     fiscal year after the first fiscal year to which this 
     subsection applies by a factor equal to the market basket 
     percentage increase.
       ``(F) Determination of federal per diem rate.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall compute for each 
     psychiatric facility for each fiscal year (beginning with 
     fiscal year 2001) a Federal per diem rate equal to the 
     applicable weighted average per diem rate determined under 
     subparagraph (E), adjusted for--

       ``(I) variations among facilities by area in the average 
     facility wage level per diem;
       ``(II) variations in case mix per diem among facilities 
     (based on the patient classification system established by 
     the Secretary under paragraph (4)); and
       ``(III) variations among facilities in the proportion of 
     low-income patients served by the facility.

       ``(ii) Other adjustments.--In computing the Federal per 
     diem rates under this subparagraph, the Secretary may adjust 
     for outlier cases, the indirect costs of medical education, 
     and such other factors as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(iii) Budget neutrality.--The adjustments specified in 
     clauses (i)(I), (i)(III), and (ii) shall be implemented in a 
     manner that does not result in aggregate payments under this 
     subsection that are greater or less than those aggregate 
     payments that otherwise would have been made if such 
     adjustments did not apply.
       ``(4) Establishment of patient classification system.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish--
       ``(i) classes of patients of psychiatric facilities (in 
     this paragraph referred to as `case mix groups'), based on 
     such factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; 
     and
       ``(ii) a method of classifying specific patients in 
     psychiatric facilities within these groups.
       ``(B) Weighting factors.--For each case mix group, the 
     Secretary shall assign an appropriate weighting factor that 
     reflects the relative facility resources used with respect to 
     patients classified within that group compared to patients 
     classified within other such groups.
       ``(5) Data collection; utilization monitoring.--
       ``(A) Data collection.--The Secretary may require 
     psychiatric facilities to submit such data as is necessary to 
     implement the system established under this subsection.
       ``(B) Utilization monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor 
     changes in the utilization of inpatient hospital services 
     furnished by psychiatric facilities under the system 
     established under this subsection and report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress on such changes, together 
     with recommendations for legislation (if any) that is needed 
     to address unwarranted changes in such utilization.
       ``(6) Special adjustments.--Notwithstanding the preceding 
     provisions of this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce 
     aggregate payment amounts that would otherwise be payable 
     under this subsection for inpatient hospital services 
     furnished by a psychiatric facility during cost reporting 
     periods beginning in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by such 
     uniform percentage as is necessary to assure that payments 
     under this subsection for such cost reporting periods are 
     reduced by an amount that is equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) the aggregate increase in payments under this title 
     during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, that is 
     attributable to the operation of subsection (b)(8); and
       ``(B) the aggregate increase in payments under this title 
     during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 that is attributable to the 
     application of the market basket percentage increase under 
     paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(E) of this subsection in lieu of 
     the provisions of subclauses (VI) and (VII) of subsection 
     (b)(3)(B)(ii).

     Reductions under this paragraph shall not affect computation 
     of the amounts payable under this subsection for cost 
     reporting periods beginning in fiscal years after fiscal year 
     2002.
       ``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `base fiscal year' means, with respect to a 
     hospital, the most recent fiscal year ending before the date 
     of the enactment of this subsection for which audited cost 
     report data are available.
       ``(B) The term `PPS percentage' means--
       ``(i) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2001, 25 
     percent;
       ``(ii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, 50 
     percent; and

[[Page S11976]]

       ``(iii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1, 2003, 75 
     percent.
       ``(C) The term `psychiatric facility' means--
       ``(i) a psychiatric hospital; and
       ``(ii) a psychiatric unit described in the matter following 
     clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).
       ``(D) The term `TEFRA percentage' means--
       ``(i) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2000, and before October 1, 2001, 75 
     percent;
       ``(ii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002, 50 
     percent; and
       ``(iii) with respect to cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 2002, and before October 1, 2003, 25 
     percent.''.
       (b) Limit on Reductions Under Balanced Budget Act.--Section 
     1886(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8)(A) Notwithstanding the amendments made by sections 
     4411, 4414, 4415, and 4416 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997, in the case of a psychiatric facility (as defined in 
     subparagraph (B)(ii)), the amount of payment for the 
     operating costs of inpatient hospital services for cost 
     reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1997, and 
     before October 1, 2000, shall not be less than the applicable 
     percentage (as defined in subparagraph (B)(i)) of the amount 
     that would have been paid for such costs if such amendments 
     did not apply.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `applicable percentage' means--
       ``(I) 95 percent for cost reporting periods beginning on or 
     after October 1, 1997, and before October 1, 1998;
       ``(II) 92.5 percent for cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 1998, and before October 1, 1999; and
       ``(III) 90 percent for cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after October 1, 1999, and before October 1, 2000.
       ``(ii) The term `psychiatric facility' means--
       ``(I) a psychiatric hospital; and
       ``(II) a psychiatric unit described in the matter following 
     clause (v) of subsection (d)(1)(B).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my 
colleague John Breaux in sponsoring the Medicare Psychiatric Hospital 
Prospective Payment System Act of 1998. This legislation maintains the 
integrity and availability of Medicare inpatient psychiatric care by 
changing how Medicare currently pays for services provided to 
beneficiaries in free standing psychiatric hospitals and distinct-part 
psychiatric units of general hospitals. This bill eases the transition 
of psychiatric facilities to a prospective payment system (PPS) while 
phasing in substantial cuts in payments to these providers as required 
by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  Currently, psychiatric hospitals and units are exempt from PPS. This 
bill is budget neutral over five years, and ensures that until PPS is 
established, inpatient psychiatric care will not be compromised or 
disrupted because of major budget reductions. Finally, this legislation 
prevents the type of dislocations we now face in the Home Health Care 
industry.
  The purpose of this bill is to give psychiatric facilities a period 
of adjustment to the mandates of BBA while not jeopardizing patient 
care. It provides for a transition period that will help providers 
adjust to a prospective payment system that will be installed in three 
years. At the end of this time period psychiatric facilities will be 
paid on a prospective payment basis like other hospital providers in 
the Medicare program. Psychiatric hospital managers understand that the 
financial limitations imposed by BBA on their facilities must be met, 
and this bill smooths out the requirements for accomplishing this in 
such a way that the integrity of patient care is maintained. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this important piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 2583. A bill to provide disadvantaged children with access to 
dental services; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
 Mr. Bingaman. Mr. President today I introduce with my friend 
and colleague, Senator Thad Cochran, the Childrens Dental Health 
Improvement Act of 1998. The bill is designed to increase access to 
dental services for our disadvantaged children.
  Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment or 
``EPSDT'' program requires states to not only pay for a comprehensive 
set of child health services, including dental services, but to assure 
delivery of those services. Unfortunately, low income children do not 
get the dental service they need. Despite the design of the Medicaid 
program to reach children and ensure access to routine dental care, the 
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services 
reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid 
received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows 
that no state provides preventive services to more than 50% of eligible 
children. Dentist participation is too low to assure access. We are 
falling short of our obligation to these children.
  In the past few months, I have had the opportunity to speak to many 
of New Mexico's rural health providers and have learned that for New 
Mexico, the problem is of crisis proportions. Less than 1% of New 
Mexico's Medicaid dollars are used for children's oral health care 
needs. My state alone projects a shortage of 157 dentists and 229 
dental hygienists. Children in New Mexico and elsewhere are showing up 
in emergency rooms for treatment of tooth abscesses instead of getting 
their cavities filled early on or having dental decay prevented in the 
first place.
  Some will say: ``Why care about a few cavities in kids?'' In reality, 
this is a complex children's health issue. Chronically poor oral health 
is associated with growth and development problems in toddlers and 
compromises children's nutritional status. These children suffer from 
pain and cannot play or learn. Their personal suffering is real. In 
reality, untreated dental problems get progressively worse and 
ultimately require more expensive interventions. Many of these children 
come to emergency rooms and ultimately must be treated in the operating 
room.
  Tooth decay remains the single most common chronic disease of 
childhood and according to the Children's Dental Health Project, it 
affects more than half of all children by second grade. Tooth decay in 
children six year olds is 5 to 8 more common than asthma which is often 
cited as the most common chronic disease of childhood.
  National data confirm that pediatric oral health in the U.S. is 
backsliding. Healthy People 2000 goals for dental needs of children 
will not be met. As this chart shows:
  52% of our 6 to 8 year olds have dental caries, or cavities compared 
to 54% in 1986. Our goal was to decrease this to 35% by the year 2000; 
we have only succeeded in a 2% change in this area.
  Additionally, we have slid backwards in some areas. The Healthy 
People 2000 oral health indicators show an increase in the percentage 
of children with untreated cavities. In 1986, 28% of our 6 to 8 year 
olds had untreated cavities compared to now where we find 31% of these 
children have untreated cavities.
  Tooth decay is increasingly a disease of low and modest income 
children. A substantial portion of decay in young children goes 
untreated. In fact, forty seven percent of decay in children aged 2 
through 9 is untreated.
  The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act is designed to attack 
the problem from many fronts. First, our bill addresses the issue of 
provider shortage by expanding opportunities for training pediatric 
dental health care providers. Next, we will work toward increasing the 
actual care provided under the Medicaid program. Additionally, we have 
looked at the need for pediatric dental research to facilitate better 
approaches for care. Finally, we have put into place greater measures 
for surveillance of the problem and have looked at the need to increase 
accountability in the area of actual treatment once a problem is 
identified.
  I am committed to solving the problem of adequate access to dental 
care for our children and view this as a public health issue that has 
gone unnoticed for too long. I will welcome my colleagues to work with 
me to ensure that these children have healthy smiles vs. chronic pain 
from untreated problems.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 1998 printed in the Record.

[[Page S11977]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2583

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's 
     Dental Health Improvement Act of 1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

 TITLE I--EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING PEDIATRIC DENTAL HEALTH 
                             CARE PROVIDERS

Sec. 101. Children's dental health training and demonstration programs.
Sec. 102. Increase in National Health Service Corps dental training 
              positions.
Sec. 103. Maternal and child health centers for leadership in pediatric 
              dentistry education.
Sec. 104. Dental officer multiyear retention bonus for the Indian 
              Health Service.
Sec. 105. Medicare payments to approved nonhospital dentistry residency 
              training programs; permanent dental exemption from 
              voluntary residency reduction programs.
Sec. 106. Dental health professional shortage areas.

  TITLE II--ENSURING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER THE 
                      MEDICAID AND SCHIP PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Increased FMAP and fee schedule for dental services provided 
              to children under the medicaid program.
Sec. 202. Required minimum medicaid expenditures for dental health 
              services.
Sec. 203. Requirement to verify sufficient numbers of participating 
              dentists under the medicaid program.
Sec. 204. Inclusion of recommended age for first dental visit in 
              definition of EPSDT services.
Sec. 205. Approval of final regulations implementing changes to EPSDT 
              services.
Sec. 206. Use of SCHIP funds to treat children with special dental 
              health needs.
Sec. 207. Grants to supplement fees for the treatment of children with 
              special dental health needs.
Sec. 208. Demonstration projects to increase access to pediatric dental 
              services in underserved areas.

                  TITLE III--PEDIATRIC DENTAL RESEARCH

Sec. 301. Identification of interventions that reduce transmission of 
              dental diseases in high risk populations; development of 
              approaches for pediatric dental assessment.
Sec. 302. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
Sec. 303. Consensus development conference.

               TITLE IV--SURVEILLANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 401. CDC reports.
Sec. 402. Reporting requirements under the medicaid program.
Sec. 403. Administration on Children, Youth, and Families.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Children's oral health impacts upon and reflects 
     children's general health.
       (2) Tooth decay is the most prevalent preventable chronic 
     disease of childhood and only the common cold, the flu, and 
     otitis media occur more often among young children.
       (3) Despite the design of the medicaid program to reach 
     children and ensure access to routine dental care, in 1996, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services reported that only 18 percent of children eligible 
     for medicaid received even a single preventive dental 
     service.
       (4) The United States is facing a major dental health care 
     crisis that primarily affects the poor children of our 
     country, with 80 percent of all dental caries in children 
     found in the 20 percent of the population.
       (5) Low income children eligible for the medicaid program 
     and the State children's health insurance program experience 
     disproportionately high levels of oral disease.
       (6) The United States is not training enough pediatric 
     dental health care providers to meet the increasing need for 
     pediatric dental services.
       (7) The United States needs to increase access to health 
     promotion and disease prevention activities in the area of 
     oral health for children by increasing access to pediatric 
     dental health providers.
 TITLE I--EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAINING PEDIATRIC DENTAL HEALTH 
                             CARE PROVIDERS

     SEC. 101. CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH TRAINING AND DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Part E of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 294o et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 779. CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Training Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Bureau 
     of Health Professions, shall develop training materials to be 
     used by health professionals to promote oral health through 
     health education.
       ``(2) Design.--The materials developed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be designed to enable health care professionals to--
       ``(A) provide information to individuals concerning the 
     importance of oral health;
       ``(B) recognize oral disease in individuals; and
       ``(C) make appropriate referrals of individuals for dental 
     treatment.
       ``(3) Distribution.--The materials developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be distributed to--
       ``(A) accredited schools of the health sciences (including 
     schools for physician assistants, schools of medicine, 
     osteopathic medicine, dental hygiene, public health, nursing, 
     pharmacy, and dentistry), and public or private institutions 
     accredited for the provision of graduate or specialized 
     training programs in all aspects of health; and
       ``(B) health professionals and community-based health care 
     workers.
       ``(b) Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     schools that train pediatric dental health providers to meet 
     the costs of projects--
       ``(A) to plan and develop new training programs and to 
     maintain or improve existing training programs in providing 
     dental health services to children; and
       ``(B) to assist dental health providers in managing complex 
     dental problems in children.
       ``(2) Administration.--
       ``(A) Amount.--The amount of any grant under paragraph (1) 
     shall be determined by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Application.--No grant may be made under paragraph 
     (1) unless an application therefore is submitted to and 
     approved by the Secretary. Such an application shall be in 
     such form, submitted in such manner, and contain such 
     information, as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe.
       ``(C) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under 
     subsection (a), the applicant must demonstrate to the 
     Secretary that it has or will have available full-time 
     faculty and staff members with training and experience in the 
     field of pediatric dentistry and support from other faculty 
     and staff members trained in pediatric dentistry and other 
     relevant specialties and disciplines such as dental public 
     health and pediatrics, as well as research.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASE IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS DENTAL 
                   TRAINING POSITIONS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall increase 
     the number of dental health providers skilled in treating 
     children who become members of the National Health Service 
     Corps under subpart II of part D of title III of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d et seq.) so that there are 
     at least 100 additional dentists and dental hygienists in the 
     Corps by 2000, at least 150 additional dentists and dental 
     hygienists in the Corps by 2001, and at least 300 additional 
     dentists and dental hygienists in the Corps by 2002. The 
     Secretary shall ensure that at least 20 percent of the 
     dentists in the Corps are pediatric dentists and that another 
     20 percent of the dentists in the Corps have general practice 
     residency training.

     SEC. 103. MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH CENTERS FOR LEADERSHIP IN 
                   PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY EDUCATION.

       (a) Expansion of Training Programs.--The Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall, through the Maternal and 
     Child Health Bureau, establish not less than 36 additional 
     training positions annually for pediatric dentists at centers 
     of excellence. The Secretary shall ensure that such training 
     programs are established in geographically diverse areas.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 104. DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR RETENTION BONUS FOR THE 
                   INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.

       (a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an 
     officer of the Indian Health Service designated as a dental 
     officer.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service.
       (3) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service'' 
     includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate 
     dental educational (GDE) training programs while not on 
     active duty in the Indian Health Service and all periods of 
     active duty in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
       (4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate 
     dental educational (GDE) training program of at least 12 
     months, excluding general practice residency (GPR) or a 12-
     month advanced education general dentistry (AEGD).
       (5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental 
     specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service 
     specialty code number.
       (b) Requirements for Bonus.--

[[Page S11978]]

       (1) In general.--An eligible dental officer of the Indian 
     Health Service who executes a written agreement to remain on 
     active duty for 2, 3, or 4 years after the completion of any 
     other active duty service commitment to the Indian Health 
     Service may, upon acceptance of the written agreement by the 
     Director, be authorized to receive a dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus under this section. The Director may, based 
     on requirements of the Indian Health Service, decline to 
     offer a such a retention bonus to any specialty that is 
     otherwise eligible, or to restrict the length of a such a 
     retention bonus contract for a specialty to less than 4 
     years.
       (2) Limitations.--Each annual dental officer multiyear 
     retention bonus authorized under this section shall not 
     exceed the following:
       (A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement.
       (B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement.
       (C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
       (c) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     dental officer multiyear retention bonus under the section, a 
     dental officer shall--
       (A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall 
     determine;
       (B) have at least 8 years of creditable service, or have 
     completed any active duty service commitment of the Indian 
     Health Service incurred for dental education and training;
       (C) have completed initial residency training, or be 
     scheduled to complete initial residency training before 
     September 30 of the fiscal year in which the officer enters 
     into a dental officer multiyear retention bonus written 
     service agreement under this section; and
       (D) have a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry or oral 
     and maxillofacial surgery.
       (2) Extension to other officers.--The Director may extend 
     the retention bonus to dental officers other than officers 
     with a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry based on 
     demonstrated need. The criteria used as the basis for such an 
     extension shall be equitably determined and consistently 
     applied.
       (d) Termination of Entitlement to Special Pay.--The 
     Director may terminate at any time a dental officer's 
     multiyear retention bonus contract under this section. If 
     such a contract is terminated, the unserved portion of the 
     retention bonus contract shall be recouped on a pro rata 
     basis. The Director shall establish regulations that specify 
     the conditions and procedures under which termination may 
     take place. The regulations and conditions for termination 
     shall be included in the written service contract for a 
     dental officer multiyear retention bonus under this section.
       (e) Refunds.--
       (1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for 
     sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section 
     if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus 
     fails to complete the total period of service specified in 
     the contract, as conditions and circumstances warrant.
       (2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the 
     United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to 
     the United States.
       (3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, 
     United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after 
     the termination of a retention bonus contract under this 
     section does not discharge the dental officer who signed such 
     a contract from a debt arising under the contract or 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 105. MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO APPROVED NONHOSPITAL DENTISTRY 
                   RESIDENCY TRAINING PROGRAMS; PERMANENT DENTAL 
                   EXEMPTION FROM VOLUNTARY RESIDENCY REDUCTION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Medicare Payments To Approved Nonhospital Dentistry 
     Training Programs.--Section 1886 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(l) Payments For Nonhospital Based Dental Residency 
     Training Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning January 1, 1999, the Secretary 
     shall make payments under this paragraph to approved 
     nonhospital based dentistry residency training programs 
     providing oral health care to children for the direct and 
     indirect expenses associated with operating such training 
     programs.
       ``(2) Payment amount.--
       ``(A) Methodology.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedures for making payments under this subsection.
       ``(B) Total amount of payments.--In making payments to 
     approved non-hospital based dentistry residency training 
     programs under this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the total amount of such payments will not result in a 
     reduction of payments that would otherwise be made under 
     subsection (h) or (k) to hospitals for dental residency 
     training programs.
       ``(C) Approved programs.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedures for the approval of nonhospital based dentistry 
     residency training programs under this subsection.''.
       (b) Permanent Dental Exemption From Voluntary Residency 
     Reduction Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1886(h)(6)(C) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(6)(C)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as 
     subclauses (I) through (III), respectively, and indenting 
     such subclauses (as so redesignated) appropriately;
       (B) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for purposes''; 
     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Definition of `approved medical residency training 
     program'.--In this subparagraph, the term `approved medical 
     residency training program' means only such programs in 
     allopathic or osteopathic medicine.''.
       (2) Application to demonstration projects and authority.--
     Section 4626(b)(3) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (42 
     U.S.C. 1395ww note) is amended by inserting ``in allopathic 
     or osteopathic medicine'' before the period.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) Subsection (a).--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

     SEC. 106. DENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS.

       (a) Designation.--Section 332(a) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4)(A) In designating health professional shortage areas 
     under this section, the Secretary may designate certain areas 
     as dental health professional shortage areas if the Secretary 
     determines that such areas have a severe shortage of dental 
     health professionals. The Secretary shall develop, publish 
     and periodically update criteria to be used in designating 
     dental health professional shortage areas.
       ``(B) For purposes of this title, a dental health 
     professional shortage area shall be considered to be a health 
     professional shortage area.''.
       (b) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 338B(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1(b)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(including dental hygienists)'' after 
     ``profession''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 331(a)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254d(a)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including dental health services)'' after 
     ``services''.
  TITLE II--ENSURING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER THE 
                      MEDICAID AND SCHIP PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. INCREASED FMAP AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR DENTAL SERVICES 
                   PROVIDED TO CHILDREN UNDER THE MEDICAID 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Increased FMAP.--Section 1903(a)(5) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``equal to 90 per centum'' and inserting 
     ``equal to--
       ``(A) 90 per centum'';
       (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) the greater of the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage or 75 per centum of the sums expended during such 
     quarter which are attributable to dental services for 
     children;''.
       (b) Fee Schedule.--Section 1902(a) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (65), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (65) the following:
       ``(66) provide for payment under the State plan for dental 
     services for children at a rate that is designed to create an 
     incentive for providers of such services to treat children in 
     need of dental services (but that does not result in a 
     reduction or other adverse impact on the extent to which the 
     State provides dental services to adults).''.

     SEC. 202. REQUIRED MINIMUM MEDICAID EXPENDITURES FOR DENTAL 
                   HEALTH SERVICES.

       Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)), as amended by section 201(b), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (65), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (66), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (66) the following:
       ``(67) provide that, beginning with fiscal year 1999--
       ``(A) not less than an amount equal to 7 percent of the 
     total annual expenditures under the State plan for medical 
     assistance provided to children will be expended during each 
     fiscal year for dental services for children (including the 
     prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment of dental 
     conditions); and
       ``(B) the State will not reduce or otherwise adversely 
     impact the extent to which the State provides dental services 
     to adults in order to meet the requirement of subparagraph 
     (A).''.

     SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT TO VERIFY SUFFICIENT NUMBERS OF 
                   PARTICIPATING DENTISTS UNDER THE MEDICAID 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)), as amended by section 202, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (66), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (67), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and

[[Page S11979]]

       (3) by inserting after paragraph (67) the following:
       ``(68) provide that the State will annually verify that the 
     number of dentists participating under the State plan--
       ``(A) satisfies the minimum established degree of 
     participation of dentists to the population of children in 
     the State, as determined by the Secretary in accordance with 
     the criteria used by the Secretary under section 332(a)(4) of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)(4)) to 
     designate a dental health professional shortage area; and
       ``(B) is sufficient to ensure that children enrolled in the 
     State plan have the same level of access to dental services 
     as the children residing in the State who are not eligible 
     for medical assistance under the State plan.''.

     SEC. 204. INCLUSION OF RECOMMENDED AGE FOR FIRST DENTAL VISIT 
                   IN DEFINITION OF EPSDT SERVICES.

       Section 1905(r)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396d(r)(1)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``and, with 
     respect to dental services under paragraph (3), in accordance 
     with guidelines for the age of a first dental visit that are 
     consistent with guidelines of the American Dental 
     Association, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, and 
     the Bright Futures program of the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services,'' after ``vaccines,''.

     SEC. 205. APPROVAL OF FINAL REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING CHANGES 
                   TO EPSDT SERVICES.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue 
     final regulations implementing the proposed regulations based 
     on section 6403 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1989 (Public Law 101-239; 103 Stat. 2262) that were contained 
     in the Federal Register issued for October 1, 1993.

     SEC. 206. USE OF SCHIP FUNDS TO TREAT CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL 
                   DENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``or subsection (u)(3)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (u)(3), or subsection (u)(4)''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (u)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures 
     described in this paragraph are expenditures for medical 
     assistance described in subparagraph (B) for a low-income 
     child described in subparagraph (C), but only in the case of 
     such a child who resides in a State described in subparagraph 
     (D).
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the medical 
     assistance described in this subparagraph consists of the 
     following:
       ``(i) Dental services provided to children with special 
     oral health needs, including advanced oral, dental, and 
     craniofacial diseases and conditions.
       ``(ii) Outreach conducted to identify and treat children 
     with such special dental health needs.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), a low-income child 
     described in this subparagraph is a child whose family income 
     does not exceed 50 percentage points above the medicaid 
     applicable income level (as defined in section 2110(b)(4)).
       ``(D) A State described in this subparagraph is a State 
     that, as of August 5, 1997, has under a waiver authorized by 
     the Secretary or under section 1902(r)(2), established a 
     medicaid applicable income level (as defined in section 
     2110(b)(4)) for children under 19 years of age residing in 
     the State that is at or above 185 percent of the poverty line 
     (as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2), including any revision required 
     by such section for a family of the size involved).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     4911 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 
     111 Stat. 570).

     SEC. 207. GRANTS TO SUPPLEMENT FEES FOR THE TREATMENT OF 
                   CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL DENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.

       Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 511. GRANTS TO SUPPLEMENT FEES FOR THE TREATMENT OF 
                   CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL DENTAL HEALTH NEEDS.

       ``(a) Authority to Make Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to any other payments made 
     under this title to a State, the Secretary shall award grants 
     to States to supplement payments made under the State 
     programs established under titles XIX and XXI for the 
     treatment of children with special oral health care needs.
       ``(2) Definition of children with special oral, dental, and 
     craniofacial health care needs.--In this section the term 
     `children with special oral health care needs' means children 
     with advanced oral, dental and craniofacial conditions or 
     disorders, and other chronic medical, genetic, and behavioral 
     disorders with dental manifestations.
       ``(b) Application of Other Provisions of Title.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     other provisions of this title shall not apply to a grant 
     made, or activities of the Secretary, under this section.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions of this title 
     shall apply to a grant made under subsection (a) to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to 
     allotments made under section 502(c):
       ``(A) Section 504(b)(4) (relating to expenditures of funds 
     as a condition of receipt of Federal funds).
       ``(B) Section 504(b)(6) (relating to prohibition on 
     payments to excluded individuals and entities).
       ``(C) Section 506 (relating to reports and audits, but only 
     to the extent determined by the Secretary to be appropriate 
     for grants made under this section).
       ``(D) Section 508 (relating to nondiscrimination).
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 208. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO 
                   PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES IN UNDERSERVED AREAS.

       (a) Authority to Conduct Projects.--The Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, through the Administrator of the Health 
     Care Financing Administration, the Administrator of the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration, the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service, and the Director of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention shall establish 
     demonstration projects that are designed to increase access 
     to dental services for children in underserved areas, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
                  TITLE III--PEDIATRIC DENTAL RESEARCH

     SEC. 301. IDENTIFICATION OF INTERVENTIONS THAT REDUCE THE 
                   BURDEN AND TRANSMISSION OF ORAL, DENTAL, AND 
                   CRANIOFACIAL DISEASES IN HIGH RISK POPULATIONS; 
                   DEVELOPMENT OF APPROACHES FOR PEDIATRIC ORAL 
                   AND CRANIOFACIAL ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, through the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the 
     Indian Health Service, and in consultation with the Agency 
     for Health Care Policy and Research and the National 
     Institutes of Health, shall--
       (1) support community based research that is designed to 
     improve our understanding of the etiology, pathogenesis, 
     diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pediatric oral, 
     dental, craniofacial diseases and conditions and their 
     sequelae in high risk populations; and
       (2) develop clinical approaches for pediatric dental 
     disease risk assessment.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 302. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE POLICY AND RESEARCH.

       Section 902(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     299a(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) the barriers that exist to dental care for children 
     and the establishment of measures of oral health quality, 
     including access to oral health care for children.''.

     SEC. 303. CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the 
     National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and 
     the National Institute of Dental Research, shall convene a 
     conference (to be known as the ``Consensus Development 
     Conference'') to examine the management of early childhood 
     caries and to support the design and conduct of research on 
     the biology and physiologic dynamics of infectious 
     transmission of dental caries. The Secretary shall ensure 
     that representatives of interested consumers and other 
     professional organizations participate in the Consensus 
     Development Conference.
       (b) Experts.--In administering the conference under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall solicit the participation of experts in dentistry, 
     including pediatric dentistry, public health, and other 
     appropriate medical and child health professionals.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
               TITLE IV--SURVEILLANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 401. CDC REPORTS.

       (a) Collection of Data.--The Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with other 
     organizations and agencies shall annually collect data 
     describing the dental, craniofacial, and oral health of 
     residents of at least 1 State from each region of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Reports.--The Director shall compile and analyze data 
     collected under subsection (a) and annually prepare and 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     concerning the oral health of certain States.

[[Page S11980]]

     SEC. 402. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       Section 1902(a)(43)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(43)(D)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' and inserting 
     ``with the specific dental condition and treatment provided 
     identified,'';
       (2) in clause (iv), by striking the semicolon and inserting 
     a comma; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) the percentage of expenditures for such services that 
     were for dental services, and
       ``(vi) the percentage of general and pediatric dentists who 
     are licensed in the State and provide services commensurate 
     with eligibility under the State plan;''.

     SEC. 403. ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES.

       The Administrator of the Administration on Children, Youth, 
     and Families shall annually prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning the 
     percentage of children enrolled in a Head Start or Early 
     Start program who have access to and who obtain dental care, 
     including children with special oral, dental, and 
     craniofacial health needs.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
     In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     determines requires State legislation in order for the plan 
     to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments 
     made by this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as 
     failing to comply with the requirements of such amendments 
     solely on the basis of its failure to meet the additional 
     requirements before the first day of the first calendar 
     quarter beginning after the close of the first regular 
     session of the State legislature that begins after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the previous 
     sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year 
     legislative session, each year of the session is considered 
     to be a separate regular session of the State 
     legislature.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2585. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to eliminate a 
threshold requirement relating to unreimbursable expenses for 
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; to 
the Committee on Finance.


     Amendment to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with my friend 
and colleague from South Dakota, Tim Johnson, legislation to make 
several common-sense changes to the National Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program. This bill removes an unintended and unjustified 
barrier blocking certain children from qualifying for the compensation 
program. It also makes the necessary changes to allow new drugs to be 
incorporated into the program, including the newly-approved rotavirus 
vaccine.
  The Vaccine Act dates back to 1986, when Congress determined that a 
no-fault alternative to the tort system would best accommodate the dual 
objectives of ensuring proper compensation to victims of vaccine 
injuries and fostering continued development and broad-scale 
availability of lifesaving vaccines.
  Through the Vaccine Act, children seriously injured by a childhood 
vaccine can receive compensation for medical care, custodial or 
residential care, lifetime lost earnings, pain and suffering, and 
emotional distress--benefits comparable to those awarded through the 
judicial tort system.
  Tragically, some children have been unfairly denied the right to 
petition for benefits under the program because they did not incur 
$1,000 or more in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
  At first glance, the eligibility requirement of at least $1,000 in 
out-of-pocket medical expenses may seem like a reasonable way of 
deterring individuals from petitioning for benefits if they lack a 
material claim to compensation. In reality, however, the absence of 
out-of-pocket health care expenses does not mean a child has not been 
seriously injured, nor does it suggest they have access to other 
sources for recoupment of the losses their injury has exacted.
  Many children, including the children of military personnel, Native 
American children covered by the Indian Health Service, children with 
Medicaid coverage, and children covered under employer-sponsored health 
plans with minimal cost-sharing requirements, do not have high out-of-
pocket health care costs.
  While health insurance may remove the burden of high medical bills, 
it does not replace lost income or cover custodial and residential 
care. It cannot compensate for the toll these injuries have taken and 
will take on the lives of these children. Health care costs are just 
one component of the compensation for which a seriously injured child 
is eligible.
  I know of a Native American child in my own state who was profoundly 
injured after receiving a diptheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination. 
Within hours of receiving the shot, this five-month-old child had a 
seizure and suffered severe brain damage because of the defective 
pertussis component of the shot.
  The doctors tell us that his disabilities will, throughout his 
lifetime, preclude this little boy from having a normal life. He will 
never live or work independently. But, because he receives health care 
from the Indian Health Service (IHS), he is not eligible for any 
benefits under the vaccine compensation program. Not only is this child 
barred from compensation for lost income and emotional trauma, he is 
denied financial support for his injury-related assisted living needs.
  Through legislation intended to foster continued improvements in 
public health, the federal government has obstructed this child's right 
to sue vaccine manufacturers. But the program's gate-keeping mechanism 
is off the mark. What we are saying--however unintentionally--to this 
particular child and others like him is: ``Fend for yourself.'' To deny 
this child the benefits available to other injured children is 
indefensible.
  The Vaccine Act contains other safeguards to prevent unjustified 
requests for compensation. For example, no benefits claim is accepted 
without a thorough review and significant medical proof of severe 
injury directly related to a childhood vaccination. The $1,000 
threshold is unnecessary.
  Senator Johnson and I certainly are not alone in calling for the 
repeal of the $1,000 threshold. In fact, we are in very good company. 
The Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines voted unanimously to 
recommend elimination of the $1,000 threshold.
  I hope this Congress will seize the opportunity to reconcile the 
intended and actual standards of fairness by which the National Vaccine 
Compensation Program fulfills its role in the public health system. In 
so doing, we will make a tremendous difference in the lives of children 
in desperate need of our support.
  There is also a disconnect between the Act's intended consequences 
and its actual effect in regard to enrollment of new vaccines. Several 
vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration 
and have met the standards established in the Vaccine Act are still not 
fully integrated into the program.
  There are currently several vaccines Congress has approved for 
taxation and inclusion in the Vaccine Compensation Program that, 
because of a technical error in the legislation, were not authorized as 
compensable. This bill will fully integrate those vaccines into the 
program, and it will ensure that all new vaccines will be automatically 
compensable once the tax is levied.
  In addition, it initiates the 75 cents-per-vaccination tax on the 
rotavirus vaccine, which will ensure compensation for recipients of 
that vaccine. The rotavirus vaccine was approved by the FDA in August 
of this year to protect against rotavirus gastroenteritis, which causes 
about 125 deaths and 50,000 hospitalizations per year among infants in 
the United States. Initiation of the excise tax will help protect the 4 
million children who are expected to receive the vaccine annually.
  The changes proposed in this bill are not controversial. They are 
common-sense, and they are overdue. When Congress established the 
Vaccine Compensation Program, its intent was to protect the rights of 
victims without jeopardizing an invaluable weapon against childhood 
illnesses. The underpinning of this program is fairness, a standard 
that cannot be met until Congress makes these important changes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S11981]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2585

       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 ``Vaccine Injury Compensation 
     Program Modification Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT OF 
                   UNREIMBURSABLE EXPENSES.

       Section 2111(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i)) is amended by striking ``and 
     incurred unreimbursable expenses due in whole or in part to 
     such illness, disability, injury, or condition in an amount 
     greater than $1,000''.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF ROTAVIRUS GASTROENTERITIS AS A TAXABLE 
                   VACCINE.

       (a) In General.--Section 4132(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining taxable vaccine) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(K) Any vaccine against rotavirus gastroenteritis.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) Sales.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
     to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in the case 
     of sales on or before the date of the enactment of this Act 
     for which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date 
     shall be considered the sale date.

     SEC. 4. VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND.

       (a) Amendments Related to Section 904 of 1997 Act.--
       (1) Paragraph (1) of section 9510(c) of the 1986 Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Amounts in the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund shall be available, as provided in 
     appropriation Acts, only for--
       ``(A) the payment of compensation under subtitle 2 of title 
     XXI of the Public Health Service Act (as in effect on August 
     6, 1997) for vaccine-related injury or death with respect to 
     any vaccine--
       ``(i) which is administered after September 30, 1988, and
       ``(ii) which is a taxable vaccine (as defined in section 
     4132(a)(1)) at the time the vaccine was administered, or
       ``(B) the payment of all expenses of administration 
     incurred by the Federal Government in administering such 
     subtitle.''.
       (2) Section 9510(b) of the 1986 Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Limitation on transfers to vaccine injury 
     compensation trust fund.--No amount may be appropriated to 
     the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund on and after the 
     date of any expenditure from the Trust Fund which is not 
     permitted by this section. The determination of whether an 
     expenditure is so permitted shall be made without regard to--
       ``(A) any provision of law which is not contained or 
     referenced in this title or in a revenue Act, and
       ``(B) whether such provision of law is a subsequently 
     enacted provision or directly or indirectly seeks to waive 
     the application of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to which they relate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 2586. A bill to amend parts A and D of title IV of the Social 
Security Act to require States to pass through directly to a family 
receiving assistance under the temporary assistance to needy families 
program all child support collected by the State and to disregard any 
child support that the family receives in determining the family's 
level of assistance under that program; to the Committee on Finance.


            Children First Child Support Reform Act of 1998

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to put 
America's children first by putting more resources into the hands of 
families and encouraging more parents to live up to their child support 
obligations. My legislation, the Children First Child Support Reform 
Act, would direct that all child support collected through the Federal-
State Child Support Enforcement Program be passed through, or paid, 
directly to the children and families to whom it is owed and 
disregarded in the calculation of public assistance benefits. My 
legislation will assure non-custodial parents that the child support 
they pay will actually contribute to the well-being of their child, 
rather than the government, and will also reduce administrative burdens 
on the state.
  As my colleagues know, since its inception in 1975, our Federal-State 
Child Support Enforcement Program has been tasked with collecting child 
support for families receiving public assistance and other families 
that request help in enforcing child support. Towards this end, the 
program works to establish paternity and legally-binding support 
orders, while collecting and disbursing funds on behalf of families so 
that children receive the support they need to grow up in healthy, 
nurturing surroundings.
  But on one crucial point, the current program does not truly work on 
behalf of families and, perhaps more importantly, may actually work 
against families by discouraging non-custodial parents from meeting 
their child support obligations.
  If the family was never on public assistance, the support is 
collected by the Child Support Enforcement Program and sent directly to 
the family. However, under current law, most child support collected on 
behalf of families receiving public assistance is retained by the state 
and Federal governments as reimbursement for welfare expenditures. In 
addition to this cost recoupment function, collections made on behalf 
of welfare families are used to fund the child support program in many 
states.
  Thus, under current law, we have a system where the vast majority of 
children on public assistance never actually receive the child support 
that is paid on their behalf. The government keeps the money. The 
research shows that many non-custodial parents who pay support do not 
believe that their payment actually benefits their children. They 
realize and resent that they are paying the government. Worse yet, some 
non-custodial parents may decide not to pay support because it does not 
go to their children. Some custodial parents also are skeptical about 
working with the child support agency to secure payments since the 
funds are generally not forwarded to them.
  Mr. President, we know that an estimated 800,000 families would not 
need public assistance if they could count on the child support owed to 
them. In addition, we know that 23 million children are owed more than 
$40 billion in outstanding support. Clearly, the vital importance of 
child support in keeping families off of assistance remains as true 
today as when the program began. In a world with TANF time limits, it 
has never been more important. And with these figures in mind, it is 
not unthinkable that some policymakers may have or might still consider 
this program as a means of recovering welfare expenditures.
  But I am convinced that that thinking must change, if not cast off 
entirely, because, simply put, times have changed. The welfare reform 
law of 1996, which I supported, paved the way for time limits and work 
requirements that provide clear and compelling incentives for families 
to enter the workforce and find a way to stay there. Open ended, 
unconditional public support is no longer a reality, and our goal and 
responsibility as policymakers, now more than ever before, is to give 
families the tools and resources they need to prepare for and 
ultimately survive the day when they are without public assistance.
  We fundamentally changed welfare, now we must fundamentally reexamine 
the central role of child support in helping families as they struggle 
to become and remain self-sufficient. And I say we go down the road of 
putting children first, a path on which we have already made some 
progress. Under the welfare reform law, states will eventually be 
required to distribute state-collected child support arrears owed to 
the family before paying off arrears owed to the state and Federal 
governments for welfare expenditures. In addition, states were given 
the option of continuing to passthrough directly the first $50 of child 
support to the family.
  One state, my state of Wisconsin, has opted to pass through all child 
support collected on behalf of participating families to those 
families. As you know, Wisconsin has been a leader and national model 
in the area of welfare reform. Under Wisconsin's welfare program, child 
support counts as income in determining financial eligibility for 
welfare assistance, but once eligibility is established, the child 
support income is disregarded in calculating program benefits. In other 
words, families are allowed to keep their own money. Non-custodial 
parents can be assured that their contribution counts and that their 
child support payments go to their children. And both parents are

[[Page S11982]]

presented with a realistic picture of what that support means in the 
life of their child. I believe we, as a nation, should follow 
Wisconsin's example.
  The full passthrough and disregard approach also has significant 
benefits on the administrative side. The current distribution 
requirements place significant computer, accounting and paperwork 
burdens on the states. They are also costly. Data from the Federal 
Office of Child Support demonstrates that nearly 20 percent of program 
expenditures are spent simply processing payments. States are required 
to maintain a complicated set of accounts to determine whether support 
collected should be paid to the family or kept by the government. These 
complex accounting rules depend on whether the family ever received 
public assistance, the date a family begins and ends assistance, 
whether the non-custodial parent is current on payments or owes 
arrears, the method of collection and other factors.
  We know that we have already asked much of the states in the realm of 
automation, systems integration and welfare law child support 
enforcement adjustments. We hope and believe these improvements will 
lead to better collection rates. Now we have a chance to simplify and 
improve distribution of support. What could be simpler than a 
distribution system in which all child support collected would be 
delivered to the children to whom it is owed? A distribution system in 
which child support agencies would distribute current support and 
arrears to both welfare and non-welfare families in exactly the same 
way?
  Mr. President, I am raising these points and introducing this 
legislation today, in the final week of the 105th Congress, as a 
marker, as a starting point to this discussion. Child support financing 
must be addressed. First, our current distribution scheme is out of 
step with the philosophy of current welfare policy. We must move the 
child support program from cost-recovery to service delivery for all 
families. Second, the current financing scheme is no longer workable. 
TANF caseloads are decreasing dramatically, even as overall child 
support caseloads are increasing. Therefore, while the system needs 
additional resources, the portion of the caseload that produces those 
resources is decreasing. We must put the child support program on a 
sound financial footing that confirms a strong Federal and state 
commitment to the program.
  So, I believe it is time to begin a discussion on the issue of child 
support financing and the vital role of the child support program in 
helping families help themselves. The Administration has already begun 
to meet with policymakers, state administrators, and children's 
advocates to discuss the future of child support financing. I want to 
begin today, and ultimately end the debate, by pushing for a financing 
system that puts more resources into the hands of children, that lets 
our nation's families keep more of their own money.
  But let me strongly affirm that adopting a children first policy is 
only one of my goals. At this time, my proposal addresses only one half 
of the financing issue. Yes, we should put children first, but let me 
stress that I have every intention of continuing to refine this 
proposal so that it addresses the second point as well--finding 
alternative financing mechanisms so that states can maintain and 
strengthen their child support programs. Without adequate funding, 
state child support programs cannot deliver effective child support 
services to the families that so desperately need them. I want to 
continue working with my colleagues, Wisconsin and the other states, 
advocates and families to sort out the rest of the financing question. 
By advocating a full passthrough and disregard approach, I am 
absolutely not advocating a disinvestment in our child support system 
by either the Federal government or the states. Our commitment to this 
program must remain strong and steadfast.
  But it is time for us to create a system that truly serves families 
by giving them the tools to survive in a world without public support. 
It is time for a child support financing system that truly puts 
families, and not the government, first.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2586

       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 ``Children First Child Support 
     Reform Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED 
                   BY OR ON BEHALF OF FAMILIES RECEIVING 
                   ASSISTANCE UNDER TANF.

       (a) Requirement to Pass All Child Support Collected 
     Directly to the Family.--
       (1) In general.--Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 657) is amended--
       (A) by striking all that precedes subsection (f) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 457. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTED SUPPORT.

       ``(a) Distribution to Family.--
       ``(1) In General.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection 
     (f), any amount collected on behalf of a family as support by 
     a State pursuant to a plan approved under this part shall be 
     distributed to the family.
       ``(2) Families under certain agreements.--In the case of an 
     amount collected for a family in accordance with a 
     cooperative agreement under section 454(33), the State shall 
     distribute the amount so collected pursuant to the terms of 
     the agreement.
       ``(b) Hold Harmless Provision.--If the amounts collected 
     which could be retained by the State in the fiscal year (to 
     the extent necessary to reimburse the State for amounts paid 
     to families as assistance by the State) are less than the 
     State share of the amounts collected in fiscal year 1995, the 
     State share for the fiscal year shall be an amount equal to 
     the State share in fiscal year 1995.'';
       (B) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (c); and
       (C) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Amounts Collected On 
     Behalf of Children in Foster Care.--Notwithstanding''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I))(aa) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking 
     ``457(a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``457''.
       (B) Section 454B(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654b(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``457(a)'' and inserting ``457''.
       (b) Disregard of Child Support Collected For Purposes of 
     Determining Amount of TANF Assistance.--Section 408(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(12) Requirement to disregard child support in 
     determining amount of assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall disregard any amount received by a family 
     as a result of a child support obligation in determining the 
     amount or level of assistance that the State will provide to 
     the family under the State program funded under this part.
       ``(B) Option to include child support for purposes of 
     determining eligibility.--A State may include any amount 
     received by a family as a result of a child support 
     obligation in determining the family's income for purposes of 
     determining the family's eligibility for assistance under the 
     State program funded under this part.''.
       (c) Elimination of TANF Requirement to Assign Support to 
     the State.--
       (1) In general.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 452 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652) 
     is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(10)(C), by striking ``section 
     408(a)(3) or under''; and
       (ii) in subsection (h), by striking ``or with respect to 
     whom an assignment pursuant to section 408(a)(3) is in 
     effect''.
       (B) Section 454(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654(5)) is 
     amended by striking ``(A) in any case'' and all that follows 
     through ``the support payments collected, and (B)''.
       (C) Section 456(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 656(a)) is 
     amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``assigned to the State 
     pursuant to section 408(a)(3) or''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``assigned''.
       (D) Section 464(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 408(a)(3) or ''.
       (E) Section 466(a)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``408(a)(3) or ''.
       (F) Section 458A(b)(5)(C)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 658a(b)(5)(C)(i)(I)), as added by the Child 
     Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Public Law 
     105-200; 112 Stat. 645) is amended by striking ``A or''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section take effect on October 1, 
     1998.
       (2) Child support performance and incentive act conforming 
     amendment.--The amendment made by subsection (c)(2)(F) shall 
     take effect on October 2, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:

[[Page S11983]]

  S. 2587. A bill to protect the public, especially seniors, against 
telemarketing fraud and telemarketing fraud over the Internet and to 
authorize an educational campaign to improve senior citizens' ability 
to protect themselves against telemarketing fraud over the Internet; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


             telemarketing fraud and seniors protection act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, online consumer purchases are poised to 
explode to more than $300 billion early in the next Century. But the 
goldrush in cyberbuying is likely to carry along with it a boom in 
cyberfraud. Congress can help head-off this cybercrime by extending our 
current telemarketing laws to encompass fraud on the Net.
  In response to the staggering $40 billion consumers lose in telephone 
fraud each year, Congress earlier this summer passed the 1998 
Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. I strongly supported that effort. 
The new law builds upon the four federal laws enacted since the early 
1990s that deal directly with telemarketing fraud. The 1998 law 
stiffens penalties for telemarketing fraud by toughening the sentencing 
guidelines--especially for crimes against the elderly, requires 
criminal forfeiture to ensure the booty of telemarketing crime is not 
used to commit further fraud, mandates victim restitution to ensure 
victims are the first ones compensated, adds conspiracy language to the 
list of telemarketing fraud penalties so that prosecutors can find the 
masterminds behind the boiler rooms, and will help law enforcement zero 
in on quick-strike fraud operations by giving them the authority to 
move more quickly against suspected fraud.
  The 1998 law is a good step forward but it's not enough to deal with 
today's digital economy. As more Americans go online, cyberscams are 
bound to proliferate. The Congressional crackdown on telemarketing 
fraud will only encourage cyberscammers to migrate to the Net unless 
the law gets there first. That is the purpose of the legislation I am 
introducing today.
  The Telemarketing Fraud and Seniors Protection Act simply extends 
current law against telemarketing fraud to include the same crimes 
committed over the Internet. The approach expands the existing law 
applicable to mail, telephone, wire, and television fraud to fraud over 
the Internet, and its enforcement would follow the same division of 
labor there is today between the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Department of Justice. The bill would apply the same tough penalties 
that Congress enacted earlier this year to cyberscams. The growth of 
Internet telephony makes it more attractive for cyberscammers to set up 
shop offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law. My bill would address this 
problem by allowing law enforcement to freeze the assets and deny entry 
to the United States of those convicted of cyberfraud.
  The bill takes special aim against those attempt to defraud one of 
our most vulnerable groups--our senior citizens. Seniors are the target 
for more than 50 percent of telemarketing fraud. Although telemarketers 
convicted of fraud face stiff penalties--a minimum of 5-10 years in 
jail and restitution payments to their victims, we also need to better 
educate and inform senior citizens on how to avoid becoming victims of 
telemarketing fraud in the first place, and how to assist law 
enforcement in catching the perpetrators.
  The legislation would also authorize the Administration on Aging, 
through its network of area agencies of aging, to conduct an outreach 
program to senior citizens on telemarketing fraud. Seniors would be 
advised against providing their credit card number, bank account or 
other personal information unless they had initiated the call 
unsolicited. They would also be informed of their consumer protection 
rights and any toll-free numbers and other resources to report 
suspected illegal telemarketing.
  Mr. President, the Federal Trade Commission is off to a good start 
against cyberscammers. Some of the operations the FTC has targeted are 
not companies at all, but merely websites that promise consumers 
everything from huge new consulting contracts to the elimination of bad 
credit reports. They may use scare tactics to frighten consumers into 
sending important personal financial information and hundreds of 
dollars for services the consumer will never see, or attempt to lure 
consumers with the promise of help them cash in on the Internet 
explosion. The FTC also has a strong operation going against junk e-
mailers. My legislation will complement and strengthen the FTC's effort 
to target telemarketing fraud over the Internet and especially when 
such fraud is aimed at seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this important legislation, and 
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2587

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

             TITLE I--TELEMARKETING FRAUD OVER THE INTERNET

     SECTION 101. EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL FRAUD STATUTE TO INTERNET.

       Section 1343 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by----
       (1) striking ``or television communication'' and inserting 
     ``television communication or the Internet''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following: ``For purposes 
     of this section, the term `Internet' means collectively the 
     myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, 
     including equipment and operating software, which comprise 
     the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ 
     the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any 
     predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to 
     communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.''.

     SEC. 102. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SANCTIONS.

       The Federal Trade Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding to set forth the application of section 5 of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) and other 
     statutory provisions within its jurisdiction to deceptive 
     acts or practices in or affecting the commerce of the United 
     States in connection with the promotion, advertisement, 
     offering for sale, or sale of goods or services through use 
     of the Internet, including the initiation, transmission, and 
     receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail. For 
     purposes of this section, the term `Internet' means 
     collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications 
     facilities, including equipment and operating software, which 
     comprise the interconnected worldwide network of networks 
     that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet 
     Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such 
     protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or 
     radio.

            TITLE II--SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that----
       (1) telemarketing fraud costs consumers nearly 
     $40,000,000,000 each year;
       (2) senior citizens are often the target of telemarketing 
     fraud;
       (3) fraudulent telemarketers compile into ``mooch lists'' 
     the names of potentially vulnerable consumers;
       (4) according to the American Association of Retired 
     Persons, 56 percent of the names on ``mooch lists'' are 
     individuals age 50 or older;
       (5) the Department of Justice has undertaken successful 
     investigations and prosecutions of telemarketing fraud 
     through various operations, including ``Operation 
     Disconnect'', ``Operation Senior Sentinel'', and ``Operation 
     Upload'';
       (6) the Federal Bureau of Investigation has helped provide 
     resources to assist organizations such as the American 
     Association of Retired Persons to operate outreach programs 
     designed to warn senior citizens whose names appear on 
     confiscated ``mooch lists'';
       (7) the Administration on Aging was formed, in part, to 
     provide senior citizens with the resources, information, and 
     assistance their special circumstances require;
       (8) the Administration on Aging has a system in place to 
     effectively inform senior citizens of the dangers of 
     telemarketing fraud; and
       (9) senior citizens need to be warned of the dangers of 
     telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet before they 
     become victims.

     SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title through education and 
     outreach to protect senior citizens from the dangers of 
     telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet and to 
     facilitate the investigation and prosecution of fraudulent 
     telemarketers.

     SEC. 203. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Aging, 
     shall publicly disseminate in each State information designed 
     to educate senior citizens and raise awareness about the 
     dangers of telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet.
       (b) Information.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall----
       (1) inform senior citizens of the prevalence of 
     telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet targeted 
     against them;

[[Page S11984]]

       (2) inform senior citizens of how telemarketing fraud and 
     fraud over the Internet works;
       (3) inform senior citizens of how to identify telemarketing 
     fraud and fraud over the Internet;
       (4) inform senior citizens of how to protect themselves 
     against telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet, 
     including an explanation of the dangers of providing bank 
     account, credit card, or other financial or personal 
     information over the telephone to unsolicited callers;
       (5) inform senior citizens of how to report suspected 
     attempts at telemarketing fraud and fraud over the Internet;
       (6) inform senior citizens of their consumer protection 
     rights under Federal law; and
       (7) provide such other information as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to protect senior citizens against 
     fraudulent telemarketing over the Internet.
       (c) Means of Dissemination.--The Secretary shall determine 
     the means to disseminate information under this section. In 
     making such determination, the Secretary shall consider----
       (1) public service announcements;
       (2) a printed manual or pamphlet;
       (3) an Internet website; and
       (4) telephone outreach to individuals whose names appear on 
     ``mooch lists'' confiscated from fraudulent telemarketers.
       (d) Priority.--In disseminating information under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give priority to areas with high 
     concentrations of senior citizens.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT GIFTS.

       The Secretary may accept, use, and dispose of unconditional 
     gifts, bequests, or devises of services or property, both 
     real and personal, in order to carry out this title.

     SEC. 205. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``State'' includes the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2588. A bill to provide for the review and classification of 
physician assistant positions in the Federal Government, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


               office of personnel management legislation

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by 
Senator Nickles and Senator Inouye to introduce legislation that 
directs the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) to develop a 
classification standard appropriate to the occupation of physician 
assistant.
  Physician assistants are a part of a growing field of health care 
professionals that make quality health care available and affordable in 
underserved areas throughout our country. Because the physician 
assistant profession was very young when OPM first developed employment 
criteria in 1970, the agency adapted the nursing classification system 
for physician assistants. Today, this is no longer appropriate. 
Physician assistants have different education and training requirements 
than nurses and they are licensed and evaluated according to differnt 
criteria.
  The inaccurate classification of physician assistant has led to 
recruitment and retention problems of physician assistants in Federal 
agencies, usually caused by low starting salaries and low salary caps. 
Because it is recognized that physician assistants provide cost-
effective health care, this is an important problem to resolve.
  This legislation mandates that OPM review this classification in 
consultation with physician assistants and the organizations that 
represent physician assistants. The bill specifically states that OPM 
should consider the educational and practice qualifications of the 
position as well as the treatment of physician assistants in the 
private sector in this review.
  Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will make an important 
correction that will help federal agencies make better use of these 
providers of cost-effective, high quality health care.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOSWKI:
  S. 2589. A bill to provide for the collection and interpretation of 
state of the art, non-intrusive 3-dimensional seismic data on certain 
federal lands in Alasks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


         legislation authorizing 3-d seismic testing in alaska

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
ensure that when Congress looks at ways to reduce the United States' 
dependence on foreign oil, it does so with the best science available.
  The legislation I introduce today would require the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct 3-dimensional (3-D) seismic testing on the Arctic 
Coastal Plain of Alaska.
  This testing leaves no footprint. In fact, just last year the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service allowed such testing to be done in the Kenai 
National Wildlife Refuge, declaring such testing would have no 
significant impact.
  It would have even less impact on the frozen tundra in ANWR.
  It is also a possibility that the oil industry would be willing to 
share in the cost of such testing. Let's at least find out what kind of 
resource we are talking about.
  Mr. President, I think it is important that we look at some of the 
history of his area and the testing that has occurred there.
  In May of this year, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that a mean 
of 7.7 billion barrels of producible oil may reside in the 1002 Area of 
the Arctic Oil Reserve.
  This estimate was in stark contrast to a declaration by Secretary 
Babbitt in 1995 when he pronounced the Arctic Oil Reserve's oil 
possibilities to be about 898 million barrels.
  In the interest of looking at this amazing leap in the estimate of 
the AOR's producible oil, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee last week, and invited the U.S. Geological 
Survey to participate.
  Three things rang clear at that hearing:
  First, while these estimates were the highest ever and proved the 
1002 area of the AOR has the greatest potential of securing our 
Nation's energy needs--they were extremely conservative.
  For instance, these estimates were based on a minimum economic field 
size of 512 million barrels. When in practice the minimum economic 
field size in Alaska is much lower than that. Consider the following 
examples of current economic fields in Alaska:
  Northstar: 145 mm/bb (With a sub-sea pipeline) is deemed economic. 
Badami: 120 mm/bb is deemed economic. Liberty: 120 mm/bb is deemed 
economic. Sourdough: 100+ mm/bb (adjacent to Aor) is deemed economic.
  The second fact that rang clear is while these new estimates show a 
clearer picture of the Western portion of the AOR, much remains unclear 
about the oil and gas potential of the massive structures present in 
the Eastern portion.
  The USGS has slightly downgraded the potential of the Eastern portion 
because they do not have similar data that was available to them on the 
Western portion.
  Third, technology has increased so dramatically that we can now 
extract greater amounts of oil from wells with far less impact on the 
environment at a cost of 30 percent less than 10 years ago.
  Consider this, Mr. President: In June of 1994, Amerada Hess concluded 
the Northstar field in Alaska was uneconomic because development would 
exceed $1.2 billion and eventually sold the field to BP.
  Today, BP expects to begin production of that field's 145 million 
barrels of reserves in 2000. Estimated development costs: $350 
million--a 70 percent reduction from just 4 years ago!
  Mr. President, all these factors point toward the logical conclusion 
that underlying the 1.5 million-acre oil reserve in Alaska lies greater 
reserves than recently estimated, and we need to confirm them with 
better science.
  Dr. Thomas J. Casadevall, acting director of the USGS, was very clear 
in his explanation that if the newer three dimensional (3-D) seismic 
data were available from the Arctic Oil Reserve, their high May 
estimates of producible oil could increase significantly.
  Casadevall explained that their new estimates, while supported by 
sound science and peer review, were still based on 2-D seismic tests 
done more than a decade ago.
  Kenneth A. Boyd, director, Division of Oil and Gas of the Alaska 
Department of Natural Resources, likened the advance of the new testing 
to the difference between an x-ray and a CAT-scan.
  He said the available information from 2-D seismic as opposed to 3-D 
seismic is that the former produces a line of data while the latter 
produces a cube of data. The cube can be turned

[[Page S11985]]

and examined from all sides and the geologic information proves 
invaluable for exploration.
  This data has revolutionized exploration and development of the North 
Slope of Alaska. Modern 3-D data provides enhanced and incredibly 
accurate imaging of potential subsurface reservoirs.
  This in turn reduces exploration and development risk, reduces the 
number of drilled wells, and in turn reduces both overall costs and 
environmental impacts.
  Of course there is little pressure to allow testing or exploration of 
the Coastal Plain with gas prices at a 30-year low. However, the 
Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in 10 
years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign oil. It 
would take that same 10-year period to develop any oil production in 
AOR.
  It seems prudent to plan ahead to protect our future energy security.
  If the Nation were to be crunched in an energy crisis--like the Gulf 
war that would require the speedup of development; that development 
could impact the environment negatively because it would not have the 
benefit of thoughtful planning.
  I believe it is as criminal as stealing gold to refuse to acknowledge 
the potential for producible oil in the Coastal Plain of the AOR. If we 
don't know what the resource is, how can we protect it or make an 
informed decision about the use of the area?
  And how can those in this administration or the environmental 
community argue it is a bad idea to seek a greater understanding of 
these public lands? Particularly, when the Congress set aside the area 
under a special designation for future Congresses to determine whether 
it contains the quantities of oil that, if produced, would 
significantly enhance our national energy security.
  Mr. President, this legislation will also better enable the Secretary 
of the Interior to protect the Federal petroleum resources underlying 
the Coastal Plain. However, without knowing what those Federal 
resources are however, there is no way to protect them.
  Just last year a major oil discovery was announced on State lands 
immediately adjacent to the federal border. Production from this well 
could drain portions of the federal reserve without adequate 
compensation to the federal treasury.
  The Secretary has an obligation to protect the Federal resource 
underlying ANWR and this legislation will provide him the tools to do 
so.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that this 
bill is being pushed by those of us in Congress who believe that if you 
are to make a decision about the best use of our public lands that you 
should do so with the benefit of the best available science.
  It is not, as Secretary Babbitt has suggested, an effort being pushed 
by the petroleum industry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2591. A bill to provide certain secondary school students with 
eligibility for certain campus-based assistance under title IV of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                      TECH-PREP OPPORTUNITIES ACT

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I introduce a piece of 
legislation that, I believe, takes an important step toward giving more 
individuals the ability to earn good wages so that they can support 
themselves and their families. This bill will allow community colleges 
to use their campus-based student aid to assist students who are 
concurrently enrolled in a high school and in a vocational-technical 
program in a community college. This legislation helps us solve a 
national problem, but it also helps more young people achieve the 
American Dream.
  We must recognize that a degree from a four-year college or 
university is not the only ticket to a successful, productive life. 
Only 60% of high school graduates enroll in college, and only 20% end 
up with a four-year degree. Community colleges are playing an 
increasingly important role in helping the other 80% of our students 
obtain the advanced technical training that is vital to our economy and 
to their futures.
  Today the Senate also passed the conference report that will 
reauthorize vocational education. I am pleased to have played a role in 
this process. At my request the conferees have included language that 
will encourage institutions to investigate opportunities for tech-prep 
secondary students to enroll concurrently in secondary and 
postsecondary coursework. The bill that I am introducing today builds 
upon this concept in a tangible way.
  As we address the need for highly skilled workers in Nebraska and 
throughout the nation, we must change the way that we think about our 
education system, and especially the way that we think about those 
students who are on the verge of graduation. We must make certain that 
a high school diploma has real value, that it says to an employer, ``I 
have the skills and the knowledge to make a valuable contribution to 
your business.''
  This legislation allows community colleges to offer a helping hand to 
students who are still in high school but have exhausted the 
vocational-technical offerings and are ready and able to enroll in such 
programs at a community college. Throughout the nation many students 
are already dually enrolled, but either the school district pays the 
tuition or the student must pay it. In Nebraska, more than 100 students 
in Omaha Public Schools are dually enrolled. And more than 50 in 
Bellevue Public Schools are dually enrolled. Some students have the 
ability to enroll in a vocational-technical program, but they do not 
have the financial means. By making this change in law, community 
colleges can assist those students if they choose to do so.
  With a Federal commitment of $7,400,000 last year, Nebraska provided 
vocational and applied technology education to approximately 70,000 
secondary students and 47,800 postsecondary students. This money is a 
wise investment, but we need to do more.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress next year to 
further our commitment to preparing our young people to achieve the 
American Dream.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Conrad):
  S. 2592. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for 
distribution and use within that State; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


               canadian cross-border chemical legislation

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I introduce the first in 
what will be a number of bills addressing the inequalities in the 
availability and pricing of agricultural chemicals between the United 
States and Canada. This bill focuses on the differences in prices 
between identical or nearly identical chemicals. The need for this bill 
is created by chemical companies who use our chemical labeling laws to 
protect their pricing and marketing system. By labeling similar 
products only for use in different states or countries or only for use 
on certain plants, chemical companies are able to extract unreasonable 
profits from farmers who desperately need their products.
  A second part of my effort to correct differences between 
agricultural chemicals used in Canada and the United States is a study 
by the General Accounting Office (GAO). I am now finalizing discussions 
with GAO as to the specific areas to be studied and the scope of the 
study. It is my expectation that I will introduce legislation in the 
next session of Congress to correct the remaining deficiencies.
  Of particular concern lately has been the significant difference in 
farm chemical prices between Canada and the United States. Because our 
farmers are engaged in a difficult trade battle with Canada, 
differences in agricultural chemical prices between Canada and the 
United States place our farmers at a disadvantage with their Canadian 
competition. This bill is drafted to correct
  As introduced today, the bill sets up a procedure by which states may 
apply for, and receive, an Environmental Protection Agency label for 
agricultural chemicals sold in Canada which are identical or 
substantially similar to agricultural chemicals used in the United 
States. Initially, this bill will allow the cross border movement of 
similar chemicals. Eventually, it is my expectation that this bill, 
along with the GAO study, will lead to an equalization of farm chemical 
availability and prices across the border.

[[Page S11986]]

  I request my colleagues' support in this effort to bring fairness to 
cross-border chemical pricing.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 2593. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit against tax for employers who provide child care assistance 
for dependents of their employees, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


         The Worksite Child Care Development Center Act of 1998

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to aid millions of American families with one of their most 
pressing needs--child care. This legislation would make child care more 
accessible to millions of families who find it not only important, but 
necessary, to work.
  In the ideal world, most parents, I believe, would prefer to have 
their children raised by at least one parent at home. However, for a 
vast majority of families in America, this ideal is not possible. And 
for the working poor and many in the middle class of our society, this 
ideal is a luxury that they cannot afford.
  The legislation which I am introducing today would not solve the 
child care needs of American parents. However, it would serve to 
provide a much needed incentive--a jump start--to promote employer 
provided child care, particularly among our nation's small businesses.
  The legislation I am introducing today would offer a tax credit to 
those employers who undertake the responsibility of assisting their 
employees with child care expenses. This bill--the Worksite Child Care 
Development Center Act of 1998--would modify that part of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 which relates to business tax credits. It would do 
so by providing child care tax credits to employers for--
  A one-time 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $100,000, 
specifically for facilities start-up expenses, which includes expansion 
and renovations of an employer-sponsored child care facility;
  A 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $25,000 annually, for those 
expenses related to the operating costs of maintaining a child care 
facility; and
  A 50 percent tax credit, not to exceed $50,000 annually, specifically 
for those employers who provide payments or reimbursements for their 
employees' child care expenses.
  One may ask, ``Why is this legislation important to American 
employers and employees?'' Mr. President, I submit to you that there 
are four compelling reasons for the Congress to pass this legislation.
  First, child care is a major concern for American families. We should 
be concerned about child care because it has become one of today's most 
pressing social issues. Ask working parents today to identify their top 
daily concerns, and a large proportion will most certainly identify 
quality, affordable child care as one of them.
  On June 1st of this year, I hosted a Florida statewide summit on 
child care, which was attended by over 500 residents of my state who 
shared with me their concerns, and sometimes their frustrations, about 
this issue. The feedback that I received from my constituents covered a 
myriad of issues reflecting the high level of concern that parents have 
regarding access, quality, and the level of investment we are making in 
child care. We had five panel sessions moderated and staffed by 25 of 
Florida's most distinguished professionals in the field of child 
development and human services and education. The panels covered a wide 
range of issues from affordability and access, to quality of care, to 
public-private partnerships between government and businesses.
  I am pleased that I was able to hear from my constituents and from 
experts regarding the extent and nature of the problem. One participant 
summed it up well, ``The issues addressed in the summit today are 
concerns that need to continue to be addressed until the needs are met; 
however, the needs are going to continue to grow as our preschoolers 
and school-agers go into middle schools.''
  Mr. President, it's no wonder that there is so much interest in the 
issue of child care. Child care, when it is available, is provided to a 
child at one of the most important times in that child's life. Indeed, 
recent research has confirmed what many of us had always believed--that 
quality child care can positively influence cognitive and social 
development. Current scientific research tells us that the most crucial 
period in children's brain development and brain readiness--which 
determines so much of the course for the rest of their lives--is that 
time between birth and the age of three.
  Second, America's workforce is changing. The work place has changed 
dramatically over the past fifty years. In 1947, just over one-quarter 
of all mothers with children between 6 and 17 years of age were in the 
labor force. By 1996, the labor force participation rate of working 
mothers had tripled. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 65 
percent of all women with children under 18 years of age are now 
working. This percentage is not expected to decrease--it is expected to 
grow. As we enter the 21st century, women will comprise 60 per cent of 
all new entrants into the labor market. A large proportion of these 
women are expected to be mothers of children under the age of six.
  The implications for employers are clear. Employers understand well 
that our nation's workforce is changing rapidly. Those employers who 
can attract and hold onto the best employees are likely to be among the 
most competitive.
  Many of our larger corporations and government agencies have 
recognized this and are already moving in that direction. For example, 
our nation's military is often cited as having a model child care 
program for its personnel. Military leaders know well the relationship 
between a parent's peace of mind and satisfaction with good child care 
and job performance.
  In my State of Florida, several major firms have taken similar steps 
to invest in their employees. I recently visited Ryder Corporation's 
Kids' Corner child care center in Miami where more than 100 children 
are cared for in a top-notch day care program. Ryder has received many 
accolades, including being recognized as the Best Employer of Women in 
the State of Florida by the Florida Commission on the Status of Women. 
Ryder now plans on extending the care that it provides to the children 
of employees by establishing a charter school on-site.
  Similarly, NationsBank, formerly Barnett Bank, in Jacksonville, 
operates a state of the art child care facility for its employees. 
According to Ms. Mari White, the Senior Vice President of Work 
Environment Integration at NationsBank--and a member of my informal 
Advisory Committee on Child Care--this program makes good business 
sense. She views the availability of child care at the work site as a 
workforce retention tool for NationsBank as well as a great recruitment 
tool for new employees. In addition to its day care center, NationsBank 
also operates a Satellite Learning Center--a charter school for 
employees' children.
  I commend Ryder Corporation, NationsBank, and the many other 
corporations in Florida and throughout the nation, which have taken the 
important step forward in providing child care for its employees. I 
submit to you that small businesses, which do not have the resources to 
undertake such efforts, ought to have the ability to offer similar 
benefits to its employees. My legislation is intended to make it easier 
for them to do so.
  Third, child care is important for the success of Welfare Reform. 
This legislation is an important component to our national welfare 
policy. While most American families struggle with child care, this 
problem is most acute among the working poor and the middle class.
  In 1996, Congress and the President changed welfare as we knew it. We 
made fundamental changes to the policies, and the social expectations, 
relating to work and welfare. The federal government has asked our 
business community and governmental agencies to work in partnership in 
keeping the working poor off of the welfare rolls. If we are to see the 
reforms of 1996 succeed, we must ensure that the means to succeed are 
provided.
  The working poor--particularly those formerly on welfare--face major 
challenges associated with staying off of welfare. These challenges 
include their ability to:
  (1) get to and from work;
  (2) obtain the job training they need to get and hold onto their job; 
and

[[Page S11987]]

  (3) access to affordable and quality child care.
  Although States spend millions of dollars each year on subsidized 
child care, at any given time there may be up to twice as many children 
eligible who are not enrolled in the system. These children are on 
child care waiting lists. In the State of Florida for example, as of 
July of this year, there were 29,744 children on the state's wait list 
for these services. Many of these families on waiting lists do not 
receive temporary cash assistance because they work in low-wage jobs, 
such as in the retail sector, hotel and motel business, fast food 
restaurants, nursing homes, and child care centers. They earn too much 
money to qualify for many government programs, yet they earn too little 
money to have real choices about their child care.
  This is not an issue of whether they should stay at home or work--
they must work. In other words, for them child care is not an option, 
it is a necessity. I am reminded of a letter that I recently received 
from Ms. Ruth Pasarell-Valencia, the Commissioner at the Housing 
Authority of the City of Miami Beach, in which she states, ``We need to 
wake up from the nightmare of child care neglect. In this era of 
Welfare Reform and cuts in many public assistance benefits, we have to 
be very careful not to hurt our children in the process of making 
adults self-sufficient.''
  By addressing our citizens' child care needs, particularly that of 
our working poor, the federal government has an opportunity to 
contribute to the success of welfare reform. This legislation offered 
today would be one part of the federal government's response to this 
need.
  Fourth, small businesses need this support.
  Mr. President, I believe that the provisions contained in my 
legislation will be a boon for American small businesses. According to 
the Small Business Administration, small businesses in America employ:
  Fifty two percent of all private workers;
  Sixty one percent of private workers on public assistance; and
  Thirty eight percent of private workers in high-tech occupations.
  Small businesses have contributed virtually all of the net new jobs 
which have been created during these recent years of job growth. And 
small businesses represent 96 percent of all exporters of goods leaving 
the United States. Small businesses are truly a big piston in the 
engine of our nation's economy.
  Yet, we know that the owners of small businesses struggle to make 
ends meet. That is why initiatives like the one I propose are important 
for strengthening the vitality of our small business community. For 
small businesses, resources are limited and survival in a competitive 
world market is difficult. Think of the impact on a small business when 
one of its employees is absent for the day to care for his or her child 
because that employee's day care worker is sick that day with the flu.
  According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, employers surveyed 
reported positive benefits associated with providing child care to its 
employees. The Treasury Department's data indicates:
  Sixty two percent reported higher morale;
  Fifty four percent reported reduced absenteeism;
  Fifty two percent reported increased productivity; and
  Thirty seven percent reported lower job turnover.
  Providing child care to employees can be a major step-up for small 
businesses. My legislation would provide tax credits to the employers 
who make investments to help their businesses and their employees with 
child care, or back-up child care when their regular services are not 
available.
  Mr. President, in concluding, I would like to thank the 30 members of 
my Informal Children's Development Advisory Committee in Florida which 
has provided invaluable support to me, my staff, and Floridians 
throughout the state. This group of dedicated individuals, who hail 
from a wide variety of professions, were instrumental in organizing the 
Child Care Summit which we held in South Florida in June of this year. 
They have worked with child care professionals, parents, and business 
groups to raise awareness on this issue, and have supported my efforts 
to draft this important legislative proposal.
  To them, I offer my deepest thanks for the assistance they have 
provided me and for all of their hard work on behalf of the welfare of 
children in Florida.
  I would like to quote Ms. Janet Ndah, the Dean of Students at the 
Punta Gorda Middle School in Punta Gorda, Florida, who says of my 
legislation: ``As an educator and a working parent, care for children 
is definitely a priority and a challenge. Therefore, I am extremely 
supportive of this child care act and in particular, the tax credits 
that employers would receive as they begin a site-based child care 
facility.''
  Ms. Phyllis J. Siderits, who works at the Florida Department of 
Health--and who has served as a member of my Advisory Committee--also 
has written to me of the benefits of this proposal: ``This Act is of 
benefit to employers as well as employees. For too long, I have 
witnessed the inability to maintain qualified and competent employees 
because of child care issues, whether those issues were ones of 
compensation, scheduling and work time difficulties, or caretaker 
concerns. It is especially gratifying to know that this act would be of 
benefit to employees who have children with special needs and allow the 
employees to have closer contact with their children during the day 
where employer-sponsored child care facilities exist. We have not 
supported single-parent or dual-parent families who work and have 
tremendous difficulties obtaining child care. The ideal solution is an 
employer-sponsored child care facility. I think this proposed 
legislation offers all of the incentives to create a win-win solution 
for employers and employees.''
  Mr. President, I am disappointed that it seems that the 
Administration's child care initiatives will not pass Congress this 
year. That comprehensive proposal outlined by the President at the 
start of this year would have provided much needed support to American 
families in this vital area. However, I believe that the legislation 
which I am introducing today would make a valuable contribution to the 
quality of life and care for families; the success of Welfare Reform; 
and the strengthening of our small business community.
  On July 30, 1998, I introduced, with 20 of my colleagues, a Senate 
Resolution which would designate October 11, 1998 as National 
Children's Day. That legislation now has 52 cosponsors and is awaiting 
passage by this Congress. It is only fitting that I am introducing this 
child care legislation just days prior to that date which the United 
States Senate is designating as ``National Children's Day.''
  Mr. President, it is in recognition of our commitment to the children 
of our nation that I introduce the Worksite Child Care Development 
Center Act of 1998. Our children and their families deserve our 
support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 
Res. 260 and a list of the members of the Advisory Committee be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              S. Res. 260

       Whereas the people of the United States should celebrate 
     children as the most valuable asset of the Nation;
       Whereas children represent the future, hope, and 
     inspiration of the United States;
       Whereas the children of the United States should be allowed 
     to feel that their ideas and dreams will be respected because 
     adults in the United States take time to listen;
       Whereas many children of the United States face crises of 
     grave proportions, especially as they enter adolescent years;
       Whereas it is important for parents to spend time listening 
     to their children on a daily basis;
       Whereas modern societal and economic demands often pull the 
     family apart;
       Whereas encouragement should be given to families to set 
     aside a special time for all family members to engage 
     together in family activities;
       Whereas adults in the United States should have an 
     opportunity to reminisce on their youth and to recapture some 
     of the fresh insight, innocence, and dreams that they may 
     have lost through the years;
       Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the 
     children of the United States will provide an opportunity to 
     emphasize to children the importance of developing an ability 
     to make the choices necessary to distance themselves from 
     impropriety and to contribute to their communities;

[[Page S11988]]

       Whereas the designation of a day to commemorate the 
     children of the Nation will emphasize to the people of the 
     United States the importance of the role of the child within 
     the family and society;
       Whereas the people of the United States should emphasize to 
     children the importance of family life, education, and 
     spiritual qualities; and
       Whereas children are the responsibility of all Americans 
     and everyone should celebrate the children of the United 
     States, whose questions, laughter, and tears are important to 
     the existence of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
         Resolved, That--
       (1) it is the sense of the Senate that October 11, 1998, 
     should be designated as ``National Children's Day''; and
       (2) the President is requested to issue a proclamation 
     calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
     ``National Children's Day'' with appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.
                                  ____


     Senator Graham's Appointees to the Informal Florida Statewide 
               Children's Development Advisory Committee


                           1997-1998 Members

       Ms. Mary Bryant, Children's Coordinator, Executive Office 
     of the Governor, Tallahassee; Ms. Gloria Dean, ESOL 
     Instructor, Neptune Beach Elementary School, Jacksonville; 
     Ms. Tana Ebbole, Executive Director, Children's Services 
     Council, West Palm Beach; Dr. Rebecca Fewell, Director, 
     Debbie Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, 
     Miami; Mr. William S. Fillmore, President, Florida Head Start 
     Directors Association, Pinellas Park.
       Dr. Steve Freedman, Director, Institute for Child Health 
     Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville; Ms. Jane Goodman, 
     Executive Director, Guard Ad Litem-Miami, Miami; Dr. Mimi 
     Graham, Director, Center for Prevention and Early 
     Intervention Policy, Florida State University, Tallahassee; 
     Mr. Ted Granger, President, United Way of Florida, 
     Tallahassee; Ms. Mary Frances Hanline, Associate Professor, 
     Department of Special Education, Florida State University, 
     Tallahassee.
       Dr. Delores Jeffers, Executive Director, Lawton and Rhea 
     Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies, Department of 
     Community and Family Health, University of South Florida, 
     Tampa; Ms. Katherine Kamiya, Chairwoman, Florida Interagency 
     Coordinating Council for Infants and Toddlers, Lawton and 
     Rhea Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies, 
     Tallahassee; Ms. Daniella Levine, Executive Director, Human 
     Services Coalition of Dade County, Inc., Coral Gables; Dr. 
     Ann Levy, Director, Educational Research Center for Childhood 
     Development, Florida State University, Tallahassee; Ms. 
     Barbara Mainster, Executive Director, Redlands Christian 
     Migrant Association, Immokalee.
       Ms. Esmin Master, Executive Director, First Coast 
     Developmental Academy, Jacksonville; Mr. James E. Mills, 
     Executive Director, Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas 
     County, Pinellas Park; Mr. James J. Mooney, Director, Metro-
     Dade Office of Youth and Family Development, Miami; Ms. Susan 
     Muenchow, Executive Director, Florida Children's Forum, 
     Tallahassee; Ms. Joan Nabors, Executive Director, Florida 
     Initiatives, Inc., Tallahassee.
       Ms. Rose Naff, Executive Director, Florida Healthy Kids 
     Corporation, Tallahassee; Ms. Janet Ndah, Dean of Students, 
     Punta Gorda Middle School, Punta Gorda; Dr. Pam Phelps, Vice 
     President, Creative Center for Childhood Research and 
     Training, Tallahassee; Ms. Patricia Pierce, Associate 
     Executive Director, Institute for Child Health Policy, 
     Gulfport; Mr. Larry Pintacuda, Chief of Child Care, Florida 
     Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee.
       Mr. Peter Roulhac, Vice President, First Union National 
     Bank of Florida, Miami; Ms. Phyliss Siderits, Assistant 
     Division Director, Children's Medical Services, Tallahassee; 
     Dr. Linda Stone, Program Director, Lawton and Rhea Chiles 
     Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies, University of South 
     Florida, Winter Park; Dr. Barbara Weinstein, President/CEO, 
     Family Central, Fort Lauderdale; Dr. Anita Zervigon-Hakes, 
     Interagency Coordinator, Maternal and Child Health, Lawton 
     and Rhea Chiles Center for Healthy Mothers and Babies 
     Tallahassee.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 2595. A bill to amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974 to provide affordable housing and community development assistance 
to rural areas with excessively high rates of outmigration and low per 
capita income levels; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


                     the rural recovery act of 1998

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will help rural areas affected by severe population loss improve their 
economic conditions and create high-paying jobs. We are experiencing 
first-hand the challenge of retaining entire generations in many parts 
of rural South Dakota as the agricultural crisis deepens and fewer and 
fewer young people can find economically-rewarding opportunities that 
give them reason to stay. As a result, young people are being forced to 
leave the towns in which they grew up for better jobs in urban areas, 
causing a depressing loss of generational continuity and a foreboding 
sign for the future of these rural communities.
  Too often we forget that while the economic growth experienced in our 
urban areas is a necessary element of a sound national economy, the 
health and vitality of our rural areas are just as critical to our 
Nation's economic future, and to its character. If nothing is done to 
address the out-migration that is currently being experienced by our 
most rural communities, we will continue to jeopardize the future of 
rural America.
  That is why I am introducing legislation to provide these critical 
rural areas with the resources necessary to create the good jobs that 
will help young families remain active residents of the rural 
communities in which they choose to live. The Rural Recovery Act of 
1998 would provide a minimum of $250,000 per year to counties and 
tribes with out-migration levels of fifteen percent or higher, per-
capita income levels that are below the national average, and whose 
exterior borders are not adjacent to a metropolitan area.
  The legislation authorizes the United States Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to set aside $50 million in Community Development 
Block Grant funding. The money, which is already included in the 
agency's budget, will be allocated on a formula basis to rural counties 
and tribes suffering from out migration and low per-capita income 
levels.
  County and tribal governments will be able to use this Federal 
funding to improve their industrial parks, purchase land for 
development, build affordable housing and develop economic recovery 
strategies. All of these important steps will help rural communities 
address their economic challenges and plan for stable long-term growth 
and development.
  While Federal agencies such as the United States Department of 
Agriculture's Office of Rural Development and the Economic Development 
Administration do provide aid for rural development purposes, there are 
no federal programs that provide a steady source of funding for rural 
areas most affected by severe out migration and low per-capita income. 
For these areas, the process of encouraging economic growth is arduous. 
I strongly believe the Rural Recovery Act of 1998 will provide the long 
term assistance required to aid the coordinated efforts of local 
community leaders as they begin economic recovery efforts that will 
ensure a bright future for rural America.
  In August, Senator Murkowski and I introduced legislation to provide 
assistance to rural communities that experience extremely high electric 
power rates. Today, I am pleased that he has agreed to join me in 
cosponsoring this legislation to assist rural areas with high out-
migration and low per-capita incomes. It is important that Congress do 
whatever it can to assist these economically-challenged rural areas to 
remain vibrant participants in the American Dream. Senator Murkowski 
and I expect to combine these bills and introduce them as a single 
piece of legislation next year.
  I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Murkowski and I during 
the 106th Congress to enact these important new policies. I ask 
unanimous consent that the full 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. 2596

       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 ``Rural Recovery Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. RURAL RECOVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS.

       Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 123. RURAL RECOVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 
                   GRANTS.

       ``(a) Findings; Purpose.--
       ``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(A) a modern infrastructure, including affordable 
     housing, wastewater and water service, and advanced 
     technology capabilities is a necessary ingredient of a modern 
     society and development of a prosperous economy with minimal 
     environmental impacts;

[[Page S11989]]

       ``(B) the Nation's rural areas face critical social, 
     economic, and environmental problems, arising in significant 
     measure from the growing cost of infrastructure development 
     in rural areas that suffer from low per capita income and 
     high rates of outmigration and are not adequately addressed 
     by existing Federal assistance programs; and
       ``(C) the future welfare of the Nation and the well-being 
     of its citizens depend on the establishment and maintenance 
     of viable rural areas as social, economic, and political 
     entities.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     for the development and maintenance of viable rural areas 
     through the provision of affordable housing and community 
     development assistance to eligible units of general local 
     government and eligible Indian tribes in rural areas with 
     excessively high rates of outmigration and low per capita 
     income levels.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible unit of general local government.--The term 
     `eligible unit of general local government' means a unit of 
     general local government that is the governing body of a 
     rural recovery area.
       ``(2) Eligible indian tribe.--The term `eligible Indian 
     tribe' means the governing body of an Indian tribe that is 
     located in a rural recovery area.
       ``(3) Grantee.--The term `grantee' means an eligible unit 
     of general local government or eligible Indian tribe that 
     receives a grant under this section.
       ``(4) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, group, and nation, including Alaska 
     Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any Alaskan Native Village, 
     of the United States, which is considered an eligible 
     recipient under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638) or was considered an 
     eligible recipient under chapter 67 of title 31, United 
     States Code, prior to the repeal of such chapter.
       ``(5) Rural recovery area.--The term `rural recovery area' 
     means any geographic area represented by a unit of general 
     local government or an Indian tribe--
       ``(A) the borders of which are not adjacent to a 
     metropolitan area;
       ``(B) in which--
       ``(i) the annual population outmigration level equals or 
     exceeds 15 percent, as determined by Secretary of 
     Agriculture; and
       ``(ii) the per capita income is less than that of the 
     national nonmetropolitan average; and
       ``(C) that does not include a city with a population of 
     more than 2,500.
       ``(6) Unit of general local government.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `unit of general local 
     government' means any city, county, town, township, parish, 
     village, borough (organized or unorganized), or other general 
     purpose political subdivision of a State; Guam, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and 
     American Samoa, or a general purpose political subdivision 
     thereof; a combination of such political subdivisions that, 
     except as provided in section 106(d)(4), is recognized by the 
     Secretary; the District of Columbia; and the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands.
       ``(B) Other entities included.--The term also includes a 
     State or a local public body or agency (as defined in section 
     711 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970), 
     community association, or other entity, that is approved by 
     the Secretary for the purpose of providing public facilities 
     or services to a new community as part of a program meeting 
     the eligibility standards of section 712 of the Housing and 
     Urban Development Act of 1970 or title IV of the Housing and 
     Urban Development Act of 1968.
       ``(c) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants in 
     accordance with this section to eligible units of general 
     local government and eligible Indian tribes that meet the 
     requirements of subsection (d) to carry out eligible 
     activities described in subsection (f).
       ``(d) Eligibility Requirements.--
       ``(1) Statement of rural development objectives.--In order 
     to receive a grant under this section for a fiscal year, an 
     eligible unit of general local government or eligible Indian 
     tribe--
       ``(A) shall--
       ``(i) publish a proposed statement of rural development 
     objectives and a description of the proposed eligible 
     activities described in subsection (f) for which the grant 
     will be used; and
       ``(ii) afford residents of the rural recovery area served 
     by the eligible unit of general local government or eligible 
     Indian tribe with an opportunity to examine the contents of 
     the proposed statement and the proposed eligible activities 
     published under clause (i), and to submit comments to the 
     eligible unit of general local government or eligible Indian 
     tribe, as applicable, on--

       ``(I) the proposed statement and the proposed eligible 
     activities; and
       ``(II) the overall community development performance of the 
     eligible unit of general local government or eligible Indian 
     tribe, as applicable; and

       ``(B) based on any comments received under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), prepare and submit to the Secretary--
       ``(i) a final statement of rural development objectives;
       ``(ii) a description of the eligible activities described 
     in subsection (f) for which a grant received under this 
     section will be used; and
       ``(iii) a certification that the eligible unit of general 
     local government or eligible Indian tribe, as applicable, 
     will comply with the requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Public notice and comment.--In order to enhance 
     public accountability and facilitate the coordination of 
     activities among different levels of government, an eligible 
     unit of general local government or eligible Indian tribe 
     that receives a grant under this section shall, as soon as 
     practicable after such receipt, provide the residents of the 
     rural recovery area served by the eligible unit of general 
     local government or eligible Indian tribe, as applicable, 
     with--
       ``(A) a copy of the final statement submitted under 
     paragraph (1)(B);
       ``(B) information concerning the amount made available 
     under this section and the eligible activities to be 
     undertaken with that amount;
       ``(C) reasonable access to records regarding the use of any 
     amounts received by the eligible unit of general local 
     government or eligible Indian tribe under this section in any 
     preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(D) reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on, 
     any substantial change proposed to be made in the use of 
     amounts received under this section from 1 eligible activity 
     to another.
       ``(e) Distribution of Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--In each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     distribute to each eligible unit of general local government 
     and eligible Indian tribe that meets the requirements of 
     subsection (d)(1) a grant in an amount described in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Amount.--Of the total amount made available to carry 
     out this section in each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     distribute to each grantee the amount equal to the greater 
     of--
       ``(A) the pro rata share of the grantee, as determined by 
     the Secretary, based on the combined annual population 
     outmigration level (as determined by Secretary of 
     Agriculture) and the per capita income for the rural recovery 
     area served by the grantee; and
       ``(B) $250,000.
       ``(f) Eligible Activities.--Each grantee shall use amounts 
     received under this section for 1 or more of the following 
     eligible activities, which may be undertaken either directly 
     by the grantee, or by any local economic development 
     corporation, regional planning district, nonprofit community 
     development corporation, or statewide development 
     organization authorized by the grantee:
       ``(1) The acquisition, construction, repair, 
     reconstruction, operation, maintenance, or installation of 
     facilities for water and wastewater service or any other 
     infrastructure needs determined to be critical to the further 
     development or improvement of a designated industrial park.
       ``(2) The acquisition or disposition of real property 
     (including air rights, water rights, and other interests 
     therein) for rural community development activities.
       ``(3) The development of telecommunications infrastructure 
     within a designated industrial park that encourages high 
     technology business development in rural areas.
       ``(4) Activities necessary to develop and implement a 
     comprehensive rural development plan, including payment of 
     reasonable administrative costs related to planning and 
     execution of rural development activities.
       ``(5) Affordable housing initiatives.
       ``(g) Performance and Evaluation Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each grantee shall annually submit to 
     the Secretary a performance and evaluation report, concerning 
     the use of amounts received under this section.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include a description of--
       ``(i) publish a proposed statement of rural development 
     objectives and a description of the proposed eligible 
     activities described in subsection (f) for which the grant 
     will be used; and
       ``(A) the eligible activities carried out by the grantee 
     with amounts received under this section, and the degree to 
     which the grantee has achieved the rural development 
     objectives included in the final statement submitted under 
     subsection (d)(1);
       ``(B) the nature of and reasons for any change in the rural 
     development objectives or the eligible activities of the 
     grantee after submission of the final statement under 
     subsection (d)(1); and
       ``(C) any manner in which the grantee would change the 
     rural development objectives of the grantee as a result of 
     the experience of the grantee in administering amounts 
     received under this section.
       ``(h) Retention of Income.--A grantee may retain any income 
     that is realized from the grant, if--
       ``(1) the income was realized after the initial 
     disbursement of amounts to the grantee under this section; 
     and
       ``(2) the--
       ``(A) grantee agrees to utilize the income for 1 or more 
     eligible activities; or
       ``(B) amount of the income is determined by the Secretary 
     to be so small that compliance with subparagraph (A) would 
     create an unreasonable administrative burden on the grantee.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1999 through 2005.''.




                          ____________________