[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S345-S470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Mack, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 2. A bill to extend programs and activities under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
educational opportunities act
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished
Majority Leader in introducing the ``Educational Opportunities Act.''
This legislation extends programs authorized under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and will serve as the foundation for our
efforts this Congress to expand and strengthen those programs.
The 106th Congress will see the close of the 20th century and the
birth of the new millennium. At such a time, one quite naturally begins
to imagine the advances and challenges--the promises and perils--which
lie ahead. As a nation, we have viewed the future with optimism. We
know the march of civilization may at times be uphill, but we see it as
nevertheless moving upward. We know as well that the success of our
efforts will not rely upon luck, but upon hard work and thoughtful
planning.
It comes as little surprise, therefore, that at this time in history
our thoughts turn to education. From the kitchen table to the board
room to the halls of Congress, education heads the agenda. That is as
it should be, as we rediscover the truth in Aristotle's observation
that ``all who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been
convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.''
Reauthorization of federal elementary and secondary education
programs offers this Congress an opportunity to make a lasting mark on
the programs and policies which will define the role of the United
States in the coming century. Our international competitors have long
observed and admired our system of education. Unfortunately, in all too
many cases, the pupils have surpassed the teacher. We lag behind many
of our competitors. We must pick up the pace, and we must do so without
delay.
The renewed emphasis on education has stimulated thinking and has
produced a wealth of ideas regarding the paths we should follow. As
chairman of the Senate committee charged with pulling these ideas into
a sound and coherent package, I am looking forward to a Congress which
is both challenging and productive.
It is my hope that the Educational Opportunities Act will build upon
the education successes of the 105th Congress. We enacted nearly a
dozen important initiatives which touched the lives of students of all
ages--from youngsters in Head Start and Even Start, to special
education students, to high school vocational students, to college
undergraduates and graduate students, to adults in need of remedial
education.
These successes were possible because of a willingness to work
together towards common objectives. In the United States Congress, we
begin with 535 individual road maps marking a course to our
destination. Arriving there will require the good faith give-and-take
which has characterized our finest moments as a democracy.
The legislation which Senator Lott and I are introducing today does
not fill in all the blanks regarding federal elementary and secondary
education policy. What it does do is set the cornerstone for a final
product in which I believe each and every member of Congress will take
pride.
The findings and purposes contained in this legislation are intended
to underscore the basic building blocks of
[[Page S346]]
success; parental involvement, qualified teachers, a safe learning
environment, and a focus on high achievement by all students.
Everyone has a role to play in assuring our students acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to make the United States number one in
the world.
Parents are the first and most consistent educators in a child's
life. Reading to young children and emphasizing the importance of
education instils a love of learning which lasts a lifetime.
The teacher in the classroom is at the core of educational
improvement. Without a strong, competent, well prepared teaching force,
other investments in education will be of little value. It has been 15
years since the national crisis in education was raised by the ``A
Nation At Risk'' report. The admonition was given in these terse words:
If a foreign government has imposed on us our educational system we
would have declared it an act of war.
Yet little has changed. There is some improvement in science but
little in math. Children are coming to school slightly more prepared to
learn, but this is primarily in the area of health.
It is obvious that nothing is going to change unless it changes in
the classroom. And nothing will change in the classroom until the
teachers change. And the teachers can't be expected to change until
they have help in knowing what is expected of them.
The Higher Education Amendments enacted into law last October took
significant steps towards demanding excellence from our teacher
preparation program. With the Educational Opportunities Act, we now
have the opportunity to focus on those already in the teaching force.
State and local officials are also important players. Not only do
they provide the bulk of financial support for elementary and secondary
education in the country, they are also undertaking significant
initiatives to determine what children should know and to assess
whether they have mastered that material.
The federal government, since the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act was initiated in 1965, has offered support for these efforts--as
well as providing critical additional resources to offer extra help to
educationally disadvantaged students. In addition, the federal
government makes a significant investment in research. A key challenge
for us will be determining how the federal investments can be most
effectively targeted. The research we support must not only be sound
but must also be useful and readily available to states and localities.
Ultimately, the focus of all of our efforts must be on the student in
the classroom. The training of teachers, the establishment of
expectations, and the development of assessments are all pieces of the
puzzle which take shape in the classroom itself. If we keep that
objective foremost in mind, we will build the educational system we
need and that our children deserve.
______
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft,
Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, Mr. Coverdell, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce
individual income tax rates by 10 percent; to the Committee on Finance.
Tax Cuts for All Americans Act
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3, the Tax
Cuts for All Americans Act, along with Senator Roth, Chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee.
First, I'd like to commend the Senate Majority Leader for including
this important legislation as one of the Republicans' top 5 agenda
items and Finance Committee Chairman Roth for making this a committee
priority. This emphasizes the importance and commitment by Republicans
to provide meaningful tax relief for working Americans.
Mr. President, American families are taxed at the highest levels in
our history, even higher than during World War II, with nearly 40
percent of a typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the federal,
state and local levels.
Today, the Clinton Administration consumes over 20.5 percent of
America's entire gross domestic product. That's the highest level since
1945 when taxes were raised to pay for the war.
The average American family today spends more on taxes than it does
on food, clothing, and housing combined. If the ``hidden taxes'' that
result from the high cost of government regulations are factored in, a
family today gives up more than 50 percent of its annual income to the
government.
At a time when the combination of federal income and payroll taxes,
state and local taxes, and hidden taxes consumes over half of a working
family's budget, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief.
Americans today are working harder but taking home less. Over $1.8
trillion of their income will be siphoned off to the federal government
this year. It is more critical than ever to provide meaningful tax
relief for working Americans.
Freedom for families means giving families the freedom to spend more
of their own dollars as they choose. This tax relief would give
Americans more freedom and create more economic opportunities for them
and their children.
That's why I am introducing this legislation today. Tax relief should
benefit all Americans, not just those who have been targeted in the
past. My bill, S. 3, will do just that.
My bill will cut the personal tax rate for each American by 10
percent. It will increase incentives to work, save and invest. It will
improve the standards of living for all Americans and permit the growth
in our economy we expect to continue and it will encourage Americans to
work harder and produce more.
By enacting the 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, we can begin
turning back the decades of abuse taxpayers have suffered at the hands
of their own government, a government too often eager to spend the
taxpayers' money to expand its reach over more of our economy and
personal lives.
It was John F. Kennedy who observed that ``an economy hampered with
high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget
just as it will never produce enough output and enough jobs.''
Twenty-seven years ago, President Reagan enacted a 25 percent across-
the-board tax cut and in 1986, President Reagan signed a landmark piece
of legislation to reduce the marginal tax rate to a simple two-rate
income tax system: 15 percent and 28 percent.
What resulted was nothing short of an economic miracle. Our nation
experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in American
history, the benefits of which we are still enjoying today. Ronald
Reagan fought for tax cuts, not to bribe special interest groups to buy
their votes--but because individuals have a right to spend their own
money.
President Reagan was right. When we enact the 10 percent across-the-
board tax cut, we will make our economy more dynamic, and our families
more prosperous as we approach the 21st century.
While I prefer a total overhaul of the tax system and will shortly
introduce a bill to repeal the current system with a consumption tax,
this is a much-needed first step we should all agree is our first
priority for this Congress.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues Senators
Grams and Roth in introducing S. 3, the Tax Cut for All Americans Act.
This legislation will provide every American taxpayer with substantial
tax relief by cutting all income tax rates 10 percent across the board,
effective January first of this year.
American working families need this tax cut, Mr. President. They are
now taxed at a higher rate than at any time since World War II. Not
even at the height of the Vietnam War have the American people seen
such a large part of their pay taken away from them in the form of
taxes.
Since the current Administration came into office in 1993, federal
taxes have gone up by over 35 percent, or over $600 billion. The
nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently told us what these sky-high taxes
mean to the typical American family. First, they mean that the typical
family now pays more in total taxes than it spends on food, clothing
and shelter combined--spending more than 38 percent on taxes and only
28 percent on food, clothing and housing.
Second, the typical American now works nearly three hours out of an
eight hour day just to pay taxes. That American works from January 1 to
May 10, the latest day ever, before he or she stops working for the
government and starts working for him or herself.
[[Page S347]]
Washington currently takes 21 percent of the national income in
taxes. That's $6,810 for every man, woman and child in this country.
Mr. President, that is simply too much. Our high taxes place an undue
burden on working families. They stifle entrepreneurial activity. They
promise to put an end to our current era of sustained economic growth.
But hard times born of high taxes are not inevitable. We can lighten
the tax burden on our working families. We can encourage
entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. We can cut taxes and
thereby ensure prosperity well into the next century.
Mr. President, when President Clinton passed the largest tax hike in
American history, he did so on the grounds that budget deficits
demanded increased federal revenue. There was indeed increased federal
revenue after that tax hike. But it was fueled by a surprisingly strong
economy, born of technological innovation and low inflation, factors
strong enough to offset the dampening effects of higher taxes.
Moreover, the excuse of budget deficits is no longer tenable.
We have entered an era of budget surplus. And it is our moral duty as
well as our fiscal responsibility to lower taxes on those hard working
Americans who pulled us out of the era of budget deficits.
What is more, by taking a small portion of our projected surplus and
giving it back to the American people, we will ensure prosperity,
economic growth, and healthy receipts for years to come.
Mr. President, this across the board tax cut will leave the current
tax structure's progressivity intact. It also leaves current deductions
and credits intact. It is not intended as a final solution to all of
the problems in our tax system. This tax cut is intended as a well-
deserved down payment on the money Washington owes to the American
people--the money earned by the American people that should stay with
the American people, to save, invest and spend as they see fit.
America's working families deserve a break. They also need it if they
are to save and invest for their future and for the future of the
American economy. It is time to give them that hard-earned tax break by
cutting rates across the board by 10 percent. I urge my colleagues to
support this important legislation in the name of fairness and economic
responsibility.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. McCain, Mr. Smith
of New Hampshire, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Coverdell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, and Mr.
Abraham):
S. 4. A bill to improve pay and retirement equity for members of the
Armed Forces; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of
1999
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today Senator Lott, the Majority Leader,
introduced S-4, The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of
Rights Act of 1999. This bill is an integral part of the National
Security element of the Republican agenda that the Leader announced
this morning.
Last fall, Senator Lott, in an excellent exchange of letters with the
President and Republican Chairmen, identified key problems with
military pay levels and the military pay system. Following this
exchange of letters, the Armed Services Committee held hearings on
September 29, 1998 and again on January 5, 1999 in which General
Shelton and the Service Chiefs described the many problems the military
services were experiencing because of many years of shortfalls in
funding. Particular emphasis was put on readiness, the retention of
highly trained people and the inability to achieve recruiting goals.
The testimony of the Joint Chiefs was courageous. They spoke very
candidly of the problems borne by the men and women in the military and
how increased defense funding was needed in order to begin to alleviate
these problems.
General Shelton and the Service Chiefs urged the President and the
Congress to support a military pay raise that would begin to address
inequities between military pay and civilian wages, and to resolve the
inequity of the ``Redux'' retirement system.
Senators Lott, McCain, and Roberts took an initiative and showed
leadership in developing this legislation. These Senators worked within
the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill that would address the
problems identified by the Joint Chiefs in a comprehensive and
responsible manner.
The bill will provide military personnel a four-point-eight percent
pay raise on January 1, 2000 and will require that future military pay
raises be based on the annual Employment Cost Index plus one-half a
percent. The bill restructures the military pay tables to recognize the
value of promotions and to weight the pay raise toward mid-career NCOs
and officers where retention is most critical. The Joint Chiefs
testified that there is a pay gap between military and private sector
wages of 14 percent. This bill moves aggressively to close this gap and
ensure military personnel are compensated in an equitable manner.
The bill provides military personnel who entered the service after
July 31, 1986 the option to revert to the previous military retirement
system that provided a 50 percent multiplier to their base pay averaged
over their highest three years and includes full cost-of-living
adjustments; or, to accept a $30,000 bonus and remain under the
``Redux'' retirement system. The Joint Chiefs testified that the
``Redux'' retirement system is responsible for an increasing number of
mid-career military personnel deciding to leave the service. S-4 will
offer these highly trained personnel an attractive option to
incentivize them to continue to serve a full career.
We will establish a Thrift Savings Plan that will allow service
members to save up to five percent of their base pay, before taxes, and
will permit them to directly deposit their enlistment and re-enlistment
bonuses into their Thrift Savings Plan. In a separate section, the bill
authorizes Service Secretaries to offer to match the Thrift Savings
Plan contributions of those service members serving in critical
specialities for a period of six years in return for a six year service
commitment. This is a powerful tool to assist the services in retaining
key personnel in the most critical specialities.
Senator McCain was the key proponent of an initiative in the bill
that would authorize a Special Subsistence Allowance to assist the most
needy junior military personnel who are eligible for food stamps. The
allowance would provide these families an additional $180 per month and
will reduce the number of military families on the food stamp rolls.
As I and other Members of the Senate, have visited military bases
here in the United States, in Bosnia and in other deployment areas, we
have found that our young service men and women are doing a tremendous
job, in many cases, under adverse conditions. In order to demonstrate
to these highly trained and dedicated military personnel that we
appreciate their sacrifices and contributions, we must move quickly to
pass this legislation. Such action will permit military personnel and
their families to make the decision to continue to serve and will
assist the military services in recruiting the high quality force we
have worked so hard to achieve.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation and will
do my upmost to ensure its quick passage.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise today with my Republican colleagues
to introduce legislation, S. 4, to provide increased pay and retirement
benefits to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families. As one
who has long warned that declining defense budgets and increasing
commitments were propelling our military towards the infamous ``hollow
force'' of the 1970s, I decided last October 7th to join with my
friend, Senator Pat Roberts, to craft legislation, S. 2563, that would
restore military retirement benefits to a full 50 percent of base pay
for 20-year retirees in order to encourage highly trained, experienced
military personnel to remain in the service. Unfortunately, because of
time constraints, Congress did not act on the bill last year.
[[Page S348]]
Since then I have worked closely with Senator Roberts and the
Republican Leader, Senator Lott, to draft legislation that address the
readiness concerns of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of
Defense. This bill is a significant step toward addressing the pressing
readiness problems afflicting our Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of
Staff have repeatedly stated the current retirement and pay gap is
their highest priority for solving the retention problem undermining
the preparedness of our men and women in uniform.
Specifically, this legislation which is sponsored by Majority Leader
Lott, Senator Roberts, myself the distinguished Chairman of the Armed
Services Committee and the other committee Republicans, includes a 4.8%
pay raise, effective January 1, 2000, pay table reform, restored
military retirement benefits to the pre-1986 level of 50 percent,
Thrift Savings Plan proposals, and a Special Subsistence Allowance to
help the neediest families in the Armed Forces, many of whom now
require federal food stamp assistance.
Mr. President, the Republican Leader has agreed to make this
legislation a priority for the 106th Congress and we fully expect to
pass this legislative proposal by Memorial Day. If Congress approves
this bill by the end of May, then 3,000 military families will be paid
enough to get them off food stamps at the beginning of next year. It is
unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to sacrifice
their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to make ends
meet. The Pentagon estimates that approximately 11,900 military
households currently receive food stamps. This bill will help nearly
10,000 of these military families get off of food stamps over the next
5 years by ensuring their income is sufficient to provide for their
spouses and children.
Mr. President, it is critical that we address the concerns of the
senior military leadership who have cited better military pay and
retirement benefits as their highest priority. We failed to do so last
year. We must move this bill through Congress quickly this year to slow
the exodus of our pilots, military policemen, Naval special operations
personnel, surface warfare officers and other critical military
specialties that have caused the deterioration in our Armed Forces
readiness that we have heard detailed in testimony over the last four
months.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, and Mr. McCain):
S. 5. A bill to reduce the transportation and distribution of illegal
drugs and to strengthen domestic demand reduction, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
drug free century act
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, it is an honor for me, today, to be
introducing the Drug Free Century Act. This bill is cosponsored by
Senator Abraham, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Coverdell, Senator Craig,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the
chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator
Grassley. This legislation is truly a team effort. There are over a
dozen Members of the Senate who have worked very extensively on this
bill and I appreciate very much their work. This is really a team
effort. This bill is a comprehensive approach to our antidrug effort,
and it really is a continuation of the great work that was begun by
Congress last year.
This legislation represents the continuation of those efforts that we
began last year, a continuation of the efforts to reverse the dangerous
trend of rising drug use in our country, particularly among our young
people. According to data prepared as part of the Monitoring the Future
Program funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, from 1992 to
1997 we saw an 80-percent increase in cocaine use among high school
seniors, and a 100-percent increase in heroin use among high school
seniors.
Other very serious trends related to drug use highlight the problems
that have increased over the course of the last decade. Drug abuse
related arrests for minors doubled between 1992 and 1996. Emergency
room admissions related to heroin jumped 58 percent between 1992 and
1995. And, in the first half of 1995, methamphetamine related emergency
room admissions were 321 percent higher compared to the first half of
1991.
This increase in drug use and criminal activity virtually wiped out
the gains made in the previous decade. Just in the 4 years prior to
1992, the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the drug czar's
office--reported a 25-percent reduction in overall drug use by
adolescent Americans, and a 35-percent reduction in overall drug use.
Last year, Congressman Bill McCollum and I and other Members of the
Senate and House took a close look at why our increasing investment in
antidrug programs was not resulting in a decline in drug use among
young people. One immediate problem that we found was a clear decline
in resources and manpower devoted to reducing illegal drug imports by
our Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and the Defense Department. In
other words, our drug interdiction effort had been falling farther and
farther behind. It had become less and less a percentage, a smaller
percentage of our budget year after year.
As we all know, reducing drug use is a team effort at all levels of
government: the Federal Government, the State government, the local
government. However, international drug reduction, seizing or
disrupting the flow of drugs before these drugs reach our country, is
solely our responsibility. It is solely the Federal Government's
responsibility. Over a 5-year period beginning in 1993, the Federal
Government solely abdicated this responsibility. Fewer and fewer
resources and man-hours were devoted to stopping drugs at the source or
stopping them in transit. As a result, the volume of drugs coming into
our country has never been higher, making illegal drugs too easy to
find and too easy to buy.
To reverse this trend and to correct the imbalance, Congressman
McCollum and I last year led a bipartisan, bicameral effort to pass the
Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. We passed it and the President
signed it. We were joined in this initiative by Congressman and now
Speaker Denny Hastert, by Senator Coverdell, Senator Graham of Florida,
and many, many others. This new law provides a 3-year, $2.6 billion
investment in our drug-fighting capabilities abroad. Through crop
eradication and drug interdiction we will reduce the amount of drugs
entering our country and, in turn, increase the price of drugs on the
streets of America.
An even larger goal of this new law is to restore a balanced antidrug
strategy, one that makes a clear commitment to all the elements of our
strategy--treatment, education, domestic law enforcement, and drug
interdiction. A balanced drug control strategy worked before, and we
are ready to make it work again.
The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act that we passed last year
was one of several key initiatives passed by the Republican Congress.
There is no doubt we are determined to turn the corner on drug use.
Congressman Rob Portman of Cincinnati, Senator Chuck Grassley, myself,
and others worked to pass the Drug Free Communities Act, which directs
Federal funds to community coalitions that educate children about the
dangers of drugs. The 105th Congress also passed the Drug Demand
Reduction Act, which will streamline existing Federal education and
treatment programs and make these programs more accountable. We also
passed the Drug Free Workplace Act, which provides grants to assist
nonprofit organizations in promoting drug-free workplaces, and
encourages States to adopt cost-effective financial incentives, such as
a reduction in worker's compensation premiums for drug-free workplaces.
Today, with the Drug Free Century Act that we are introducing, we
will continue to make oversight and reform of our antidrug policies a
top priority of this Congress. This bill is the beginning of a critical
and comprehensive examination of our entire antidrug strategy. While we
devoted most of last year to correcting the resource imbalances that we
found in this strategy, we intend to devote the next 2 years to looking
at the effectiveness of the very programs themselves. We also need to
change current laws to crack down on the elements within the illegal
drug industry.
[[Page S349]]
The Drug Free Century Act is the first phase of this effort. It
addresses all elements of our antidrug strategy, and it is a
comprehensive strategy that we are presenting today--education,
treatment, law enforcement, and drug interdiction.
It is my hope that as we examine our drug strategy through meetings
and hearings, we will build on the foundation of the legislation that
we are introducing this morning.
First, the Drug Free Century Act contains much-needed reforms in our
international criminal laws. It would improve extradition procedures
for those who flee justice for drug crimes by prohibiting fugitives
from benefiting from fugitive status. It would crack down on illegal
money-transmitting businesses. It would punish money launderers who
conduct their business through foreign banks. And it would enable
greater global cooperation in the fight against international crime.
Mr. President, these provisions, advocated by the chairman of our
caucus on international narcotics control, Senator Grassley, are
designed to disrupt and dismantle the drug lords' criminal
infrastructure. And like the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act we
passed in the last Congress, these provisions would make the drug
business far more costly and far more dangerous.
Our legislation also authorizes additional funding for our
eradication and interdiction operations and calls on the administration
to meet the funding goals we set last year in the Western Hemisphere
Drug Elimination Act. The new interdiction initiatives outlined in this
bill are designed to supplement last year's legislation and came about
as a direct result of my visits and the visits of other Members of the
Senate and the House to the transit zones in the Caribbean, as well as
the source countries--Peru and Colombia. These visits reconfirmed, in
my mind, what statistics had already told us: Seizing or destroying a
ton of cocaine outside our borders is more cost effective than seizing
the same quantity at the point of sale. It just makes good common
sense.
Our legislation also addresses domestic reduction efforts. It would
increase penalties for certain drug offenses committed in the presence
of a child. It would call on the Drug Enforcement Administration to
develop a plan for the safe and speedy cleanup of methamphetamine
laboratories in the United States. I know this latter issue is of great
concern to my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, who was
successful last year in increasing penalties for those involved in meth
labs here in the United States.
Mr. President, the bill also includes Senator Abraham's legislation
to increase mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for powder
cocaine offenses.
Our bill sets a foundation for what I hope will be a comprehensive
initiative to reduce the demand for drugs, especially among our young
people. The bill includes Senator Coverdell's initiative to protect
children and teachers from drug-related school violence and Senator
Grassley's legislation to strengthen the parent and family movement to
teach children and society about the dangers of drugs.
This bill, frankly, is a first step. I expect we will see other
important antidrug bills that we would want to roll into this larger
comprehensive bill, and we will do that as the time comes. For example,
I am working on legislation to clarify that juvenile facilities should
be eligible for jail-based and aftercare drug treatment programs and
provide coordinated services for early mental health and substance
abuse screening for juveniles. The latter initiative is based on an
effort underway in Hamilton County, OH, an initiative and effort I have
personally looked at on a number of occasions. In Hamilton County, OH,
the courts are working with all the relevant county agencies to offer a
coordinated service delivery system for at-risk youth. By bringing
these resources together, Mr. President, we can ensure that young
people in need of help will get the right kind of assistance.
I believe in a balanced counterdrug strategy. I made it clear in the
past Congress that I strongly support our continued commitment in
demand reduction and law enforcement programs. We need to invest in all
these elements to have success, and that is why we are today
introducing this bill--to demonstrate that we intend to find ways to
improve all elements of our comprehensive antidrug strategy.
Combined with the efforts begun last year, the Drug Free Century Act
represents a turning point in a decade of increased youth delinquency
and drug use. With this legislation, we are sending a clear signal that
we intend to change course and begin the next decade and, yes, the next
century, on the road to eliminating the scourge of illegal drugs in
this country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Drug Free
Century Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 5
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 ``Drug-Free
Century Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY REDUCTION
Subtitle A--International Crime
Chapter 1--International Crime Control
Sec. 1001. Short title.
Sec. 1002. Felony punishment for violence committed along the United
States border.
Chapter 2--Strengthening Maritime Law Enforcement Along United States
Borders
Sec. 1003. Sanctions for failure to heave to, obstructing a lawful
boarding, and providing false information.
Sec. 1004. Civil penalties to support maritime law enforcement.
Sec. 1005. Customs orders.
Chapter 3--Smuggling Of Contraband and Other Illegal Products
Sec. 1006. Smuggling contraband and other goods from the United States.
Sec. 1007. Customs duties.
Sec. 1008. False certifications relating to exports.
Chapter 4--Denying Safe Havens to International Criminals
Sec. 1009. Extradition for offenses not covered by a list treaty.
Sec. 1010. Extradition absent a treaty.
Sec. 1011. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 1012. Temporary transfer of persons in custody for prosecution.
Sec. 1013. Prohibiting fugitives from benefiting from fugitive status.
Sec. 1014. Transfer of foreign prisoners to serve sentences in country
of origin.
Sec. 1015. Transit of fugitives for prosecution in foreign countries.
Chapter 5--Seizing And Forfeiting Assets of International Criminals
Sec. 1016. Criminal penalties for violations of anti-money laundering
orders.
Sec. 1017. Cracking down on illegal money transmitting businesses.
Sec. 1018. Expanding civil money laundering laws to reach foreign
persons.
Sec. 1019. Punishment of money laundering through foreign banks.
Sec. 1020. Authority to order convicted criminals to return property
located abroad.
Sec. 1021. Administrative summons authority under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Sec. 1022. Exempting financial enforcement data from unnecessary
disclosure.
Sec. 1023. Criminal and civil penalties under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Sec. 1024. Attempted violations of the Trading With the Enemy Act.
Sec. 1025. Jurisdiction over certain financial crimes committed abroad.
Chapter 6--Promoting Global Cooperation in the Fight Against
International Crime
Sec. 1026. Streamlined procedures for execution of MLAT requests.
Sec. 1027. Temporary transfer of incarcerated witnesses.
Sec. 1028. Training of foreign law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 1029. Discretionary authority to use forfeiture proceeds.
Subtitle B--International Drug Control
Sec. 1201. Annual country plans for drug-transit and drug producing
countries.
Sec. 1202. Prohibition on use of funds for counternarcotics activities
and assistance.
Sec. 1203. Sense of Congress regarding Colombia.
Sec. 1204. Sense of Congress regarding Mexico.
Sec. 1205. Sense of Congress regarding Iran.
Sec. 1206. Sense of Congress regarding Syria.
Sec. 1207. Brazil.
Sec. 1208. Jamaica.
[[Page S350]]
Sec. 1209. Sense of Congress regarding North Korea.
Subtitle C--Foreign Military Counter-Drug Support
Sec. 1301. Report.
Subtitle D--Money Laundering Deterrence
Sec. 1401. Short title.
Sec. 1402. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 1403. Reporting of suspicious activities.
Sec. 1404. Expansion of scope of summons power.
Sec. 1405. Penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and
certain recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 1406. Repeal of certain reporting requirements.
Sec. 1407. Limited exemption from Paperwork Reduction Act.
Sec. 1408. Sense of Congress.
Subtitle E--Additional Funding For Source and Interdiction Zone
Countries
Sec. 1501. Source zone countries.
Sec. 1502. Central America.
TITLE II--DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Criminal Offenders
Sec. 2001. Apprehension and procedural treatment of armed violent
criminals.
Sec. 2002. Criminal attempt.
Sec. 2003. Drug offenses committed in the presence of children.
Sec. 2004. Sense of Congress on border defense.
Sec. 2005. Clone pagers.
Subtitle B--Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup
Sec. 2101. Sense of Congress regarding methamphetamine laboratory
cleanup.
Subtitle C--Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Sec. 2201. Sentencing for violations involving cocaine powder.
Subtitle D--Drug-Free Borders
Sec. 2301. Increased penalty for false statement offense.
Sec. 2302. Increased number of border patrol agents.
Sec. 2303. Enhanced border patrol pursuit policy.
TITLE III--DOMESTIC DEMAND REDUCTION
Subtitle A--Education, Prevention, and Treatment
Sec. 3001. Sense of Congress on reauthorization of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1994.
Sec. 3002. Sense of Congress regarding reauthorization of prevention
and treatment programs.
Sec. 3003. Report on drug-testing technologies.
Sec. 3004. Use of National Institutes of Health substance abuse
research.
Sec. 3005. Needle exchange.
Sec. 3006. Drug-free teen drivers incentive.
Sec. 3007. Drug-free schools.
Sec. 3008. Victim and witness assistance programs for teachers and
students.
Sec. 3009. Innovative programs to protect teachers and students.
Subtitle B--Drug-Free Families
Sec. 3101. Short title.
Sec. 3102. Findings.
Sec. 3103. Purposes.
Sec. 3104. Definitions.
Sec. 3105. Establishment of drug-free families support program.
Sec. 3106. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE IV--FUNDING FOR UNITED STATES COUNTER-DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 4001. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4002. Cargo inspection and narcotics detection equipment.
Sec. 4003. Peak hours and investigative resource enhancement.
Sec. 4004. Air and marine operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 4005. Compliance with performance plan requirements.
Sec. 4006. Commissioner of Customs salary.
Sec. 4007. Passenger preclearance services.
Subtitle B--United States Coast Guard
Sec. 4101. Additional funding for operation and maintenance.
Subtitle C--Drug Enforcement Administration
Sec. 4201. Additional funding for counternarcotics and information
support operations.
Subtitle D--Department of the Treasury
Sec. 4301. Additional funding for counter-drug information support.
Subtitle E--Department of Defense
Sec. 4401. Additional funding for expansion of counternarcotics
activities.
Sec. 4402. Forward military base for counternarcotics matters.
Sec. 4403. Expansion of radar coverage and operation in source and
transit countries.
Sec. 4404. Sense of Congress regarding funding under Western Hemisphere
Drug Elimination Act.
Sec. 4405. Sense of Congress regarding the priority of the drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities of the Department
of Defense.
TITLE I--INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY REDUCTION
Subtitle A--International Crime
CHAPTER 1--INTERNATIONAL CRIME CONTROL
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This chapter may be cited as the ``International Crime
Control Act of 1999''.
SEC. 1002. FELONY PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLENCE COMMITTED ALONG THE
UNITED STATES BORDER.
(a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 554. Violence while eluding inspection or during
violation of arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance
requirements
``(a) In General.--Whoever attempts to commit or commits a
crime of violence or recklessly operates any conveyance
during and in relation to--
``(1)(A) attempting to elude or eluding immigration,
customs, or agriculture inspection; or
``(B) failing to stop at the command of an officer or
employee of the United States charged with enforcing the
immigration, customs, or other laws of the United States
along any border of the United States; or
``(2) an intentional violation of arrival, reporting,
entry, or clearance requirements, as set forth in section 107
of the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150ff), section 10 of
the Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the `Plant
Quarantine Act' (7 U.S.C. 164a)), section 7 of the Federal
Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2807), section 431, 433,
434, or 459 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431, 1433,
1434, and 1459), section 10 of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26
Stat. 417; chapter 839 (21 U.S.C. 105), section 2 of the Act
of February 2, 1903 (32 Stat. 792; chapter 349; 21 U.S.C.
111), section 4197 of the Revised Statutes (46 U.S.C. App.
91), or sections 231, 232, and 234 through 238 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221, 1222, and
1224 through 1228) shall be--
``(A) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both;
``(B) if bodily injury (as defined in section 1365(g))
results, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both; or
``(C) if death results, fined under this title, imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, and may be
sentenced to death.
``(b) Conspiracy.--If 2 or more persons conspire to commit
an offense under subsection (a), and 1 or more of those
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be punishable as a principal, except that a
sentence of death may not be imposed.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``554. Violence while eluding inspection or during violation of
arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance requirements.''.
(c) Reckless Endangerment.--Section 111 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Reckless Endangerment.--Whoever--
``(1) knowingly disregards or disobeys the lawful authority
or command of any officer or employee of the United States
charged with enforcing the immigration, customs, or other
laws of the United States along any border of the United
States while engaged in, or on account of, the performance of
official duties of that officer or employee; and
``(2) as a result of disregarding or disobeying an
authority or command referred to in paragraph (1), endangers
the safety of any person or property,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 6
months, or both.''.
CHAPTER 2--STRENGTHENING MARITIME LAW ENFORCEMENT ALONG UNITED STATES
BORDERS
SEC. 1003. SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO HEAVE TO, OBSTRUCTING A
LAWFUL BOARDING, AND PROVIDING FALSE
INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 109 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for
obstruction of boarding or providing false information
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term `Federal
law enforcement officer' has the meaning given that term in
section 115(c).
``(2) Heave to.--The term `heave to' means, with respect to
a vessel, to cause that vessel to slow or come to a stop to
facilitate a law enforcement boarding by adjusting the course
and speed of the vessel to account for the weather conditions
and the sea state.
``(3) Vessel of the united states; vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the united states.--The terms `vessel of the
United States' and `vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States' have the meanings given those terms in section
3 of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App.
1903).
``(b) Failure To Obey an Order To Heave to.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for the master,
operator, or person in charge of a vessel of the United
States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, to fail to obey an order to heave to that vessel on
being ordered to do so by an authorized Federal law
enforcement officer.
[[Page S351]]
``(2) Impeding boarding; providing false information in
connection with a boarding.--It shall be unlawful for any
person on board a vessel of the United States or a vessel
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States knowingly or
willfully to--
``(A) fail to comply with an order of an authorized Federal
law enforcement officer in connection with the boarding of
the vessel;
``(B) impede or obstruct a boarding or arrest, or other law
enforcement action authorized by any Federal law; or
``(C) provide false information to a Federal law
enforcement officer during a boarding of a vessel regarding
the destination, origin, ownership, registration,
nationality, cargo, or crew of the vessel.
``(c) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section may
be construed to limit the authority granted before the date
of enactment of the International Crime Control Act of 1999
to--
``(1) a customs officer under section 581 of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581) or any other provision of law
enforced or administered by the United States Customs
Service; or
``(2) any Federal law enforcement officer under any Federal
law to order a vessel to heave to.
``(d) Consent or Waiver of Objection by a Foreign
Country.--
``(1) In general.--A foreign country may consent to or
waive objection to the enforcement of United States law by
the United States under this section by international
agreement or, on a case-by-case basis, by radio, telephone,
or similar oral or electronic means.
``(2) Proof of consent or waiver.--The Secretary of State
or a designee of the Secretary of State may prove a consent
or waiver described in paragraph (1) by certification.
``(e) Penalties.--Any person who intentionally violates any
provision of this section shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
``(f) Seizure of Vessels.--
``(1) In general.--A vessel that is used in violation of
this section may be seized and forfeited.
``(2) Applicability of laws.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the laws
described in subparagraph (B) shall apply to seizures and
forfeitures undertaken, or alleged to have been undertaken,
under any provision of this section.
``(B) Laws described.--The laws described in this
subparagraph are the laws relating to the seizure, summary,
judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of property for
violation of the customs laws, the disposition of the
property or the proceeds from the sale thereof, the remission
or mitigation of the forfeitures, and the compromise of
claims.
``(C) Execution of duties by officers and agents.--Any duty
that is imposed upon a customs officer or any other person
with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of property under
the customs laws shall be performed with respect to a seizure
or forfeiture of property under this section by the officer,
agent, or other person that is authorized or designated for
that purpose.
``(3) In rem liability.--A vessel that is used in violation
of this section shall, in addition to any other liability
prescribed under this subsection, be liable in rem for any
fine or civil penalty imposed under this section.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 109 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``2237. Sanctions for failure to heave to; sanctions for obstruction of
boarding or providing false information.''.
SEC. 1004. CIVIL PENALTIES TO SUPPORT MARITIME LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 14, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 675. Civil penalty for failure to comply with a lawful
boarding, obstruction of boarding, or providing false
information
``(a) In General.--Any person who violates section 2237(b)
of title 18 shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more
than $25,000.
``(b) In Rem Liability.--In addition to being subject to
the liability under subsection (a), a vessel used to violate
an order relating to the boarding of a vessel issued under
the authority of section 2237 of title 18 shall be liable in
rem and may be seized, forfeited, and sold in accordance with
section 594 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1594).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 17 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``675. Civil penalty for failure to comply with a lawful boarding,
obstruction of boarding, or providing false
information.''.
SEC. 1005. CUSTOMS ORDERS.
Section 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Authorized Place Defined.--In this section, the term
`authorized place' includes, with respect to a vessel or
vehicle, a location in a foreign country at which United
States customs officers are permitted to conduct inspections,
examinations, or searches.''.
CHAPTER 3--SMUGGLING OF CONTRABAND AND OTHER ILLEGAL PRODUCTS
SEC. 1006. SMUGGLING CONTRABAND AND OTHER GOODS FROM THE
UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Smuggling goods from the united states.--Chapter 27 of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 1002(a)
of this title, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 555. Smuggling goods from the United States
``(a) United States Defined.--In this section, the term
`United States' has the meaning given that term in section
545.
``(b) Penalties.--Whoever--
``(1) fraudulently or knowingly exports or sends from the
United States, or attempts to export or send from the United
States, any merchandise, article, or object contrary to any
law of the United States (including any regulation of the
United States); or
``(2) receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner
facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of that
merchandise, article, or object, prior to exportation,
knowing that merchandise, article, or object to be intended
for exportation contrary to any law of the United States,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``555. Smuggling goods from the United States.''.
(b) Laundering of Monetary Instruments.--Section
1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``section 555 (relating to smuggling goods from the
United States),'' before ``section 641 (relating to public
money, property, or records),''.
(c) Merchandise Exported From United States.--Section 596
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Merchandise Exported From the United States.--
Merchandise exported or sent from the United States or
attempted to be exported or sent from the United States
contrary to law, or the value thereof, and property used to
facilitate the receipt, purchase, transportation,
concealment, or sale of that merchandise prior to exportation
shall be forfeited to the United States.''.
SEC. 1007. CUSTOMS DUTIES.
(a) In General.--Section 542 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by adding ``theft,
embezzlement, or misapplication of duties'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating the fourth and fifth undesignated
paragraphs as subsections (b) and (c), respectively;
(3) in the third undesignated paragraph--
(A) by striking ``Shall be fined'' and inserting the
following:
``shall be fined''; and
(B) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``5 years'';
(4) in the second undesignated paragraph--
(A) by striking ``Whoever is guilty'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) is guilty''; and
(B) by striking ``act or omission--'' and inserting ``act
or omission; or'';
(5) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking
``Whoever knowingly effects'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Whoever--
``(1) knowingly effects''; and
(6) in subsection (a) (as so designated by paragraph (5) of
this subsection) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as so
designated by paragraph (4) of this subsection) the
following:
``(3) embezzles, steals, abstracts, purloins, willfully
misapplies, willfully permits to be misapplied, or wrongfully
converts to his own use, or to the use of another, moneys,
funds, credits, assets, securities or other property
entrusted to his or her custody or care, or to the custody or
care of another for the purpose of paying any lawful
duties;''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking the item relating to section 542 and inserting the
following:
``542. Entry of goods by means of false statements, theft,
embezzlement, or misapplication of duties.''.
SEC. 1008. FALSE CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO EXPORTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by section 1006(a) of this title, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 556. False certifications relating to exports
``Whoever knowingly transmits in interstate or foreign
commerce any false or fraudulent certificate of origin,
invoice, declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement
(whether written or otherwise), that represents explicitly or
implicitly that goods, wares, or merchandise to be exported
qualify for purposes of any international trade agreement to
which the United States is a signatory shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``556. False certifications relating to exports.''.
CHAPTER 4--DENYING SAFE HAVENS TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS
SEC. 1009. EXTRADITION FOR OFFENSES NOT COVERED BY A LIST
TREATY.
Chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
[[Page S352]]
``Sec. 3197. Extradition for offenses not covered by a list
treaty
``(a) Serious Offense Defined.--In this section, the term
`serious offense' means conduct that would be--
``(1) an offense described in any multilateral treaty to
which the United States is a party that obligates parties--
``(A) to extradite alleged offenders found in the territory
of the parties; or
``(B) submit the case to the competent authorities of the
parties for prosecution; or
``(2) conduct that, if that conduct occurred in the United
States, would constitute--
``(A) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16);
``(B) the distribution, manufacture, importation or
exportation of a controlled substance (as defined in section
201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
``(C) bribery of a public official; misappropriation,
embezzlement or theft of public funds by or for the benefit
of a public official;
``(D) obstruction of justice, including payment of bribes
to jurors or witnesses;
``(E) the laundering of monetary instruments, as described
in section 1956, if the value of the monetary instruments
involved exceeds $100,000;
``(F) fraud, theft, embezzlement, or commercial bribery if
the aggregate value of property that is the object of all of
the offenses related to the conduct exceeds $100,000;
``(G) counterfeiting, if the obligations, securities or
other items counterfeited, have an apparent value that
exceeds $100,000;
``(H) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the offenses
described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (G), or aiding
and abetting a person who commits any such offense; or
``(I) a crime against children under chapter 109A or
section 2251, 2251A, 2252, or 2252A.
``(b) Authorization of Filing.--
``(1) In general.--If a foreign government makes a request
for the extradition of a person who is charged with or has
been convicted of an offense within the jurisdiction of that
foreign government, and an extradition treaty between the
United States and the foreign government is in force, but the
treaty does not provide for extradition for the offense with
which the person has been charged or for which the person has
been convicted, the Attorney General may authorize the filing
of a complaint for extradition pursuant to subsections (c)
and (d).
``(2) Filing of complaints.--
``(A) In general.--A complaint authorized under paragraph
(1) shall be filed pursuant to section 3184.
``(B) Procedures.--With respect to a complaint filed under
paragraph (1), the procedures contained in sections 3184 and
3186 and the terms of the relevant extradition treaty shall
apply as if the offense were a crime provided for by the
treaty, in a manner consistent with section 3184.
``(c) Criteria for Authorization of Complaints.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may authorize the
filing of a complaint under subsection (b) only upon a
certification--
``(A) by the Attorney General, that in the judgment of the
Attorney General--
``(i) the offense for which extradition is sought is a
serious offense; and
``(ii) submission of the extradition request would be
important to the law enforcement interests of the United
States or otherwise in the interests of justice; and
``(B) by the Secretary of State, that in the judgment of
the Secretary of State, submission of the request would be
consistent with the foreign policy interests of the United
States.
``(2) Factors for consideration.--In making any
certification under paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary of State
may consider whether the facts and circumstances of the
request then known appear likely to present any significant
impediment to the ultimate surrender of the person who is the
subject of the request for extradition, if that person is
found to be extraditable.
``(d) Cases of Urgency.--
``(1) In general.--In any case of urgency, the Attorney
General may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State
and before any formal certification under subsection (c),
authorize the filing of a complaint seeking the provisional
arrest and detention of the person sought for extradition
before the receipt of documents or other proof in support of
the request for extradition.
``(2) Applicability of relevant treaty.--With respect to a
case described in paragraph (1), a provision regarding
provisional arrest in the relevant treaty shall apply.
``(3) Filing and effect of filing of complaints.--
``(A) In general.--A complaint authorized under this
subsection shall be filed in the same manner as provided in
section 3184.
``(B) Issuance of orders.--Upon the filing of a complaint
under this subsection, the appropriate judicial officer may
issue an order for the provisional arrest and detention of
the person as provided in section 3184.
``(e) Conditions of Surrender; Assurances.--
``(1) In general.--Before issuing a warrant of surrender
under section 3184 or 3186, the Secretary of State may--
``(A) impose conditions upon the surrender of the person
that is the subject of the warrant; and
``(B) require those assurances of compliance with those
conditions, as are determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate.
``(2) Additional assurances.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to imposing conditions and
requiring assurances under paragraph (1), the Secretary of
State shall demand, as a condition of the extradition of the
person in every case, an assurance described in subparagraph
(B) that the Secretary determines to be satisfactory.
``(B) Description of assurances.--An assurance described in
this subparagraph is an assurance that the person that is
sought for extradition shall not be tried or punished for an
offense other than that for which the person has been
extradited, absent the consent of the United States.''.
SEC. 1010. EXTRADITION ABSENT A TREATY.
Chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
section 1009 of this title, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 3198. Extradition absent a treaty
``(a) Serious Offense Defined.--In this section, the term
`serious offense' has the meaning given that term in section
3197(a).
``(b) Authorization of Filing.--
``(1) In general.--If a foreign government makes a request
for the extradition of a person who is charged with or has
been convicted of an offense within the jurisdiction of that
foreign government, and no extradition treaty is in force
between the United States and the foreign government, the
Attorney General may authorize the filing of a complaint for
extradition pursuant to subsections (c) and (d).
``(2) Filing and treatment of complaints.--
``(A) In general.--A complaint authorized under paragraph
(1) shall be filed pursuant to section 3184.
``(B) Procedures.--With respect to a complaint filed under
paragraph (1), procedures of sections 3184 and 3186 shall be
followed as if the offense were a `crime provided for by such
treaty' as described in section 3184.
``(c) Criteria for Authorization of Complaints.--The
Attorney General may authorize the filing of a complaint
described in subsection (b) only upon a certification--
``(1) by the Attorney General, that in the judgment of the
Attorney General--
``(A) the offense for which extradition is sought is a
serious offense; and
``(B) submission of the extradition request would be
important to the law enforcement interests of the United
States or otherwise in the interests of justice; and
``(2) by the Secretary of State, that in the judgment of
the certifying official, based on information then known--
``(A) submission of the request would be consistent with
the foreign policy interests of the United States;
``(B) the facts and circumstances of the request, including
humanitarian considerations, do not appear likely to present
a significant impediment to the ultimate surrender of the
person if found extraditable; and
``(C) the foreign government submitting the request is not
submitting the request in order to try or punish the person
sought for extradition primarily on the basis of the race,
religion, nationality, or political opinions of that person.
``(d) Limitations on Delegation.--
``(1) Delegation by attorney general.--The authorities and
responsibilities of the Attorney General under subsection (c)
may be delegated only to the Deputy Attorney General.
``(2) Delegation.--The authorities and responsibilities of
the Secretary of State set forth in this subsection may be
delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of State.
``(e) Cases of Urgency.--
``(1) In general.--In any case of urgency, the Attorney
General may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State
and before any formal certification under subsection (c),
authorize the filing of a complaint seeking the provisional
arrest and detention of the person sought for extradition
before the receipt of documents or other proof in support of
the request for extradition.
``(2) Filing of complaints; order by judicial officer.--
``(A) Filing.--A complaint filed under this subsection
shall be filed in the same manner as provided in section
3184.
``(B) Orders.--Upon the filing of a complaint under
subparagraph (A), the appropriate judicial officer may issue
an order for the provisional arrest and detention of the
person.
``(C) Releases.--If, not later than 45 days after the
arrest, the formal request for extradition and documents in
support of that are not received by the Department of State,
the appropriate judicial officer may order that a person
detained pursuant to this subsection be released from
custody.
``(f) Hearings.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (h), upon the
filing of a complaint for extradition and receipt of
documents or other proof in support of the request of a
foreign government for extradition, the appropriate judicial
officer shall hold a hearing to determine whether the person
sought for extradition is extraditable.
``(2) Criteria for extradition.--Subject to subsection (g)
in a hearing conducted under paragraph (1), the judicial
officer shall find a person extraditable if the officer
finds--
``(A) probable cause to believe that the person before the
judicial officer is the person sought in the foreign country
of the requesting foreign government;
``(B) probable cause to believe that the person before the
judicial officer committed the
[[Page S353]]
offense for which that person is sought, or was duly
convicted of that offense in the foreign country of the
requesting foreign government;
``(C) that the conduct upon which the request for
extradition is based, if that conduct occurred within the
United States, would be a serious offense punishable by
imprisonment for more than 10 years under the laws of--
``(i) the United States;
``(ii) the majority of the States in the United States; or
``(iii) of the State in which the fugitive is found; and
``(D) no defense to extradition under subsection (f) has
been established.
``(g) Limitation of Extradition.--
``(1) In general.--A judicial officer shall not find a
person extraditable under this section if the person has
established that the offense for which extradition is sought
is--
``(A) an offense for which the person is being proceeded
against, or has been tried or punished, in the United States;
or
``(B) a political offense.
``(2) Political offenses.--For purposes of this section, a
political offense does not include--
``(A) a murder or other violent crime against the person of
a head of state of a foreign state, or of a member of the
family of the head of state;
``(B) an offense for which both the United States and the
requesting foreign government have the obligation pursuant to
a multilateral international agreement to--
``(i) extradite the person sought; or
``(ii) submit the case to the competent authorities for
decision as to prosecution; or
``(C) a conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the offenses
referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), or aiding or abetting
a person who commits or attempts to commit any such offenses.
``(h) Limitations on Factors for Consideration at
Hearings.--
``(1) In general.--At a hearing conducted under subsection
(a), the judicial officer conducting the hearing shall not
consider issues regarding--
``(A) humanitarian concerns;
``(B) the nature of the judicial system of the requesting
foreign government; and
``(C) whether the foreign government is seeking extradition
of a person for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the
person because of the race, religion, nationality or
political opinions of that person.
``(2) Consideration by secretary of state.--The issues
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be reserved for
consideration exclusively by the Secretary of State as
described in subsection (c)(2).
``(3) Additional consideration.--Notwithstanding the
certification requirements described in subsection (c)(2),
the Secretary of State may, within the sole discretion of the
Secretary--
``(A) in addition to considering the issues referred to in
paragraph (1) for purposes of certifying the filing of a
complaint under this section, consider those issues again in
exercising authority to surrender the person sought for
extradition in carrying out the procedures under section 3184
and 3186; and
``(B) impose conditions on surrender including those
provided in subsection (i).
``(i) Conditions of Surrender; Assurances.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of State may--
``(A) impose conditions upon the surrender of a person
sought for extradition under this section; and
``(B) require such assurances of compliance with those
conditions, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(2) Additional assurances.--In addition to imposing
conditions and requiring assurances under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall demand, as a condition of the extradition of
the person that is sought for extradition--
``(A) in every case, an assurance the Secretary determines
to be satisfactory that the person shall not be tried or
punished for an offense other than the offense for which the
person has been extradited, absent the consent of the United
States; and
``(B) in a case in which the offense for which extradition
is sought is punishable by death in the foreign country of
the requesting foreign government and is not so punishable
under the applicable laws in the United States, an assurance
the Secretary determines to be satisfactory that the death
penalty--
``(i) shall not be imposed; or
``(ii) if imposed, shall not be carried out.''.
SEC. 1011. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 309 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3181, by inserting ``, other than sections
3197 and 3198,'' after ``The provisions of this chapter''
each place that term appears; and
(2) in section 3186, by striking ``or 3185'' and inserting
``, 3185, 3197 or 3198''.
(b) Chapter Analysis.--The analysis for chapter 209 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``3197. Extradition for offenses not covered by a list treaty.
``3198. Extradition absent a treaty.''.
SEC. 1012. TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF PERSONS IN CUSTODY FOR
PROSECUTION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 306 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 4116. Temporary transfer for prosecution
``(a) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State'
includes a State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, and a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States.
``(b) Authority of Attorney General With Respect to
Temporary Transfers.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (d), if a person
is in pretrial detention or is otherwise being held in
custody in a foreign country based upon a violation of the
law in that foreign country, and that person is found
extraditable to the United States by the competent
authorities of that foreign country while still in the
pretrial detention or custody, the Attorney General shall
have the authority--
``(A) to request the temporary transfer of that person to
the United States in order to face prosecution in a Federal
or State criminal proceeding;
``(B) to maintain the custody of that person while the
person is in the United States; and
``(C) to return that person to the foreign country at the
conclusion of the criminal prosecution, including any
imposition of sentence.
``(2) Requirements for requests by attorney general.--The
Attorney General shall make a request under paragraph (1)
only if the Attorney General determines, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, that the return of that person
to the foreign country in question would be consistent with
international obligations of the United States.
``(c) Authority of Attorney General With Respect to
Pretrial Detentions.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Authority of attorney general.--Subject to paragraph
(2) and subsection (d), the Attorney General shall have the
authority to carry out the actions described in subparagraph
(B), if--
``(i) a person is in pretrial detention or is otherwise
being held in custody in the United States based upon a
violation of Federal or State law, and that person is found
extraditable to a foreign country while still in the pretrial
detention or custody pursuant to section 3184, 3197, or 3198;
and
``(ii) a determination is made by the Secretary of State
and the Attorney General that the person will be surrendered.
``(B) Actions.--If the conditions described in subparagraph
(A) are met, the Attorney General shall have the authority
to--
``(i) temporarily transfer the person described in
subparagraph (A) to the foreign country of the foreign
government requesting the extradition of that person in order
to face prosecution;
``(ii) transport that person from the United States in
custody; and
``(iii) return that person in custody to the United States
from the foreign country.
``(2) Consent by state authorities.--If the person is being
held in custody for a violation of State law, the Attorney
General may exercise the authority described in paragraph (1)
if the appropriate State authorities give their consent to
the Attorney General.
``(3) Criterion for request.--The Attorney General shall
make a request under paragraph (1) only if the Attorney
General determines, after consultation with the Secretary of
State, that the return of the person sought for extradition
to the foreign country of the foreign government requesting
the extradition would be consistent with United States
international obligations.
``(4) Effect of temporary transfer.--With regard to any
person in pretrial detention--
``(A) a temporary transfer under this subsection shall
result in an interruption in the pretrial detention status of
that person; and
``(B) the right to challenge the conditions of confinement
pursuant to section 3142(f) does not extend to the right to
challenge the conditions of confinement in a foreign country
while in that foreign country temporarily under this
subsection.
``(d) Consent by Parties To Waive Prior Finding of Whether
a Person Is Extraditable.--The Attorney General may exercise
the authority described in subsections (b) and (c) absent a
prior finding that the person in custody is extraditable, if
the person, any appropriate State authorities in a case under
subsection (c), and the requesting foreign government give
their consent to waive that requirement.
``(e) Return of Persons.--
``(1) In general.--If the temporary transfer to or from the
United States of a person in custody for the purpose of
prosecution is provided for by this section, that person
shall be returned to the United States or to the foreign
country from which the person is transferred on completion of
the proceedings upon which the transfer was based.
``(2) Statutory interpretation with respect to immigration
laws.--In no event shall the return of a person under
paragraph (1) require extradition proceedings or proceedings
under the immigration laws.
``(3) Certain rights and remedies barred.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, a person temporarily transferred
to the United States pursuant to this section shall not be
entitled to apply for or obtain any right or remedy under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
including the right to apply for or be granted asylum or
withholding of deportation.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 306 of title
[[Page S354]]
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``4116. Temporary transfer for prosecution.''.
SEC. 1013. PROHIBITING FUGITIVES FROM BENEFITING FROM
FUGITIVE STATUS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 163 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2466. Fugitive disentitlement
``A person may not use the resources of the courts of the
United States in furtherance of a claim in any related civil
forfeiture action or a claim in third party proceedings in
any related criminal forfeiture action if that person--
``(1) purposely leaves the jurisdiction of the United
States;
``(2) declines to enter or reenter the United States to
submit to its jurisdiction; or
``(3) otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court in
which a criminal case is pending against the person.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 163 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``2466. Fugitive disentitlement.''.
SEC. 1014. TRANSFER OF FOREIGN PRISONERS TO SERVE SENTENCES
IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.
Section 4100(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
in the third sentence by inserting ``, unless otherwise
provided by treaty,'' before ``an offender''.
SEC. 1015. TRANSIT OF FUGITIVES FOR PROSECUTION IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 305 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 4087. Transit through the United States of persons
wanted in a foreign country
``(a) In General.--The Attorney General may, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, permit the
temporary transit through the United States of a person
wanted for prosecution or imposition of sentence in a foreign
country.
``(b) Limitation on Judicial Review.--A determination by
the Attorney General to permit or not to permit a temporary
transit described in subsection (a) shall not be subject to
judicial review.
``(c) Custody.--If the Attorney General permits a temporary
transit under subsection (a), Federal law enforcement
personnel may hold the person subject to that transit in
custody during the transit of the person through the United
States.
``(d) Conditions Applicable to Persons Subject to Temporary
Transit.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
person who is subject to a temporary transit through the
United States under this section shall--
``(1) be required to have only such documents as the
Attorney General shall require;
``(2) not be considered to be admitted or paroled into the
United States; and
``(3) not be entitled to apply for or obtain any right or
remedy under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101 et seq.), including the right to apply for or be granted
asylum or withholding of deportation.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 305 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``4087. Transit through the United States of persons wanted in a
foreign country.''.
CHAPTER 5--SEIZING AND FORFEITING ASSETS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS
SEC. 1016. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING ORDERS.
(a) Reporting Violations.--Section 5324(a) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
or the reporting requirements imposed by an order issued
pursuant to section 5326'' after ``any such section''; and
(2) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``, or
a report required under any order issued pursuant to section
5326'' before the semicolon.
(b) Penalties.--Sections 5321(a)(1), 5322(a), and 5322(b)
of title 31, United States Code, are each amended by
inserting ``or order issued'' after ``or a regulation
prescribed'' each place that term appears.
SEC. 1017. CRACKING DOWN ON ILLEGAL MONEY TRANSMITTING
BUSINESSES.
Section 1960 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Scienter Requirement.--For the purposes of proving a
violation of this section involving an illegal money
transmitting business (as defined in subsection (b)(1)(A))--
``(1) it shall be sufficient for the government to prove
that the defendant knew that the money transmitting business
lacked a license required by State law; and
``(2) it shall not be necessary to show that the defendant
knew that the operation of such a business without the
required license was an offense punishable as a felony or
misdemeanor under State law.''.
SEC. 1018. EXPANDING CIVIL MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS TO REACH
FOREIGN PERSONS.
Section 1956(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For purposes of adjudicating an action filed or
enforcing a penalty ordered under this section, the district
courts shall have jurisdiction over any foreign person,
including any financial institution registered in a foreign
country, that commits an offense under subsection (a)
involving a financial transaction that occurs in whole or in
part in the United States, if service of process upon the
foreign person is made in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or the law of the foreign country in which
the foreign person is found.
``(3) The court may issue a pretrial restraining order or
take any other action necessary to ensure that any bank
account or other property held by the defendant in the United
States is available to satisfy a judgment under this
section.''.
SEC. 1019. PUNISHMENT OF MONEY LAUNDERING THROUGH FOREIGN
BANKS.
Section 1956(c)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(6) the term `financial institution' includes any
financial institution described in section 5312(a)(2) of
title 31, United States Code, or the regulations promulgated
thereunder, as well as any foreign bank (as defined in
section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12
U.S.C. 3101(7));''.
SEC. 1020. AUTHORITY TO ORDER CONVICTED CRIMINALS TO RETURN
PROPERTY LOCATED ABROAD.
(a) Order of Forfeiture.--Section 413(p) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(p)) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``In the case of property described in
paragraph (3), the court may, in addition, order the
defendant to return the property to the jurisdiction of the
court so that the property may be seized and forfeited.''.
(b) Pretrial Restraining Order.--Section 413(e) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853(e)) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4)(A) Pursuant to its authority to enter a pretrial
restraining order under this section, including its authority
to restrain any property forfeitable as substitute assets,
the court may also order the defendant to repatriate any
property subject to forfeiture pending trial, and to deposit
that property in the registry of the court, or with the
United States Marshals Service or the Secretary of the
Treasury, in an interest-bearing account.
``(B) Failure to comply with an order under this
subsection, or an order to repatriate property under
subsection (p), shall be punishable as a civil or criminal
contempt of court, and may also result in an enhancement of
the sentence for the offense giving rise to the forfeiture
under the obstruction of justice provision of section 3C1.1
of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.''.
SEC. 1021. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMONS AUTHORITY UNDER THE BANK
SECRECY ACT.
Section 5318(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Scope of power.--The Secretary of the Treasury may
take any action described in paragraph (3) or (4) of
subsection (a) for the purpose of--
``(A) determining compliance with the rules of this
subchapter or any regulation issued under this subchapter; or
``(B) civil enforcement of violations of this subchapter,
section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, section 411
of the National Housing Act, or chapter 2 of Public Law 91-
508 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), or any regulation issued under
any such provision.''.
SEC. 1022. EXEMPTING FINANCIAL ENFORCEMENT DATA FROM
UNNECESSARY DISCLOSURE.
(a) IEEPA.--Section 203 of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Exemptions from disclosure.--Information obtained
under this title before or after the enactment of this
section may be withheld only to the extent permitted by
statute, except that information submitted, obtained, or
considered in connection with any transaction prohibited
under this title, including license applications, licenses or
other authorizations, information or evidence obtained in the
course of any investigation, and information obtained or
furnished under this title in connection with international
agreements, treaties, or obligations shall be withheld from
public disclosure, and shall not be subject to disclosure
under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless the
release of the information is determined by the President to
be in the national interest.''.
(b) Trading With the Enemy Act.--Section 5(b) of the
Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Exemptions from disclosure.--Information obtained
under this title before or after the enactment of this
section may be withheld only to the extent permitted by
statute, except that information submitted, obtained, or
considered in connection with any transaction prohibited
under this title, including license applications, licenses or
other authorizations, information or evidence obtained in the
course of any investigation, and information obtained or
furnished under this title in connection with international
agreements, treaties, or obligations shall be withheld from
public disclosure, and shall not be subject to disclosure
under section 552 of title 5, United States
[[Page S355]]
Code, unless the release of the information is determined by
the President to be in the national interest.''.
SEC. 1023. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES UNDER THE
INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT.
(a) Increased Civil Penalty.--Section 206(a) of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1705(a)), is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting
``$50,000''.
(b) Increased Criminal Fine.--Section 206(b) of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1705(b)), is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Whoever willfully violates any license, order, or
regulation issued under this chapter shall be fined not more
that $1,000,000 if an organization (as defined in section 18
of title 18, United States Code), and not more than $250,000,
imprisoned not more that 10 years, or both, if an
individual.''.
SEC. 1024. ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT.
Section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 16) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or attempt to
violate'' after ``violate'' each time it appears; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``or attempts to
violate'' after ``violates''.
SEC. 1025. JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FINANCIAL CRIMES
COMMITTED ABROAD.
Section 1029 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h) Jurisdiction Over Certain Financial Crimes Committed
Abroad.--Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the
United States, engages in any act that, if committed within
the jurisdiction of the United States, would constitute an
offense under subsection (a) or (b), shall be subject to the
same penalties as if that offense had been committed in the
United States, if the act--
``(1) involves an access device issued, owned, managed, or
controlled by a financial institution, account issuer, credit
card system member, or other entity within the jurisdiction
of the United States; and
``(2) causes, or if completed would have caused, a transfer
of funds from or a loss to an entity listed in paragraph
(1).''.
CHAPTER 6--PROMOTING GLOBAL COOPERATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST
INTERNATIONAL CRIME
SEC. 1026. STREAMLINED PROCEDURES FOR EXECUTION OF MLAT
REQUESTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 117 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1790. Assistance to foreign authorities
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Presentation of requests.--The Attorney General may
present a request made by a foreign government for assistance
with respect to a foreign investigation, prosecution, or
proceeding regarding a criminal matter pursuant to a treaty,
convention, or executive agreement for mutual legal
assistance between the United States and that government or
in accordance with section 1782, the execution of which
requires or appears to require the use of compulsory measures
in more than 1 judicial district, to a judge or judge
magistrate of--
``(A) any 1 of the districts in which persons who may be
required to appear to testify or produce evidence or
information reside or are found, or in which evidence or
information to be produced is located; or
``(B) the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.
``(2) Authority of court.--A judge or judge magistrate to
whom a request for assistance is presented under paragraph
(1) shall have the authority to issue those orders necessary
to execute the request including orders appointing a person
to direct the taking of testimony or statements and the
production of evidence or information, of whatever nature and
in whatever form, in execution of the request.
``(b) Authority of Appointed Persons.--A person appointed
under subsection (a)(2) shall have the authority to--
``(1) issue orders for the taking of testimony or
statements and the production of evidence or information,
which orders may be served at any place within the United
States;
``(2) administer any necessary oath; and
``(3) take testimony or statements and receive evidence and
information.
``(c) Persons Ordered To Appear.--A person ordered pursuant
to subsection (b)(1) to appear outside the district in which
that person resides or is found may, not later than 10 days
after receipt of the order--
``(1) file with the judge or judge magistrate who
authorized execution of the request a motion to appear in the
district in which that person resides or is found or in which
the evidence or information is located; or
``(2) provide written notice, requesting appearance in the
district in which the person resides or is found or in which
the evidence or information is located, to the person issuing
the order to appear, who shall advise the judge or judge
magistrate authorizing execution.
``(d) Transfer of Requests.--
``(1) In general.--The judge or judge magistrate may
transfer a request under subsection (c), or that portion
requiring the appearance of that person, to the other
district if--
``(A) the inconvenience to the person is substantial; and
``(B) the transfer is unlikely to adversely affect the
effective or timely execution of the request or a portion
thereof.
``(2) Execution.--Upon transfer, the judge or judge
magistrate to whom the request or a portion thereof is
transferred shall complete its execution in accordance with
subsections (a) and (b).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 117 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``1790. Assistance to foreign authorities.''.
SEC. 1027. TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF INCARCERATED WITNESSES.
(a) In General.--Section 3508 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 3508. Temporary transfer of witnesses in custody'';
(2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Transfer Authority.--
``(1) In general.--If the testimony of a person who is
serving a sentence, in pretrial detention, or otherwise being
held in custody in the United States, is needed in a foreign
criminal proceeding, the Attorney General shall have the
authority to--
``(A) temporarily transfer that person to the foreign
country for the purpose of giving the testimony;
``(B) transport that person from the United States in
custody;
``(C) make appropriate arrangements for custody for that
person while outside the United States; and
``(D) return that person in custody to the United States
from the foreign country.
``(2) Persons held for state law violations.--If the person
is being held in custody for a violation of State law, the
Attorney General may exercise the authority described in this
subsection if the appropriate State authorities give their
consent.
``(c) Return of Persons Transferred.--
``(1) In general.--If the transfer to or from the United
States of a person in custody for the purpose of giving
testimony is provided for by treaty or convention, by this
section, or both, that person shall be returned to the United
States, or to the foreign country from which the person is
transferred.
``(2) Limitation.--In no event shall the return of a person
under this subsection require any request for extradition or
extradition proceedings, or require that person to be subject
to deportation or exclusion proceedings under the laws of the
United States, or the foreign country from which the person
is transferred.
``(d) Applicability of International Agreements.--If there
is an international agreement between the United States and
the foreign country in which a witness is being held in
custody or to which the witness will be transferred from the
United States, that provides for the transfer, custody, and
return of those witnesses, the terms and conditions of that
international agreement shall apply. If there is no such
international agreement, the Attorney General may exercise
the authority described in subsections (a) and (b) if both
the foreign country and the witness give their consent.
``(e) Rights of Persons Transferred.--
``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person
held in custody in a foreign country who is transferred to
the United States pursuant to this section for the purpose of
giving testimony--
``(A) shall not by reason of that transfer, during the
period that person is present in the United States pursuant
to that transfer, be entitled to apply for or obtain any
right or remedy under the Immigration and Nationality Act,
including the right to apply for or be granted asylum or
withholding of deportation or any right to remain in the
United States under any other law; and
``(B) may be summarily removed from the United States upon
order of the Attorney General.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or
benefit to remain in the United States that is legally
enforceable in a court of law of the United States or of a
State by any party against the United States or its agencies
or officers.
``(f) Consistency With International Obligations.--The
Attorney General shall not take any action under this section
to transfer or return a person to a foreign country unless
the Attorney General determines, after consultation with the
Secretary of State, that transfer or return would be
consistent with the international obligations of the United
States. A determination by the Attorney General under this
subsection shall not be subject to judicial review by any
court.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking the item relating to section 3508 and inserting the
following:
``3508. Temporary transfer of witnesses in custody.''.
SEC. 1028. TRAINING OF FOREIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
Section 660(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2420(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) with respect to assistance, including training,
provided for antiterrorism purposes.''.
[[Page S356]]
SEC. 1029. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO USE FORFEITURE
PROCEEDS.
Section 524(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by--
(1) redesignating subparagraph (I) beginning with ``after
all'' as subparagraph (J);
(2) in subparagraph (J) as redesignated, striking the
period and inserting ``, and''; and
(3) adding at the end the following:
``(J) at the discretion of the Attorney General, payments
to return forfeited property repatriated to the United States
by a foreign government or others acting at the direction of
a foreign government, and interest earned on the property,
if--
``(i) a final foreign judgment entered against a foreign
government or those acting at its direction, which foreign
judgment was based on the measures, such as seizure and
repatriation of property, that resulted in deposit of the
funds into the Fund;
``(ii) the foreign judgment was entered and presented to
the Attorney General not later than 5 years after the date on
which the property was repatriated to the United States;
``(iii) the foreign government or those acting at its
direction vigorously defended its actions under its own laws;
and
``(iv) the amount of the disbursement does not exceed the
amount of funds deposited to the Fund, plus interest earned
on those funds pursuant to section 524(c)(5), less any awards
and equitable shares paid by the Fund to the foreign
government or those acting at its direction in connection
with a particular case.''.
Subtitle B--International Drug Control
SEC. 1201. ANNUAL COUNTRY PLANS FOR DRUG-TRANSIT AND DRUG
PRODUCING COUNTRIES.
Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2291j) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Country Plans for Major Drug-Transit and Major
Illicit Drug Producing Countries.--
``(1) Annual requirement.--Not later than November 1 of
each year, the President shall submit to Congress a separate
plan for the activities to be undertaken by the United States
in order to address drug-trafficking and other drug-related
matters in each country described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Covered countries.--A country referred to in
paragraph (1) is any country--
``(A) that is determined by the President to be a major
drug-transit county or a major illicit drug producing
country; and
``(B) with which the United States is maintaining
diplomatic relations.
``(3) Form.--Each plan under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified
annex.''.
SEC. 1202. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS
ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE.
(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal
year 1999 for the counterdrug or counternarcotics activities
of the United States (including funds appropriated for
assistance to other countries for such activities) may be
obligated or expended for such activities during the period
beginning on November 1 of such fiscal year and ending on the
later of--
(1) the date of the notification required in such fiscal
year under subsection (h) of section 490 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291j); or
(2) the date of the submittal of the plans required by
subsection (i) of that section, as amended by section 1201 of
this title.
(b) Limitation on Override.--No provision of law enacted
after the date of enactment of this Act may be construed to
override the prohibition set forth in subsection (a) unless
such provision specifically refers to such prohibition in
effecting the override.
SEC. 1203. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COLOMBIA.
It is the sense of Congress--
(1) that the provision of counternarcotics assistance to
Colombia will not meet the purpose of the provision of such
assistance without meaningful guarantees that no production,
manufacturing, or transportation of narcotics takes place in
any area in Colombia designated as a so-called ``buffer
zone'';
(2) to be concerned regarding continuing reports of human
rights violations by units of the Colombia military; and
(3) to reaffirm the policy that no aid, supplies, or other
assistance should be provided to any military or law
enforcement unit of a foreign county if such unit has engaged
in any violation of human rights.
SEC. 1204. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEXICO.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States and the Government of Mexico should
conclude a maritime agreement for purposes of improving
cooperation between the United States and Mexico in the
interdiction of seaborne drug smuggling;
(2) the maritime agreement should be similar to agreements
between the United States and governments of other countries
in the Caribbean and Latin America which have proven
beneficial to the counterdrug activities of the countries
concerned;
(3) the Government of Mexico should carry through on its
promises to the United States Government regarding
cooperation between such governments in counternarcotics
activities, including cooperation in matters relating to
extradition, prosecutions for money laundering, and other
matters;
(4) the Government of Mexico is to be commended for its
cooperation with and support of the United States Government
in many law enforcement matters; and
(5) the continuing investigation by the Government of
Mexico of United States law enforcement personnel who
participated in the money laundering sting operation known as
CASABLANCA is an attempt by that government to embarrass and
harass such personnel even though such personnel were acting
within the scope of United States law and Mexican law in
pursuing drug traffickers and money launderers operating both
in the United States and in Mexico.
SEC. 1205. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IRAN.
It is the sense of Congress to express concern that Iran
was not included on the most recent list of countries
determined to be major drug-transit counties or major illicit
drug producing countries despite recent evidence that Iran is
a production and transfer point for narcotics.
SEC. 1206. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SYRIA.
It is the sense of Congress to express concern that Syria
was not included on the most recent list of countries
determined to be major drug-transit counties or major illicit
drug producing countries despite recent evidence that Syria
is a trans-shipment point for narcotics from Turkey and from
Afghanistan.
SEC. 1207. BRAZIL.
(a) King Air Aircraft for DEA Activities in Brazil.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator
of the Drug Enforcement Administration may--
(1) purchase a King Air aircraft for purposes of
Administration activities in Brazil; and
(2) station the aircraft in Brazil for purposes of such
activities.
(b) Sense of Congress Regarding Assistance to Brazil.--It
is the sense of Congress--
(1) to encourage the President to review the nature of the
cooperation between the United States and Brazil in
counternarcotics activities;
(2) to recognize the extraordinary threat that narcotics
trafficking poses to the national security of Brazil and to
the national security of the United States;
(3) to applaud the efforts of the Brazil Government to
control drug trafficking in and through the Amazon River
basin;
(4) to applaud the enactment of legislation by the Brazil
Congress that--
(A) authorizes appropriate personnel to damage, render
inoperative, or destroy aircraft within Brazil territory that
are reasonably suspected to be engaged primarily in
trafficking in illicit narcotics; and
(B) contains measures to protect against the loss of
innocent life during activities referred to in subparagraph
(A), including a effective measure to identify and warn
aircraft before the use of force; and
(5) to urge the President to issue a statement outlining
the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) through (4) in
order to prevent any interruption in the current provision by
the United States of operational, logistical, technical,
administrative, and intelligence assistance to Brazil.
SEC. 1208. JAMAICA.
(a) Requirement for Aerial Survey.--The President shall
take appropriate actions in order to provide for a
comprehensive aerial survey of Jamaica for purposes of
determining the quantity and location of any marijuana and
other illegal drugs being grown in Jamaica.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress to
express disappointment regarding the lack of progress and
cooperation between the United States and Jamaica in
counternarcotics activities.
SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NORTH KOREA.
It is the sense of Congress--
(1) to be concerned regarding an increase in the number of
reports of drug trafficking in and through North Korea;
(2) to encourage the President to submit to Congress the
reports, if any, required by law regarding the production and
trafficking of narcotics in or through North Korea; and
(3) to express concern that the Department of State has
evaded its obligations with respect to North Korea under
section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2291j), and thereby diminished the significance to the United
States of narcotics production and transit in and through
North Korea, in order to enhance cultural exchanges between
the United States and North Korea.
Subtitle C--Foreign Military Counter-Drug Support
SEC. 1301. REPORT.
(a) Monthly Report.--The Department of State and the
Department of Defense shall report monthly to the Committee
on International Relations and the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate on the current status of any formal letter of request
for any foreign military sales of counter narcotics-related
assistance from the head of any police, military, or other
appropriate security agency official in an Andean Country.
This report shall include--
(1) the date the initial request was made;
(2) the current status of the request;
(3) the remaining approvals needed to process the request;
[[Page S357]]
(4) the date that the request has been approved by all
relevant departments and agencies; and
(5) the expected delivery time for the requested material.
(b) Analysis.--The Department of State shall review and
forward to Congress an analysis of the current foreign
military sales program within 180 days (from time of
enactment). This review shall focus on--
(1) what, if any, are the current delays in the foreign
military sales program;
(2) the manner in which the program can be streamlined;
(3) the manner in which the efficiency of processing
requested equipment can be increased; and
(4) what, if any, legislative changes are necessary to
improve the program so that the time from request to delivery
is minimized.
Subtitle D--Money Laundering Deterrence
SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Money Laundering
Deterrence Act of 1999''.
SEC. 1402. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the dollar amount involved in international money
laundering likely exceeds $500,000,000,000 annually;
(2) organized crime groups are continually devising new
methods to launder the proceeds of illegal activities in an
effort to subvert the transaction reporting requirements of
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code,
and chapter 2 of Public Law 91-508;
(3) a number of methods to launder the proceeds of criminal
activity were identified and described in congressional
hearings, including the use of financial service providers
that are not depository institutions, such as money
transmitters and check cashing services, the purchase and
resale of durable goods, and the exchange of foreign currency
in the so-called ``black market'';
(4) recent successes in combating domestic money laundering
have involved the application of the heretofore seldom-used
authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury and the
cooperative efforts of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies; and
(5) such successes have been exemplified by the
implementation of the geographic targeting order in New York
City and through the work of the El Dorado task force, a
group comprised of agents of Department of the Treasury law
enforcement agencies, New York State troopers, and New York
City police officers.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
(1) to amend subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31,
United States Code, to provide the law enforcement community
with the necessary legal authority to combat money
laundering;
(2) to broaden the law enforcement community's access to
transactional information already being collected that
relates to coins and currency received in a nonfinancial
trade or business; and
(3) to express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
the Treasury should expedite the development and
implementation of controls designed to deter money laundering
activities at certain types of financial institutions.
SEC. 1403. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITIES.
(a) Amendment Relating to Civil Liability Immunity for
Disclosures.--Section 5318(g)(3) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Liability for disclosures.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an exempted entity, as defined in subparagraph (B),
shall not be liable to any person under any law or regulation
of the United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of
any State or political subdivision thereof, or under any
contract or other legally enforceable agreement (including
any arbitration agreement), for a disclosure described in
subparagraph (B)(i), or for any failure to notify the person
who is the subject of the disclosure or any other person
identified in the disclosure.
``(B) Exempted entities.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `exempted entity' means--
``(i) any financial institution that--
``(I) makes a disclosure of any possible violation of law
or regulation to an appropriate government agency; or
``(II) makes a disclosure pursuant to this subsection or
any other authority;
``(ii) any director, officer, employee, or agent of an
institution referred to in clause (i) who makes, or requires
another to make a disclosure referred to in clause (i); and
``(iii) any independent public accountant who audits any
such financial institution and makes a disclosure described
in clause (i).''.
(b) Prohibition on Notification of Disclosures.--Section
5318(g)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Notification prohibited.--
``(A) In general.--If a financial institution, any
director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial
institution, or any independent public accountant who audits
any such financial institution, voluntarily or pursuant to
this section or any other authority, reports a suspicious
transaction to an appropriate government agency--
``(i) the financial institution, director, officer,
employee, agent, or accountant may not notify any person
involved in the transaction that the transaction has been
reported and may not disclose any information included in the
report to any such person; and
``(ii) no other person, including any officer or employee
of any government, who has any knowledge that such report was
made, may disclose to any other person or government agency
the fact that such report was made.
``(B) Exception for use by government officers in official
capacity.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the use or
disclosure by an officer or employee of an appropriate
government agency of any report under this subsection, or
information included in the report, to the extent that the
use is made solely in conjunction with the performance of the
official duties of the officer or employee to conduct or
assist in the conduct of a law enforcement or regulatory
inquiry, investigation, or proceeding.
``(C) Coordination with paragraph (5).--Subparagraph (A)
shall not be construed to prohibit any financial institution,
or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial
institution, from including, in a written employment
reference that is provided in accordance with paragraph (5)
in response to a request from another financial institution,
information that was included in a report to which
subparagraph (A) applies, but such written employment
reference may not disclose that the information was also
included in any such report or that a report was made.''.
(c) Authorization To Include Suspicions of Illegal Activity
in Employment References.--Section 5318(g) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Employment references may include suspicions of
involvement in illegal activity.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, and subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph and
paragraph (2)(C), any financial institution, and any
director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial
institution, may disclose, in any written employment
reference relating to a current or former institution-
affiliated party of the institution that is provided to
another financial institution in response to a request from
the other institution, information concerning the possible
involvement of the institution-affiliated party in any
suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of
law or regulation.
``(B) Limit on liability for disclosures.--A financial
institution, and any director, officer, employee, or agent of
the institution, shall not be liable to any person under any
law or regulation of the United States, any constitution,
law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision
thereof, or under any contract or other legally enforceable
agreement (including any arbitration agreement), for any
disclosure under subparagraph (A), to the extent that--
``(i) the disclosure does not contain information that the
institution, director, officer, employee, agent, or
accountant knows to be false; and
``(ii) the institution, director, officer, employee, agent,
or accountant has not acted with malice or with reckless
disregard for the truth in making the disclosure.
``(C) Institution-affiliated party defined.--For purposes
of this paragraph, the term `institution-affiliated party'
has the same meaning as in section 3(u) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act, except that section 3(u) shall be
applied by substituting the term `financial institution' for
the term `insured depository institution'.''.
(d) Amendments Relating to Availability of Suspicious
Activity Reports for Other Agencies.--Section 5319 of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``5314, or 5316''
and inserting ``5313A, 5314, 5316, or 5318(g)'';
(2) in the last sentence, by inserting ``under section
5313, 5313A, 5314, 5316, or 5318(g)'' after ``records of
reports''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary of
the Treasury may permit the dissemination of information in
any such report to any self-regulatory organization (as
defined in section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934), if the Securities and Exchange Commission determines
that the dissemination is necessary or appropriate to permit
the self-regulatory organization to perform its functions
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and regulations
prescribed under that Act.''.
SEC. 1404. EXPANSION OF SCOPE OF SUMMONS POWER.
Section 5318(b)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``examinations to determine compliance
with the requirements of this subchapter, section 21 of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and chapter 2 of Public Law
91-508 and regulations prescribed pursuant to those
provisions, investigations relating to reports filed by
financial institutions or other persons pursuant to any such
provision or regulation, and'' after ``in connection with''.
SEC. 1405. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING
ORDERS AND CERTAIN RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Civil Penalty for Violation of Targeting Order.--
Section 5321(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or order issued'' after ``regulation
prescribed''.
(b) Criminal Penalties for Violation of Targeting Order.--
Subsections (a) and (b) of section 5322 of title 31, United
States Code, are amended by inserting ``or order issued''
[[Page S358]]
after ``regulation prescribed'' each place that term appears.
(c) Structuring Transactions To Evade Targeting Order or
Certain Recordkeeping Requirements.--Section 5324(a) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting a comma after ``shall'';
(2) by striking ``section--'' and inserting ``section, the
reporting requirements imposed by any order issued under
section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by
any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-
508--''; and
(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``, to
file a report required by any order issued under section
5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any
regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508'' after
``regulation prescribed under any such section'' each place
that term appears.
(d) Increase in Civil Penalties for Violation of Certain
Recordkeeping Requirements.--
(1) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 21(j)(1) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b(j)(1)) is
amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``the greater
of--
``(A) the amount (not to exceed $100,000) involved in the
transaction (if any) with respect to which the violation
occurred; or
``(B) $25,000''.
(2) Public law 91-508.--Section 125(a) of Public Law 91-508
(12 U.S.C. 1955(a)) is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``the greater of--
``(1) the amount (not to exceed $100,000) involved in the
transaction (if any) with respect to which the violation
occurred; or
``(2) $25,000''.
(e) Criminal Penalties for Violation of Certain
Recordkeeping Requirements.--
(1) Section 126.--Section 126 of Public Law 91-508 (12
U.S.C. 1956) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 126. CRIMINAL PENALTY.
``A person that willfully violates this chapter, section 21
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or a regulation
prescribed under this chapter or that section 21, shall be
fined not more than $250,000, or imprisoned for not more than
5 years, or both.''.
(2) Section 127.--Section 127 of Public Law 91-508 (12
U.S.C. 1957) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 127. ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES.
``A person that willfully violates this chapter, section 21
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or a regulation
prescribed under this chapter or that section 21, while
violating another law of the United States or as part of a
pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000
in a 12-month period, shall be fined not more than $500,000,
imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.''.
SEC. 1406. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 407(d) of the Money Laundering Suppression Act of
1994 (31 U.S.C. 5311 note) is amended by striking
``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)''.
SEC. 1407. LIMITED EXEMPTION FROM PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT.
Section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) pursuant to regulations prescribed or orders issued
by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 5318(h) or
5326 of title 31;''.
SEC. 1408. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the
Treasury should, in conjunction with the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, expedite the promulgation of
``know your customer'' regulations for financial
institutions.
Subtitle E--Additional Funding For Source and Interdiction Zone
Countries
SEC. 1501. SOURCE ZONE COUNTRIES.
In addition to other amounts appropriated for Colombia and
Peru for counternarcotics operations for a fiscal year, there
is authorized to be appropriated--
(1) $20,000,000 for Peru for each of fiscal years 2000 and
2001 for supporting additional surveillance, pursuit of drug
aircraft, and general support for counternarcotics
operations;
(2) $75,000,000 for Colombia for each of fiscal years 2000
and 2001, for supporting additional surveillance, pursuit of
drug aircraft, and general support for counternarcotics
operations, including the acquisition of a minimum of 3
Blackhawk helicopters and 2 aerostats; and
(3) $52,000,000 for Bolivian counternarcotics programs for
fiscal year 2000, including high technology detection
equipment for the Chapare region, institution building, and
law enforcement support.
SEC. 1502. CENTRAL AMERICA.
In addition to the other amounts appropriated, under this
Act or any other provision of law, for counternarcotics
matters for countries in Central America, there is authorized
to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for
enhanced efforts in counternarcotics matters by the United
States Coast Guard, the United States Customs Service, and
other law enforcement agencies.
TITLE II--DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Criminal Offenders
SEC. 2001. APPREHENSION AND PROCEDURAL TREATMENT OF ARMED
VIOLENT CRIMINALS.
(a) Congressional Oversight.--
(1) Report to attorney general.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall require each United States Attorney to--
(A) establish an armed violent criminal apprehension task
force comprised of appropriate law enforcement
representatives, which shall be responsible for developing
strategies for removing armed violent criminals from the
streets; and
(B) not less frequently than monthly, report to the
Attorney General on the number of defendants charged with, or
convicted of, violating section 922(g) or 924 of title 18,
United States Code, in the district for which the United
States Attorney is appointed.
(2) Report to congress.--The Attorney General shall prepare
and submit a report to the Congress once every 6 months
detailing the contents of the reports submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1)(B).
(b) Pretrial Detention For Possession of Firearms or
Explosives By Convicted Felons.--Section 3156(a)(4) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) an offense that is a violation of section 842(i) or
922(g) (relating to possession of explosives or firearms by
convicted felons); and''.
(c) Conforming Scienter Change For Transferring a Firearm
to Commit a Crime of Violence.--Section 924(h) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or having
reasonable cause to believe'' after ``knowing''.
(d) Firearms Possession By Violent Felons and Serious Drug
Offenders.--Section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2) Whoever'' and inserting ``(2)(A)
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any person who''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court
shall not grant a probationary sentence to a person who has
more than 1 previous conviction for a violent felony or a
serious drug offense, committed under different
circumstances.''.
SEC. 2002. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT.
(a) Establishment of General Attempt Offense.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 19 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the chapter heading, by striking ``Conspiracy'' and
inserting ``Inchoate offenses''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 374. Attempt to commit offense
``(a) In General.--Whoever, acting with the state of mind
otherwise required for the commission of an offense described
in this title, intentionally engages in conduct that, in
fact, constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of
the offense, is guilty of an attempt and is subject to the
same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the
commission of which was the object of the attempt, except
that the penalty of death shall not be imposed.
``(b) Inability To Commit Offense; Completion of Offense.--
It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section--
``(1) that it was factually impossible for the actor to
commit the offense, if the offense could have been committed
had the circumstances been as the actor believed them to be;
or
``(2) that the offense attempted was completed.
``(c) Exceptions.--This section does not apply--
``(1) to an offense consisting of conspiracy, attempt,
endeavor, or solicitation;
``(2) to an offense consisting of an omission, refusal,
failure of refraining to act;
``(3) to an offense involving negligent conduct; or
``(4) to an offense described in section 1118, 1120, 1121,
or 1153 of this title.
``(d) Affirmative Defense.--
``(1) In general.--It is an affirmative defense to a
prosecution under this section, on which the defendant bears
the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence,
that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and
complete renunciation of criminal intent, the defendant
prevented the commission of the offense.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, a
renunciation is not `voluntary and complete' if it is
motivated in whole or in part by circumstances that increase
the probability of detection or apprehension or that make it
more difficult to accomplish the offense, or by a decision to
postpone the offense until a more advantageous time or to
transfer the criminal effort to a similar objective or
victim.''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The analysis for
chapter 19 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``374. Attempt to commit offense.''.
(b) Rationalization of Conspiracy Penalty and Creation of
Renunciation Defense.--Section 371 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the second undesignated paragraph; and
(2) in the first undesignated paragraph--
(A) by striking ``If two or more'' and inserting the
following:
[[Page S359]]
``(a) In General.--If 2 or more''; and
(B) by striking ``either to commit any offense against the
United States, or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Conspiracy.--If 2 or more persons conspire to commit
any offense against the United States, and 1 or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be subject to the same penalties as those
prescribed for the most serious offense, the commission of
which was the object of the conspiracy, except that the
penalty of death shall not be imposed.''.
SEC. 2003. DRUG OFFENSES COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF
CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--For the purposes of this Act, an offense
is committed in the presence of a child if--
(1) it takes place in the line of sight of an individual
who has not attained the age of 18 years; or
(2) an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years
habitually resides in the place where the violation occurs.
(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the United States Sentencing
Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to
provide, with respect to an offense under part D of the
Controlled Substances Act is committed in the presence of a
child--
(1) a sentencing enhancement of not less than 2 offense
levels above the base offense level for the underlying
offense or 1 additional year, whichever is greater; and
(2) in the case of a second or subsequent such offense, a
sentencing enhancement of not less than 4 offense levels
above the base offense level for the underlying offense, or 2
additional years, whichever is greater.
SEC. 2004. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BORDER DEFENSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Southwest Border of the United States is a major
crossing point for more than 60 percent of the cocaine
entering the United States from Latin America;
(2) drug traffickers are increasingly using violence to
threaten local residents, to endanger lives, and destroy
property;
(3) drug traffickers are creating a law enforcement no-
man's land to facilitate drug trafficking on the Mexican side
of the common border and using extortionate methods, illegal
riches, and intimidation to acquire property on the United
States side of the border; and
(4) United States law enforcement efforts have been
insufficient to protect lives and property or to prevent the
use of illegally obtained riches to acquire property.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President, in cooperation with the Government of
Mexico, should take immediate and effective action at and
near the United States border with Mexico to control violence
and other illegal acts directed at the respective residents
of both countries; and
(2) the Attorney General should submit to the Committees on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report on--
(A) what steps are being taken to ensure the safety of
United States citizens at and near the United States border
with Mexico;
(B) what steps are being taken to prevent the illegal
acquisition of sites and facilities at or near the border by
drug traffickers; and
(C) what further steps need to be taken to ensure the
safety and well being of the people of the United States
along the United States border with Mexico.
SEC. 2005. CLONE PAGERS.
(a) In General.--Section 2511(2)(h) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking clause (i) and inserting
the following:
``(i) to use a pen register, a trap and trace device, or a
clone pager, as those terms are defined in chapter 206
(relating to pen registers, trap and trace devices, and clone
pagers) of this title; or'';
(b) Exception.--Section 3121 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in this section, no
person may install or use a pen register, trap and trace
device, or clone pager without first obtaining a court order
under section 3123 or section 3129 of this title, or under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.).'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``a pen register or a
trap and trace device'' and inserting ``a pen register, trap
and trace device, or clone pager''; and
(3) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 3121. General prohibition on pen register, trap and
trace device, and clone pager use; exception''.
(c) Assistance.--Section 3124 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Clone Pager.--Upon the request of an attorney for the
Government or an officer of a law enforcement agency
authorized to use a clone pager under this chapter, a
provider of electronic communication service shall furnish to
such investigative or law enforcement officer all
information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary
to accomplish the use of the clone pager unobtrusively and
with a minimum of interference with the services that the
person so ordered by the court provides to the subscriber, if
such assistance is directed by a court order, as provided in
section 3129(b)(2) of this title.''; and
(3) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 3124. Assistance in installation and use of a pen
register, trap and trace device, or clone pager''.
(d) Emergency Installations.--Section 3125 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``pen register or a trap and trace device''
and ``pen register or trap and trace device'' each place
those terms appear, and inserting ``pen register, trap and
trace device, or clone pager'';
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``an order approving the
installation or use is issued in accordance with section 3123
of this title'' and inserting ``an application is made for an
order approving the installation or use in accordance with
section 3122 or section 3128 of this title'';
(3) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``In the event that such application for the use of a clone
pager is denied, or in any other case in which the use of the
clone pager is terminated without an order having been
issued, an inventory shall be served as provided for in
section 3129(e).''; and
(4) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 3125. Emergency pen register, trap and trace device,
and clone pager installation and use''.
(e) Reports.--Section 3126 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by striking ``pen register orders and orders for trap
and trace devices'' and inserting ``orders for pen registers,
trap and trace devices, and clone pagers''; and
(2) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 3126. Reports concerning pen registers, trap and trace
devices, and clone pagers''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 3127 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) with respect to an application for the use of a pen
register or trap and trace device, a court of general
criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of
that State to enter orders authorizing the use of a pen
register or a trap and trace device; or
``(C) with respect to an application for the use of a clone
pager, a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State
authorized by the law of that State to issue orders
authorizing the use of a clone pager;'';
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the term `clone pager' means a numeric display device
that receives communications intended for another numeric
display paging device.''.
(g) Applications.--Chapter 206 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3128. Application for an order for use of a clone
pager
``(a) Application.--
``(1) Federal representatives.--Any attorney for the
Government may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for
an order or an extension of an order under section 3129 of
this title authorizing the use of a clone pager.
``(2) State representatives.--A State investigative or law
enforcement officer may, if authorized by a State statute,
apply to a court of competent jurisdiction of such State for
an order or an extension of an order under section 3129 of
this title authorizing the use of a clone pager.
``(b) Contents of Application.--An application under
subsection (a) of this section shall include--
``(1) the identity of the attorney for the Government or
the State law enforcement or investigative officer making the
application and the identity of the law enforcement agency
conducting the investigation;
``(2) the identity, if known, of the individual or
individuals using the numeric display paging device to be
cloned;
``(3) a description of the numeric display paging device to
be cloned;
``(4) a description of the offense to which the information
likely to be obtained by the clone pager relates;
``(5) the identity, if known, of the person who is subject
of the criminal investigation; and
``(6) an affidavit or affidavits, sworn to before the court
of competent jurisdiction, establishing probable cause to
believe that information relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation being conducted by that agency will be obtained
through use of the clone pager.
``Sec. 3129. Issuance of an order for use of a clone pager
``(a) In General.--Upon an application made under section
3128 of this title, the court shall enter an ex parte order
authorizing the use of a clone pager within the jurisdiction
of the court if the court finds that the application has
established probable cause to believe that information
relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted
by that agency will be obtained through use of the clone
pager.
[[Page S360]]
``(b) Contents of an Order.--An order issued under this
section--
``(1) shall specify--
``(A) the identity, if known, of the individual or
individuals using the numeric display paging device to be
cloned;
``(B) the numeric display paging device to be cloned;
``(C) the identity, if known, of the subscriber to the
pager service; and
``(D) the offense to which the information likely to be
obtained by the clone pager relates; and
``(2) shall direct, upon the request of the applicant, the
furnishing of information, facilities, and technical
assistance necessary to use the clone pager under section
3124 of this title.
``(c) Time period and extensions.--
``(1) In general.--An order issued under this section shall
authorize the use of a clone pager for a period not to exceed
30 days. Such 30-day period shall begin on the earlier of the
day on which the investigative or law enforcement officer
first begins use of the clone pager under the order or the
tenth day after the order is entered.
``(2) Extensions.--Extensions of an order issued under this
section may be granted, but only upon an application for an
order under section 3128 of this title and upon the judicial
finding required by subsection (a). An extension under this
paragraph shall be for a period not to exceed 30 days.
``(3) Report.--Within a reasonable time after the
termination of the period of a clone pager order or any
extensions thereof under this subsection, the applicant shall
report to the issuing court the number of numeric pager
messages acquired through the use of the clone pager during
such period.
``(d) Nondisclosure of existence of clone pager.--An order
authorizing the use of a clone pager shall direct that--
``(1) the order shall be sealed until otherwise ordered by
the court; and
``(2) the person who has been ordered by the court to
provide assistance to the applicant may not disclose the
existence of the clone pager or the existence of the
investigation to the listed subscriber, or to any other
person, until otherwise ordered by the court.
``(e) Notification.--Within a reasonable time, not later
than 90 days after the date of termination of the period of a
clone pager order or any extensions thereof, the issuing
judge shall cause to be served, on the individual or
individuals using the numeric display paging device that was
cloned, an inventory including notice of--
``(1) the fact of the entry of the order or the
application;
``(2) the date of the entry and the period of clone pager
use authorized, or the denial of the application; and
``(3) whether or not information was obtained through the
use of the clone pager. Upon an ex-parte showing of good
cause, a court of competent jurisdiction may in its
discretion postpone the serving of the notice required by
this section.''.
(h) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections for chapter
206 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 3121 and
inserting the following:
``3121. General prohibition on pen register, trap and trace device, and
clone pager use; exception.'';
(2) by striking the items relating to sections 3124, 3125,
and 3126 and inserting the following:
``3124. Assistance in installation and use of a pen register, trap and
trace device, or clone pager.
``3125. Emergency pen register, trap and trace device, and clone pager
installation and use.
``3126. Reports concerning pen registers, trap and trace devices, and
clone pagers.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``3128. Application for an order for use of a clone pager.
``3129. Issuance of an order for use of a clone pager''.
(i) Conforming Amendment.--Section 605(a) of title 47,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``chapter 119''
and inserting ``chapters 119 and 206''.
Subtitle B--Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup
SEC. 2101. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING METHAMPHETAMINE
LABORATORY CLEANUP.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) methamphetamine use is increasing;
(2) the production of methamphetamine is increasingly
taking place in laboratories located in rural and urban
areas;
(3) this production involves dangerous and explosive
chemicals that are dumped in an unsafe manner; and
(4) the cost of cleaning up these productionsites involves
major financial burdens on State and local law enforcement
agencies.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration should develop a comprehensive plan for
addressing the need for the speedy and safe clean up of
methamphetamine laboratory sites; and
(2) the Federal Government should allocate sufficient
funding to pay for a comprehensive effort to clean up
methamphetamine laboratory sites.
Subtitle C--Powder Cocaine Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
SEC. 2201. SENTENCING FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING COCAINE
POWDER.
(a) Amendment of Controlled Substances Act.--
(1) Large quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and inserting ``500
grams''.
(2) Small quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``500 grams'' and inserting ``50 grams''.
(b) Amendment of Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act.--
(1) Large quantities.--Section 1010(b)(1)(B) of the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and
inserting ``500 grams''.
(2) Small quantities.--Section 1010(b)(2)(B) of the
Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
960(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``500 grams'' and
inserting ``50 grams''.
(c) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant to
section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal
sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by this
section.
Subtitle D--Drug-Free Borders
SEC. 2301. INCREASED PENALTY FOR FALSE STATEMENT OFFENSE.
Section 542 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``two years'' and inserting ``5 years''.
SEC. 2302. INCREASED NUMBER OF BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
Section 101(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110
Stat. 3009-553) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Increased Number of Border Patrol Agents.--The
Attorney General in each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, and 2004 shall increase by not less than 1,500 the
number of positions for full-time, active-duty border patrol
agents within the Immigration and Naturalization Service
above the number of such positions for which funds were
allotted for the preceding fiscal year, to achieve a level of
15,000 positions by fiscal year 2004.''.
SEC. 2303. ENHANCED BORDER PATROL PURSUIT POLICY.
A border patrol agent of the United States Border Patrol
may not cease pursuit of an alien who the agent suspects has
unlawfully entered the United States, or an individual who
the agent suspects has unlawfully imported a narcotic into
the United States, until State or local law enforcement
authorities are in pursuit of the alien or individual and
have the alien or individual in their visual range.
TITLE III--DEMAND REDUCTION
Subtitle A--Education, Prevention, and Treatment
SEC. 3001. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON REAUTHORIZATION OF SAFE AND
DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT OF 1994.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) drug and alcohol use continue to plague the Nation's
youth;
(2) approximately 5.6 percent of high school seniors
currently smoke marijuana daily;
(3) the American public has identified drugs as the most
serious problem facing its children today;
(4) delinquent behavior is clearly linked to the frequency
of marijuana use; and
(5) 89 percent of students in grades 6 through 12 say their
teachers have taught them about the dangers of drugs and
alcohol.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress and the President should make the reauthorization of
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 a
high priority for the 106th Congress, and that such
reauthorization should maintain substance abuse prevention as
a major focus of the program.
SEC. 3002. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REAUTHORIZATION OF
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) 34.8 percent of Americans 12 years of age and older
have used an illegal drug in their lifetime and 90 percent of
these individuals have used marijuana or hashish and
approximately 30 percent have tried cocaine;
(2) the number of teenagers using drugs has increased
significantly over the past 5 years;
(3) drug abuse is a health issue being faced in every
community, town, State and region of this country;
(4) no one is immune from drug abuse, and such abuse
threatens Americans of every socioeconomic background, every
educational level, and every race and ethnic origin;
(5) in 1990 the United States spent $67,000,000,000 on
drug-related disorders including health costs, the costs of
crime, the costs of accidents and other damages to
individuals and property, and the costs of the loss of
productivity and premature death;
(6) comprehensive prevention activities can help youth in
saying no to drugs;
(7) there are over 6,000 community coalitions throughout
the Nation helping the youth of America chose a healthy life
style;
(8) individuals with addictive disorders should be held
accountable for their actions and should be offered treatment
to help change destructive behavior;
(9) a balanced approach to dealing with drug abuse is
needed in the United States between reducing the demand for
drugs and the
[[Page S361]]
supply of those drugs and a comprehensive plan for addressing
drug abuse will involve prevention, education and treatment
as well as law enforcement and interdiction; and
(10) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration is the lead Federal agency for substance abuse
prevention and treatment initiatives.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress and the President should--
(1) make the reauthorization of Federal substance abuse
prevention and treatment programs a high priority for the
106th Congress; and
(2) provide more flexibility to States in the use of
Federal funds for provision of drug abuse prevention and
treatment services while holding States accountable for their
performance.
SEC. 3003. REPORT ON DRUG-TESTING TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Requirement.--The National Institute on Standards and
Technology shall conduct a study of drug-testing technologies
in order to identify and assess the efficacy, accuracy, and
usefulness for purposes of the National effort to detect the
use of illicit drugs of any drug-testing technologies
(including the testing of hair) that may be used as
alternatives or complements to urinalysis as a means of
detecting the use of such drugs.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Institute shall submit to Congress
a report on the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a).
SEC. 3004. USE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH SUBSTANCE
ABUSE RESEARCH.
(a) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.--
Section 464H of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
285n) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Requirement to Ensure That Research Aids
Practitioners.--The Director, in conjunction with the
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the
Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, shall--
``(1) ensure that the results of all current alcohol
research that is set aside for services (and other
appropriate research with practical consequences) is widely
disseminated to treatment practitioners in an easily
understandable format;
``(2) ensure that such research results are disseminated in
a manner that provides easily understandable steps for the
implementation of best practices based on the research; and
``(3) make technical assistance available to the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment to assist alcohol and drug
treatment practitioners to make permanent changes in
treatment activities through the use of successful treatment
models.''.
(b) National Institute on Drug Abuse.--Section 464L of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285o) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Requirement to Ensure That Research Aids
Practitioners.--The Director, in conjunction with the
Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism and the Director of the Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment, shall--
``(1) ensure that the results of all current drug abuse
research that is set aside for services (and other
appropriate research with practical consequences) is widely
disseminated to treatment practitioners in an easily
understandable format;
``(2) ensure that such research results are disseminated in
a manner that provides easily understandable steps for the
implementation of best practices based on the research; and
``(3) make technical assistance available to the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment to assist alcohol and drug
treatment practitioners to make permanent changes in
treatment activities through the use of successful treatment
models.''.
SEC. 3005. NEEDLE EXCHANGE.
(a) Prohibition Regarding Illegal Drugs and Distribution of
Hypodermic Needles.--Part B of title II of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following section:
``prohibition regarding illegal drugs and distribution of hypodermic
needles
``Sec. 247. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the amounts made available under any Federal law for
any fiscal year may be expended, directly or indirectly, to
carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 506 of Public Law 105-78
is repealed.
SEC. 3006. DRUG-FREE TEEN DRIVERS INCENTIVE.
(a) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
establish an incentive grant program for States to assist the
States in improving their laws relating to controlled
substances and driving.
(b) Grant requirements.--To qualify for a grant under
subsection (a), a State shall carry out the following:
(1) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes
it illegal to drive in the State with any measurable amount
of an illegal controlled substance in the driver's body. An
illegal controlled substance is a controlled substance for
which an individual does not have a legal written
prescription. An individual who is convicted of such illegal
driving shall be referred to appropriate services, including
intervention, counselling, and treatment.
(2) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that makes
it illegal to drive in the State when driving is impaired by
the presence of any drug. The State shall provide that in the
enforcement of such law, a driver shall be tested for the
presence of a drug when there is evidence of impaired driving
and a driver will have the driver's license suspended. An
individual who is convicted of such illegal driving shall be
referred to appropriate services, including intervention,
counselling, and treatment.
(3) Enact, actively enforce, and publicize a law that
authorizes the suspension of a driver's license if the driver
is convicted of any criminal offense relating to drugs.
(4) Enact a law that provides that beginning driver
applicants and other individuals applying for or renewing a
driver's license will be provided information about the laws
referred to in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and will be
required to answer drug-related questions on their
applications.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2004 to carry out this section.
SEC. 3007. DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the continued presence in schools of violent students
who are a threat to both teachers and other students is
incompatible with a safe learning environment;
(2) unsafe school environments place students who are
already at risk of school failure for other reasons in
further jeopardy;
(3) recently, over one-fourth of high school students
surveyed reported being threatened at school;
(4) 2,000,000 more children are using drugs in 1997 than
were doing so a few short years prior to 1997;
(5) more of our children are becoming involved with hard
drugs at earlier ages, as use of heroin and cocaine by 8th
graders has more than doubled since 1991; and
(6) greater cooperation between schools, parents, law
enforcement, the courts, and the community is essential to
making our schools safe from drugs and violence.
SEC. 3008. VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR
TEACHERS AND STUDENTS.
(a) Victim Compensation.--Section 1403 of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10602) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Victims of School Violence.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, an eligible crime victim compensation program may expend
funds appropriated under paragraph (2) to offer compensation
to elementary and secondary school students or teachers who
are victims of elementary and secondary school violence (as
school violence is defined under applicable State law).
``(2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).''.
(b) Victim and Witness Assistance.--Section 1404(c) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(c)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Assistance for victims of and witnesses to school
violence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Director may make a grant under this section for a
demonstration project or for training and technical
assistance services to a program that--
``(A) assists State educational agencies and local
educational agencies (as the terms are defined in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 8801)) in developing, establishing, and operating
programs that are designed to protect victims of and
witnesses to incidents of elementary and secondary school
violence (as school violence is defined under applicable
State law), including programs designed to protect witnesses
testifying in school disciplinary proceedings; or
``(B) supports a student safety toll-free hotline that
provides students and teachers in elementary and secondary
schools with confidential assistance relating to the issues
of school crime, violence, drug dealing, and threats to
personal safety.''.
SEC. 3009. INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO PROTECT TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Elementary school, local educational agency, secondary
school, and state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary
school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'',
and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the
terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(b) Authorization For Report Cards on Schools.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants to States, State educational agencies, and local
educational agencies to develop, establish, or conduct
innovative programs to improve unsafe elementary schools or
secondary schools.
(2) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority to
awarding grants under paragraph (1) to--
[[Page S362]]
(A) programs that provide parent and teacher notification
about incidents of physical violence, weapon possession, or
drug activity on school grounds as soon after the incident as
practicable;
(B) programs that provide to parents and teachers an annual
report regarding--
(i) the total number of incidents of physical violence,
weapon possession, and drug activity on school grounds;
(ii) the percentage of students missing 10 or fewer days of
school; and
(iii) a comparison, if available, to previous annual
reports under this paragraph, which comparison shall not
involve a comparison of more than 5 such previous annual
reports; and
(C) programs to enhance school security measures that may
include--
(i) equipping schools with fences, closed circuit cameras,
and other physical security measures;
(ii) providing increased police patrols in and around
elementary schools and secondary schools, including canine
patrols; and
(iii) mailings to parents at the beginning of the school
year stating that the possession of a gun or other weapon, or
the sale of drugs in school, will not be tolerated by school
authorities.
(c) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each State, State educational agency, or
local educational agency desiring a grant under this
subchapter shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall contain an assurance that the State or agency has
implemented or will implement policies that--
(A) provide protections for victims and witnesses to school
crime, including protections for attendance at school
disciplinary proceedings;
(B) expel students who, on school grounds, sell drugs, or
who commit a violent offense that causes serious bodily
injury of another student or teacher; and
(C) require referral to law enforcement authorities or
juvenile authorities of any student who on school grounds--
(i) commits a violent offense resulting in serious bodily
injury; or
(ii) sells drugs.
(3) Special rule.--For purposes of subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of paragraph (2), State law shall determine what
constitutes a violent offense or serious bodily injury.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
(e) Innovative Voluntary Random Drug Testing Programs.--
Section 4116(b) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7116(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) innovative voluntary random drug testing programs;
and''.
Subtitle B--Drug-Free Families
SEC. 3101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Families Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 3102. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that in
1962, less than one percent of the Nation's adolescents had
ever tried an illicit drug. By 1979, drug use among young
people had escalated to the highest levels in history: 34
percent of adolescents (ages 12-17), 65 percent of high
school seniors (age 18), and 70 percent of young adults (ages
18-25) had used an illicit drug in their lifetime.
(2) Drug use among young people was not confined to initial
trials. By 1979, 16 percent of adolescents, 39 percent of
high school seniors, and 38 percent of young adults had used
an illicit drug in the past month. Moreover, one in nine high
school seniors used marijuana daily.
(3) In 1979, the year the largest number of seniors used
marijuana, their belief that marijuana could hurt them was at
its lowest (35 percent) since surveys have tracked these
measures.
(4) Three forces appeared to be driving this escalation in
drug use among children and young adults. Between 1972 and
1978, a nationwide political campaign conducted by drug
legalization advocates persuaded eleven state legislatures to
``decriminalize'' marijuana. (Many of those states have
subsequently ``recriminalized'' the drug.) Such legislative
action reinforced advocates' assertion that marijuana was
``relatively harmless.''
(5) The decriminalization effort gave rise to the emergence
of ``head shops'' (shops for ``heads,'' or drug users--``coke
heads,'' ``pot heads,'' ``acid heads,'' etc.) which sold drug
paraphernalia--an array of toys, implements, and
instructional pamphlets and booklets to enhance the use of
illicit drugs. Some 30,000 such shops were estimated to be
doing business throughout the Nation by 1978.
(6) In the absence of Federal funding for drug education
then, most of the drug education materials that were
available proclaimed that few illicit drugs were addictive
and most were ``less harmful'' than alcohol and tobacco and
therefore taught young people how to use marijuana, cocaine,
and other illicit drugs ``responsibly''.
(7) Between 1977 and 1980, three national parent drug-
prevention organizations--National Families in Action, PRIDE,
and the National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth
(now called the National Family Partnership)--emerged to help
concerned parents form some 4,000 local parent prevention
groups across the Nation to reverse all of these trends in
order to prevent children from using drugs. Their work
created what has come to be known as the parents drug-
prevention movement, or more simply, the parent movement.
This movement set three goals: to prevent the use of any
illegal drug, to persuade those who had started using drugs
to stop, and to obtain treatment for those who had become
addicted so that they could return to drug-free lives.
(8) The parent movement pursued a number of objectives to
achieve these goals. First, it helped parents educate
themselves about the harmful effects of drugs, teach that
information to their children, communicate that they expected
their children not to use drugs, and establish consequences
if children failed to meet that expectation. Second, it
helped parents form groups with other parents to set common
age-appropriate social and behavioral guidelines to protect
their children from exposure to drugs. Third, it encouraged
parents to insist that their communities reinforce parents'
commitment to protect children from drug use.
(9) The parent movement stopped further efforts to
decriminalize marijuana, both in the states and at the
Federal level.
(10) The parent movement worked for laws to ban the sale of
drug paraphernalia. If drugs were illegal, it made no sense
to condone the sale of toys and implements to enhance the use
of illegal drugs, particularly when those products targeted
children. As town, cities, counties, and states passed anti-
paraphernalia laws, drug legalization organizations
challenged their Constitutionality in Federal courts until
the early 1980's, when the United States Supreme Court upheld
Nebraska's law and established the right of communities to
ban the sale of drug paraphernalia.
(11) The parent movement insisted that drug-education
materials convey a strong no-use message in compliance with
both the law and with medical and scientific information that
demonstrates that drugs are harmful, particularly to young
people.
(12) The parent movement encouraged others in society to
join the drug prevention effort and many did, from First Lady
Nancy Reagan to the entertainment industry, the business
community, the media, the medical community, the educational
community, the criminal justice community, the faith
community, and local, State, and national political leaders.
(13) The parent movement helped to cause drug use among
young people to peak in 1979. As its efforts continued
throughout the next decade, and as others joined parents to
expand the drug-prevention movement, between 1979 and 1992
these collaborative prevention efforts contributed to
reducing monthly illicit drug use by two-thirds among
adolescents and young adults and reduced daily marijuana use
among high-school seniors from 10.7 percent to 1.9 percent.
Concurrently, both the parent movement and the larger
prevention movement that evolved throughout the 1980's,
working together, increased high school seniors' belief that
marijuana could hurt them, from 35 percent in 1979 to 79
percent in 1991.
(14) Unfortunately, as drug use declined, most of the 4,000
volunteer parents groups that contributed to the reduction in
drug use disbanded, having accomplished the job they set out
to do. But the absence of active parent groups left a vacuum
that was soon filled by a revitalized drug-legalization
movement. Proponents began advocating for the legalization of
marijuana for medicine, the legalization of all Schedule I
drugs for medicine, the legalization of hemp for medicinal,
industrial and recreational use, and a variety of other
proposals, all designed to ultimately attack, weaken, and
eventually repeal the Nation's drug laws.
(15) Furthermore, legalization proponents are also
beginning to advocate for treatment that maintains addicts on
the drugs to which they are addicted (heroin maintenance for
heroin addicts, controlled drinking for alcoholics, etc.),
for teaching school children to use drugs ``responsibly,''
and for other measures similar to those that produced the
drug epidemic among young people in the 1970's.
(16) During the 1990's, the message embodied in all of this
activity has once again driven down young people's belief
that drugs can hurt them. As a result, the reductions in drug
use that occurred over 13 years reversed in 1992, and
adolescent drug use has more than doubled.
(17) Today's parents are almost universally in the
workplace and do not have time to volunteer. Many families
are headed by single parents. In some families no parents are
available, and grandparents, aunts, uncles, or foster parents
are raising the family's children.
(18) Recognizing that these challenges make it much more
difficult to reach parents today, several national parent and
family drug-prevention organizations have formed the Parent
Collaboration to address these issues in order to build a new
parent and family movement to prevent drug use among
children.
(19) Motivating parents and parent groups to coordinate
with local community anti-
[[Page S363]]
drug coalitions is a key goal of the Parent Collaboration, as
well as coordinating parent and family drug-prevention
efforts with Federal, State, and local governmental and
private agencies and political, business, medical and
scientific, educational, criminal justice, religious, and
media and entertainment industry leaders.
SEC. 3103. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this subtitle are to--
(1) build a movement to help parents and families prevent
drug use among their children and adolescents;
(2) help parents and families reduce drug abuse and drug
addiction among adolescents who are already using drugs, and
return them to drug-free lives;
(3) increase young people's perception that drugs are
harmful to their health, well-being, and ability to function
successfully in life;
(4) help parents and families educate society that the best
way to protect children from drug use and all of its related
problems is to convey a clear, consistent, no-use message;
(5) strengthen coordination, cooperation, and collaboration
between parents and families and all others who are
interested in protecting children from drug use and all of
its related problems;
(6) help parents strengthen their families, neighborhoods,
and school communities to reduce risk factors and increase
protective factors to ensure the healthy growth of children;
and
(7) provide resources in the fiscal year 2000 Federal drug
control budget for a grant to the Parent Collaboration to
conduct a national campaign to mobilize today's parents and
families through the provision of information, training,
technical assistance, and other services to help parents and
families prevent drug use among their children and to build a
new parent and family drug-prevention movement.
SEC. 3104. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Administrative costs.--The term ``administrative
costs'' means to those costs that the assigned Federal agency
will incur to administer the grant to the Parent
Collaboration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
(3) No-use message.--The term ``no-use message'' means no
use of any illegal drug and no illegal use of any legal drug
or substance that is sometimes used illegally, such as
prescription drugs, inhalants, and alcohol and tobacco for
children and adolescents under the legal purchase age.
(4) Parent collaboration.--The term ``Parent
Collaboration'' means the legal entity, which is exempt from
income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, established by National Families in
Action, National Asian Pacific American Families Against
Substance Abuse, African American Parents for Drug
Prevention, National Association for Native American Children
of Alcoholics, and the National Hispano/Latino Community
Prevention Network and other groups, that--
(A) have a primary mission of helping parents prevent drug
use, drug abuse, and drug addiction among their children,
their families, and their communities;
(B) have carried out this mission for a minimum of 5
consecutive years; and
(C) base their drug-prevention missions on the foundation
of a strong, no-use message in compliance with international,
Federal, State, and local treaties and laws that prohibit the
possession, production, cultivation, distribution, sale, and
trafficking in illicit drugs;
in order to build a new parent and family movement to prevent
drug use among children and adolescents
SEC. 3105. ESTABLISHMENT OF DRUG-FREE FAMILIES SUPPORT
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall make a grant to
the Parent Collaboration to conduct a national campaign to
build a new parent and family movement to help parents and
families prevent drug abuse among their children.
(b) Termination.--The period of this grant under this
section shall be 5 years.
SEC. 3106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
to carry out this subtitle $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 for a grant to the Parent
Collaboration to conduct the national campaign to mobilize
parents and families.
(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 5 percent of the
total amount made available under subsection (a) in each
fiscal year may be used to pay administrative costs of the
Parent Collaboration.
TITLE IV--FUNDING FOR UNITED STATES COUNTER-DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 4001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial Operations.--
Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) $997,300,584 for fiscal year 2000.
``(B) $1,100,818,328 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(b) Commercial Operations.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of section
301(b)(2)(A) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(A)(i) and
(ii)) are amended to read as follows:
``(i) $990,030,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(ii) $1,009,312,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of section 301(b)(3) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)(A) and
(B)) are amended to read as follows:
``(A) $229,001,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(B) $176,967,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
(d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section
301(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(3) Not later than the date on which the President
submits to Congress the budget of the United States
Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs
shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate
the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year
that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs
Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.
SEC. 4002. CARGO INSPECTION AND NARCOTICS DETECTION
EQUIPMENT.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 4001(a) of this title,
$100,036,000 shall be available until expended for
acquisition and other expenses associated with implementation
and deployment of narcotics detection equipment along the
United States-Mexico border, the United States-Canada border,
and Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports, as follows:
(1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
Mexico border, the following:
(A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,000,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $12,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts
to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
(D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors
(busters) to be distributed among ports where the current
allocations are inadequate.
(F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic
volume.
(G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units
to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled
cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection
facility.
(H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
(I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be
distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
(J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera
systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at
loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or
areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
(L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be
distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of
outbound traffic.
(M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations,
with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
(N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be
installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
(O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the
surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons
outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance
activities are occurring.
(P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders
to be distributed to all ports of entry.
(Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle
detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
(R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting
software to be installed at each port to target inbound
vehicles.
(S) $1,000,000 for a demonstration site for a high-energy
relocatable rail car inspection system with an x-ray source
switchable from 2,000,000 electron volts (2-MeV) to 6,000,000
electron volts (6-MeV) at a shared Department of Defense
testing facility for a two-month testing period.
(2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
Canada border, the following:
(A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among
ports as needed.
(G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors
to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic
volume.
(H) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
(I) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(J) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
(K) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
[[Page S364]]
(L) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
(M) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
(N) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
(O) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
(P) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
(Q) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement
Communication Systems (TECS).
(3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the
Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
(A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection
Systems (VACIS).
(B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission
and backscatter imaging.
(C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
(D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters)
to be distributed among ports where the current allocations
are inadequate.
(E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be
distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs
Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.
2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 4001(a) of this title,
$9,923,500 shall be for the maintenance and support of the
equipment and training of personnel to maintain and support
the equipment described in subsection (a).
(c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment;
Transfer of Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use
amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section
301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and
Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as
amended by section 4001(a) of this title, for the acquisition
of equipment other than the equipment described in subsection
(a) if such other equipment--
(A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment
described in subsection (a); and
(ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that
is the same or less than the equipment described in
subsection (a); or
(B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment
described in subsection (a).
(2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate
an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
(A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
(B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (Q) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (Q); and
(C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in
any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).
SEC. 4003. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT.
Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 301(b)(1) of
the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978
(19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A) and (B)), as amended by section
4001(a) of this title, $159,557,000, including $5,673,600,
until expended, for investigative equipment, for fiscal year
2000 and $220,351,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be available
for the following:
(1) A net increase of 535 inspectors, 120 special agents,
and 10 intelligence analysts for the United States-Mexico
border and 375 inspectors for the United States-Canada
border, in order to open all primary lanes on such borders
during peak hours and enhance investigative resources.
(2) A net increase of 285 inspectors and canine enforcement
officers to be distributed at large cargo facilities as
needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) and
reduce commercial waiting times on the United States-Mexico
border and a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed
at large cargo facilities as needed to process and screen
cargo (including rail cargo) and reduce commercial waiting
times on the United States-Canada border.
(3) A net increase of 40 inspectors at sea ports in
southeast Florida to process and screen cargo.
(4) A net increase of 70 special agent positions, 23
intelligence analyst positions, 9 support staff, and the
necessary equipment to enhance investigation efforts targeted
at internal conspiracies at the Nation's seaports.
(5) A net increase of 360 special agents, 30 intelligence
analysts, and additional resources to be distributed among
offices that have jurisdiction over major metropolitan drug
or narcotics distribution and transportation centers for
intensification of efforts against drug smuggling and money
laundering organizations.
(6) A net increase of 2 special agent positions to re-
establish a Customs Attache office in Nassau.
(7) A net increase of 62 special agent positions and 8
intelligence analyst positions for maritime smuggling
investigations and interdiction operations.
(8) A net increase of 50 positions and additional resources
to the Office of Internal Affairs to enhance investigative
resources for anticorruption efforts.
(9) The costs incurred as a result of the increase in
personnel hired pursuant to this section.
SEC. 4004. AIR AND MARINE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2000 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by
section 4001(c) of this title, $130,513,000 shall be
available until expended for the following:
(1) $96,500,000 for Customs aircraft restoration and
replacement initiative.
(2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and
investigative support activities.
(3) $19,013,000 for marine vessel replacement and related
equipment.
(b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for
fiscal year 2001 under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
301(b)(3) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification
Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(3) (A) and (B)) as amended by
section 4001(c) of this title, $75,524,000 shall be available
until expended for the following:
(1) $36,500,000 for Customs Service aircraft restoration
and replacement.
(2) $15,000,000 for increased air interdiction and
investigative support activities.
(3) $24,024,000 for marine vessel replacement and related
equipment.
SEC. 4005. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
As part of the annual performance plan for each of the
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 covering each program activity set
forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as
required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code,
the Commissioner of Customs shall establish performance goals
and performance indicators, and comply with all other
requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of the
activities to be carried out pursuant to sections 1002 and
1003 of this title.
SEC. 4006. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS SALARY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking the following item:
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
(2) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting the following item:
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Treasury.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.
SEC. 4007. PASSENGER PRECLEARANCE SERVICES.
(a) Continuation of Preclearance Services.--Notwithstanding
section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other
provision of law, the Customs Service shall, without regard
to whether a passenger processing fee is collected from a
person departing for the United States from Canada and
without regard to whether funds are appropriated pursuant to
subsection (b), provide the same level of enhanced
preclearance customs services for passengers arriving in the
United States aboard commercial aircraft originating in
Canada as the Customs Service provided for such passengers
during fiscal year 1997.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Preclearance
Services.--Notwithstanding section 13031(f) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19
U.S.C. 58c(f)) or any other provision of law, there are
authorized to be appropriated, from the date of enactment of
this Act through September 30, 2001, such sums as may be
necessary for the Customs Service to ensure that it will
continue to provide the same, and where necessary increased,
levels of enhanced preclearance customs services as the
Customs Service provided during fiscal year 1997, in
connection with the arrival in the United States of
passengers aboard commercial aircraft whose flights
originated in Canada.
Subtitle B--United States Coast Guard
SEC. 4101. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
In addition to amounts to be appropriated for the United
States Coast Guard for fiscal year 2000, there is authorized
to be appropriated $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for operation and maintenance.
Subtitle C--Drug Enforcement Administration
SEC. 4201. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS AND
INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.
In addition to amounts to be appropriated for the Drug
Enforcement Administration for fiscal year 2000, there is
authorized to be appropriated $120,000,000 for fiscal year
2000 for counternarcotics and information support operations.
Subtitle D--Department of the Treasury
SEC. 4301. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COUNTER-DRUG INFORMATION
SUPPORT.
In addition to the other amounts to be appropriated for the
Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2000, there is
authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for counternarcotics, information
support, and money laundering efforts.
Subtitle E--Department of Defense
SEC. 4401. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR EXPANSION OF
COUNTERNARCOTICS ACTIVITIES.
In addition to other amounts to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000, there is
authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for each of fiscal
years
[[Page S365]]
2000 and 2001 to be used to expand activities to stop the
flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
SEC. 4402. FORWARD MILITARY BASE FOR COUNTERNARCOTICS
MATTERS.
(a) The Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects in the
amount of $300,000,000 to establish an air base, or air bases
for use for support of counternarcotics operations in the
areas of the southern Caribbean Sea, northern South America,
and the eastern Pacific Ocean, to be located in Latin America
or the area of the Caribbean Sea, or both.
(b) There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal year 2000, and any succeeding fiscal
year, for military construction and land acquisition for an
airbase referred to subsection (a).
SEC. 4403. EXPANSION OF RADAR COVERAGE AND OPERATION IN
SOURCE AND TRANSIT COUNTRIES.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 2000, $100,000,000 for purposes of the procurement of a
Relocatable Over the Horizon Radar (ROTHR) to be located in
South America.
(b) Authorization To Locate.--The Relocatable Over the
Horizon Radar procured pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in subsection (a) may be located at a location
in South America that is suitable for purposes of providing
enhanced radar coverage of narcotics source zone countries in
South America.
SEC. 4404. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING UNDER WESTERN
HEMISPHERE DRUG ELIMINATION ACT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Teenage drug use in the United States has doubled since
1993.
(2) The drug crisis facing the United States poses a
paramount threat to the national security interests of the
United States.
(3) The trans-shipment of illicit drugs through United
States borders cannot be halted without an effective drug
interdiction strategy.
(4) The Clinton Administration has placed a low priority on
efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs, and the
seizure of such drugs by the Coast Guard and other Federal
agencies has decreased, as is evidenced by a 68 percent
decrease in the pounds of cocaine seized by such agencies
between 1991 and 1996.
(5) The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was enacted
into law on October 19, 1998.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President should allocate funds appropriated for
fiscal year 1999 pursuant to the authorizations of
appropriations for that fiscal year in the Western Hemisphere
Drug Elimination Act in order to carry out fully the purposes
of that Act during that fiscal year; and
(2) the President should include with the budgets for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 that are submitted to Congress
under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a request
for funds for such fiscal years in accordance with the
authorizations of appropriations for such fiscal years in
that Act.
SEC. 4405. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PRIORITY OF THE
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTERDRUG ACTIVITIES OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense
should revise the Global Military Force Policy of the
Department of Defense in order--
(1) to treat the international drug interdiction and
counterdrug activities of the Department as a military
operation other than war, thereby elevating the priority
given such activities under the Policy to the next priority
below the priority given to war under the Policy and to the
same priority given to peacekeeping operations under the
Policy; and
(2) to allocate the assets of the Department to such
activities in accordance with the priority given such
activities under the revised Policy.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the most recent High School survey of
teen drug use tells us something. After years of dramatic increases in
drug use among 12-18 years old, we may have a leveling off. The numbers
are down, but only barely. At this rate of decline, we will reach the
modest goals for drug reduction set by the present Administration in
the year 2050. The Administration seems to find this good news. At
least, they find the present leveling off something to crow about.
Frankly, I think these numbers are the occasion for a little more
modesty and whole lot more work.
That's what the Congress has been doing. The 105th Congress passed
major legislation to fight drugs. It put more money and more muscle
into efforts that the Administration has ignored or downgraded. We did
this because we saw the consequences--more teen drug use. Today, we
continue that effort. Our goal is not to claim bragging rights about
statistically minor changes but to make real changes through serious
efforts. Today, we introduced the ``Drug Free Century Act.'' This is a
comprehensive bill that will be one of the main agenda items for the
106th Congress. It gives us the means to build on what we did last
Congress. It gives us the beef that the Administration has left out to
put in the sandwich.
More important, this bill provides resources to sustain a
comprehensive effort and a coherent policy. In this bill, we provide
the means to support our national and international law enforcement
efforts. We provide the resources to help families and communities get
and remain drug free. We support treatment and education. In short, we
build on success and extend our ability to do yet more.
This bill represents the kind of comprehensive approach that I have
pushed for. It gives us the tools to do the job. More important, it
provides the focus and sustained attention that we need to do the job.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. It is not going to be easy. But we
will be better equipped and more able to do the job.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Reid, Mr. Durbin,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Torricelli, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Bryan):
S. 6. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health
coverage; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
the patients' bill of rights
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we renew the battle in Congress to
enact a strong Patients' Bill of Rights to protect American families
from abuses by HMOs and managed care health plans that too often put
profits over patients' needs.
Our Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families against the
arbitrary and self-serving decisions that can rob average citizens of
their savings and their peace of mind, and often their health and their
very lives. Doctors and patients should be making medical decisions,
not insurance company accountants. Too often, managed care is
mismanaged care. For the millions of Americans who rely on health
insurance to protect them and their loved ones when serious illness
strikes, the Patients Bill of Rights is truly a matter of life and
death.
The dishonor roll of those victimized by insurance company abuses is
long and growing.
A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have
to take him to a distant hospital emergency room covered by their HMO,
rather than to the hospital closest to their home.
A Senate aide suffers a devastating stroke, which might have been far
milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room. The
HMO now even refuses to pay for her wheelchair.
A woman is forced to undergo a mastectomy as an outpatient, instead
of with a hospital stay as her doctor recommends. She is sent home in
pain, with tubes still dangling from her body.
A doctor is punished by being denied future referrals under a managed
care health plan, because he told a patient about an expensive
treatment that could save her life.
The parents of a child suffering from a rare cancer are told that
life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who
happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by a specialist at the
nearby cancer center equipped to perform the operation.
A patient with a fatal cancer is denied participation in a clinical
trial that could save her life.
Our Patients' Bill of Rights addresses all of these problems. It
takes insurance company accountants out of the practice of medicine and
returns decision-making to patients and doctors, where it belongs.
The bottom line is that our program guarantees people the rights that
every
[[Page S366]]
honorable insurance company already grants--and provides an effective,
timely means to enforce these rights. These protections are common-
sense components of good health care that every family believes they
were promised when they purchased health insurance and paid their
premiums.
Virtually all of the patients' protections in this legislation are
already available under Medicare. They have been recommended by the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the President's
Advisory Commission. They have even been proposed as voluntary
standards by the managed care industry itself through its trade
association.
Our Patients' Bill of Rights is a responsible and effective answer to
the widespread problems that patients and their families face every
day. It is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of doctors,
nurses, patients, and advocates for children, women, and working
families, including the American Medical Association, the Consortium of
Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the American
Heart Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the
National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association
of Children's Hospitals, and the AFL-CIO, to name just a few of the
more than 180 groups endorsing our bill.
It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in
support of legislation. But they have done so to end these flagrant
abuses that hurt so many families.
Every family in this country knows that it will some day have to
confront the challenge of serious illness for a parent, or a
grandparent, or a child. When that day comes, all of us want the best
possible medical care for our loved ones. Members of the Senate deserve
good medical care for their loved ones--and we generally get it. Every
other family is equally deserving of high quality care--but too often
they do not get it because their insurance plan is more interested in
profits than patients.
The Patients' Bill of Rights provides simple justice and basic
protection for each of the 160 million Americans with private insurance
who will benefit from this legislation. We will continue to fight for
meaningful patient protections until they are signed into law. We will
not give up this struggle until every family can be confident that a
child or parent or grandparent who is ill will receive the best care
that American medicine can provide.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 9. A bill to combat violent and gang-related crime in schools and
on the streets, to reform the juvenile justice system, target
international crime, promote effective drug and other crime prevention
programs, assist crime victims, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
the safe schools, safe streets, and secure borders act of 1999
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in September 1998, I introduced, with the
support of Senator Daschle and several other Democratic Senators, a
comprehensive crime bill, S. 2484, and am pleased today to join in
introducing an updated version of that bill, the Safe Schools, Safe
Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1999. A number of provisions from S.
2484 were enacted last year and it is my hope that this new bill, S. 9,
will have similar success.
The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1999, S. 9,
is designed to keep our Nation's crime rates moving in the right
direction--downward. This bill builds on prior Democratic crime
initiatives, including the landmark Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, that have reduced violent crime rates by 21
percent over the past five years. Property crime rates have also fallen
by more than 20 percent since 1993. The Nation's serious crime rates
are now at their lowest level since 1973, the first year the national
crime victimization survey was conducted. We are proud of the
significant reduction in crime rates, but we must not become
complacent. Too many Americans still encounter violence in their
neighborhoods, workplaces, and unfortunately, even in their homes. This
bill would ensure that the crime rates continue their downward trend
next year, the year after, and beyond.
The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act builds on the
successful programs we implemented in the 1994 Crime Law while also
addressing emerging crime problems. The bill is comprehensive and
realistic. The new program initiatives are also funded without
downsizing other Federal programs or touching any projected Federal
budget surplus, but instead by extending the Violent Crime Reduction
Trust Fund for two more years.
I am optimistic that we can enact this bill, without partisan or
ideological controversy. In fact, the bill contains a number of
initiatives that enjoy bipartisan support. We have tried to avoid the
easy rhetoric about crime that some have to offer in this crucial area
of public policy. Instead, we have crafted a bill that could actually
make a difference.
The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act targets
violent crime in our schools, reforms the juvenile justice system,
combats gang violence, cracks down on the sale and use of illegal
drugs, enhances the rights of crime victims, and provides meaningful
assistance to law enforcement officers in the battle against street
crime, international crime and terrorism. It also authorizes funding to
deploy 25,000 additional police officers on the streets in the coming
years. The Act represents an important next step in the continuing
effort by Senate Democrats to enact tough yet balanced reforms to our
criminal justice system.
The bill has nine comprehensive titles to address crime in our
schools, crime on our streets, and crime on our borders and abroad. I
should note that the bill contains no new death penalties and no new or
increased mandatory minimum sentences. We can be tough without imposing
the death penalty, and we can ensure swift and certain punishment
without removing all discretion from the judge at sentencing.
Title I of the bill deals with proposals for combating violence in
the schools and punishing juvenile crime. This title provides technical
assistance to schools, reforms the Federal juvenile system, assists
States in prosecuting and punishing juvenile offenders and reduces
juvenile crime, while also protecting children from violence, including
violence from the misuse of guns.
Assistance to Schools. Americans were dismayed and grief-stricken at
the school shootings across the country last year. While homicides at
American schools have remained relatively constant in recent years, the
number of students who have experienced a violent crime in school
increased 23 percent in 1995 compared to 1989. We need to make sure our
children attend school in a safe environment that fosters learning, not
fear.
In response to these concerns, this bill contains an inventive
proposal developed by Senator Bingaman to establish a School Security
Technology Center using expertise from the Sandia National Labs, and
provides grants from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to enable
schools to access technical assistance for school security.
Federal Prosecution of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. The
bill would also make important reforms to the Federal juvenile system,
without federalizing run-of-the-mill juvenile offenses or ignoring the
traditional prerogative of the States to handle the bulk of juvenile
crime. One of the significant flaws in the Republican juvenile crime
bills last year was that they would have--in the words of Chief Justice
Rehnquist--``eviscerate[d] this traditional deference to State
prosecutions, thereby increasing substantially the potential workload
of the federal judiciary.'' The Chief Justice has repeatedly raised
concerns about ``federalizing'' more crimes and in his 1998 Year-End
Report of the Federal Judiciary noted that ``Federal courts were not
created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or
heinous the crimes may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such
problems.'' The Democratic proposals for reform of the Federal juvenile
justice system heed this sound advice and respect our Federal system.
[[Page S367]]
Among other reforms, the Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure
Borders Act would allow Federal prosecution of juveniles only when the
Attorney General certifies that the State cannot or will not exercise
jurisdiction, or when the juvenile is alleged to have committed a
violent, drug or firearm offense.
Prosecutors would be given sole, nonreviewable authority to prosecute
as adults 16- and 17-year-olds who are alleged to have committed the
most serious violent and drug offenses. Limited judicial review is
provided for prosecutors' decisions to try as adults 13-, 14-, and 15-
year-old juveniles, and those 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged with
less serious Federal offenses.
Assistance to States for Prosecuting and Punishing Juvenile
Offenders, and Reducing Juvenile Crime. The bill authorizes grants to
the States for incarcerating violent and chronic juvenile offenders
(with each qualifying State getting at least one percent of available
funds), and provides graduated sanctions, reimburses States for the
cost of incarcerating juvenile alien offenders, and establishes a pilot
program to replicate successful juvenile crime reduction strategies.
Protecting Children from Violence. The bill contains important
initiatives to protect children from violence, including violence
resulting from the misuse of guns. Americans want concrete proposals to
reduce the risk of such incidents recurring. At the same time, we must
preserve adults' rights to use guns for legitimate purposes, such as
home protection, hunting and for sport.
The bill imposes a prospective gun ban for juveniles convicted or
adjudicated delinquent for violent crimes. It also requires revocation
of a firearms dealer's license for failing to have secure gun storage
or safety devices available for sale with firearms. The bill enhances
the penalty for possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime
of violence or drug offense and for violation of certain firearm laws
involving juveniles. In addition, the bill authorizes competitive grant
programs for the establishment of juvenile gun courts and youth
violence courts.
Title II of the bill addresses the problem of gang violence which has
spread from our cities into rural areas of this country. According to
the Department of Justice, more than 846,000 gang members belong to
31,000 youth gangs in the United States, and the numbers are growing.
This part of the bill cracks down on gangs by making the interstate
``franchising'' of street gangs a crime. It will also increase
penalties for crimes during which the convicted felon wears protective
body armor or uses ``laser-sighting'' devices to commit the crime. The
bill doubles the criminal penalties for using or threatening physical
violence against witnesses and contains other provisions designed to
facilitate the use and protection of witnesses to help prosecute gangs
and other violent criminals. The Act also provides funding for law
enforcement agencies in communities designated by the Attorney General
as areas with a high level of interstate gang activity.
Title III of the bill sets forth a number of initiatives in nine
subtitles to combat violence in the streets. The Safe Schools, Safe
Streets, and Secure Borders Act continues successful initiatives in the
1994 Crime Act by putting more police officers on our streets,
providing for the construction of more prisons, preventing juvenile
felons from buying handguns, and assisting law enforcement and
community groups in better protecting women and children from domestic
violence. Specifically, the bill would extend COPS funding into 2001
and 2002 (which should lead to at least 25,000 more officers on the
streets); establish a state minimum of .75 percent for Truth-in-
Sentencing grants and extend this program and the Violent Offender
Incarceration prison grant program into 2001 and 2002; and extend
authorization for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funding and
local law enforcement grant programs.
A significant problem that arose last year was the loss of
confidentiality that had previously attached to the important work of
the U.S. Secret Service. The Departments of Justice and Treasury and
even a former Republican President advise that the safety of future
Presidents may be jeopardized by forcing U.S. Secret Service agents to
breach the confidentiality they need to do their job by testifying
before a grand jury. I trust the Secret Service on this issue; they are
the experts with the mission of protecting the lives of the President
and other high-level elected official and visiting dignitaries. I also
have confidence in the judgment of former President Bush, who has
written, ``I feel very strongly that [Secret Service] agents should not
be made to appear in court to discuss that which they might or might
not have seen or heard.''
The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act provides a
reasonable and limited protective function privilege so future Secret
Service agents are able to maintain the confidentiality they say they
need to protect the lives of the President, Vice President and visiting
heads of state.
This title of the bill also includes a number of provisions to
address the following matters:
Domestic violence: In addition to extending authorized funding for
the Violence Against Women Act, the bill would punish attempts to
commit interstate domestic violence, expand the interstate domestic
violence offense to cover intimidation, and punish interstate travel
with the intent to kill a spouse.
Protecting Law Enforcement and the Judiciary: The Act recognizes that
law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day.
According to the FBI, over 1,000 officers have been killed in the line
of duty since 1980. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders
Act contains provisions to protect the lives of our law enforcement
officers by extending the Bulletproof Vest Partnership grant program
through 2004. It also establishes new crimes and increases penalties
for killing federal officers and persons working with federal officers,
including in their work with federal prisoners, and for retaliation
against federal officials by threatening or injuring their family
members. The Act enhances the penalty for assaults and threats against
Federal judges and other federal officials engaged in their official
duties.
Cargo/Property Theft: The bill also contains an important initiative
proposed by Senator Lautenberg to deter cargo thefts.
Sentencing Improvements: This subtitle doubles the maximum penalty
for manslaughter from 10 to 20 years, consistent with the Sentencing
Commission's recommendation, applies the sentencing guidelines to all
pertinent federal statutes (such as criminal prohibitions in statutes
outside titles 18 and 21 of the United States Code), and other
improvements.
Civil Liberties: The bill includes the ``Hate Crimes Prevention
Act,'' which was originally introduced by Senator Kennedy and has the
strong bipartisan support of over twenty Members, and other initiatives
designed to bolster support for enforcement of civil rights.
National Drunk Driving Standard: The bill includes a provision
sponsored by Senator Lautenberg which requires States to establish a
.08 alcohol standard for driving while intoxicated by 2002 or risk
losing a portion of their federal highway funds.
Title IV of the bill outlines a number of prevention programs that
are critical to further reducing juvenile crime. These programs include
grants to youth organizations and ``Say No to Drugs'' Community
Centers, as well as reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act, Anti-Drug Abuse Programs and Local Delinquency Prevention
Programs. Additional sections include a program suggested by Senator
Bingaman to establish a competitive grant program to reduce truancy,
with priority given to efforts to replicate successful programs.
The bill would also reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) in a similar fashion to H.R. 1818, a bill passed
by the House with strong bipartisan support in the last Congress. This
section creates a new juvenile justice block grant program and retains
the four core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system,
while adopting greater flexibility for rural areas.
Last year, the Senate Republicans tried to gut these core protections
in their juvenile crime bill, S. 10. This Democratic crime bill puts
ideology aside, and follows the advice of numerous child advocacy
experts--including
[[Page S368]]
the Children's Defense Fund, National Collaboration for Youth, Youth
Law Center and National Network for Youth--who believe these key
protections must be preserved in order to protect juveniles who have
been arrested or detained. These core protections ensure that juveniles
are not housed with adults, do not have verbal or physical contact with
adult inmates, and any disproportionate confinement of minority youth
is addressed by the States. If these protections are abolished, many
more youth may end up committing suicide or being released with serious
physical or emotional scars.
Title V of the bill contains five subtitles on combating illegal drug
use. Illegal drugs are too often at the heart of crime. This Act would
protect our children by increasing penalties for selling drugs to kids
and drug trafficking in or near schools, and cracking down on ``club
drugs.'' It goes a step further and encourages pharmacotherapy research
to develop medications for the treatment of drug addiction, a proposal
Senator Biden has urged. It also funds drug courts, which subject
eligible drug offenders to programs of intensive supervision.
Title VI of the bill is intended to increase the rights of victims
within the criminal justice system. The criminal is only half of the
equation. This bill guarantees the rights of crime victims. All States
recognize victims' rights in some form, but they often lack the
training and resources to make those rights a reality. This bill
provides a model Bill of Rights for crime victims in the federal
system, and makes available to the States grants to fund the hiring of
State and Federal victim-witness advocates, training, and the
technology necessary for model notification systems. This bill would
help make victims' rights a reality.
Specifically, this title reforms Federal law and evidence to enhance
victims' participation in all stages of criminal proceedings by giving
victims' a right to notice of detention hearings, plea agreements,
sentencing, probation revocations, escapes or releases from prison, and
to allocution at hearings, as well as grants for obtaining state-of-
the-art systems for providing notice. In addition, this title would
provide grant programs to study the effectiveness of the restorative
justice approach for victims.
Title VII of the bill of details provisions for combating money
laundering. Crime increasingly has an international face, from drug
kingpins to millionaire terrorists, like Usama bin Laden. The money
laundering provisions of this bill hit these international criminals
where it hurts most--in the pocketbook.
These provisions would provide important tools not just to combat
international terrorism but drug trafficking as well. We must have
interdiction, we must have treatment programs; we must tell kids to say
``No'' to drugs. But we have to do more, and taking the profit away
from international drug lords is an effective weapon. This Democratic
crime bill would strengthen these laws.
FBI Director Freeh testified last year before the Senate Judiciary
Committee that enhanced money laundering provisions would be an
important tool against the likes of international terrorists, such as
bin Laden. Director Freeh praised the following provisions set forth in
this title of the bill.
Fugitive Disentitlement to stop drug kingpins, terrorists and other
international fugitives from using our courts to fight to keep the
proceeds of the very crimes for which they are wanted. Criminals should
not be able to use our courts to their benefit at the same time they
are evading our laws.
Immediate seizure of U.S. assets of foreign criminals, so terrorists
and drug lords will not be able to keep their money one step ahead of
the law enforcement.
Limits on Foreign Bank Secrecy to stop criminals from hiding behind
foreign bank secrecy laws while they use U.S. courts.
These and other money laundering provisions in the bill should find
bipartisan support for quick passage before the end of this Congress.
Title VIII sets forth important proposals for combating international
crime. In particular, the bill would punish violent crimes or murder
against American citizens abroad, deny safe havens to international
criminals by strengthening extradition, promote cooperation with
foreign governments on sharing witnesses and evidence, and streamline
the prosecution of international crimes in U.S. courts. Provisions
include:
Giving the FBI authority to investigate and prosecute the murder or
extortion of U.S. citizens and state and local officials involved in
federally-sponsored programs abroad;
Providing for extradition under certain circumstances for offenses
not covered in a treaty or absent a treaty;
Giving the Attorney General authority to transfer and share witnesses
with foreign governments, and obtain and use foreign evidence in
criminals cases;
Prohibiting fugitives from benefitting from time served abroad
fighting extradition;
Adding serious computer crimes as predicate offenses for which
wiretaps may be authorized; and
Providing court order procedures for law enforcement access to stored
information on computer networks.
Finally, Title IX contains provisions to strengthen the air, land and
sea borders of this country. The bill would punish violence at the
borders, increase authority of maritime law enforcement officers at the
borders, increase penalties for smuggling contraband and other
products, strengthen immigration laws to exclude fleeing felons, and
persons involved in racketeering and arms trafficking. Specific
sections include:
Punishing ``port-running,'' which is driving or crashing through
Customs entry ports;
Sanctions for not cooperating with maritime law enforcement officers
by obstructing lawful boarding requests and commands to ``heave to'';
and
Denying admission into the U.S. of persons whom consular officials
have reason to believe are involved in RICO acts, arms trafficking, or
alien smuggling for profit, or are fleeing foreign prosecution.
The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act is a
comprehensive and realistic set of proposals for keeping our schools
safe, our streets safe, our citizens safe when they go abroad, and our
borders secure. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis for
passage of as much of this bill as possible during the 106th Congress.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cleland, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Bryan):
S. 10. A bill to provide health protection and needed assistance for
older Americans, including access to health insurance for 55- to 65-
year-olds, assistance for individuals with long-term care needs, and
social services for older Americans; to the Committee on Finance.
the democratic agenda for senior citizens
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Daschle for his
leadership in making these vital health programs that mean so much to
older Americans a central part of the Democratic agenda. Our proposal
for Early Access to Medicare is a key part of these initiatives. It
provides a lifeline for millions of Americans who are within a few
years of the age of eligibility for Medicare and who have lost their
health insurance coverage or fear that they will lose it. Our proposal
also includes President Clinton's program to assist disabled senior
citizens and their families--assistance that can mean the difference
between institutionalization in a nursing home and the ability to
remain in their own home. In addition, our proposal extends and
strengthens the Older Americans Act, which provides valuable services
for senior citizens, from ``Meals on Wheels'' to employment
opportunities.
Providing early access to Medicare will offer help and hope to more
than three million Americans aged 55 to 64 who have no health insurance
today. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private
coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate
downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel their health
insurance.
In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group
increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have
been left out
[[Page S369]]
and left behind through no fault of their own--often after decades of
hard work and reliable insurance coverage. It is time for Congress to
provide a helping hand.
Many of these citizens have serious health problems that threaten to
destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or
keeping a job. Even those without current health problems know that a
single serious illness could wipe out their savings.
These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other
members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the
longer they remain uninsured. this unnecessary burden of illness is a
preventable human tragedy. It adds to Medicare's long-term costs,
because when these individuals turn 65, they join Medicare with greater
and more costly needs for health care.
Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be
there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the
health insurance they have today will protect them until they qualify
for Medicare at 65.
Our proposal offers several types of assistance. Any uninsured
American who is 62 or older can buy into Medicare. Over time, the
participants will pay the full cost of the coverage, but to help keep
premiums affordable, they can defer payment of part of the premiums
until they turn 65 and Medicare starts to pay most of their health care
costs. Once they turn 65, this deferred portion of the premium will be
paid back at a modest monthly rate estimated at about $10 per month for
each year of participation in the buy-in program.
In addition, individuals age 55-61 who lose their health insurance
because they are laid off or because their company closes will also be
able to buy into Medicare, but they will not qualify for the deferred
premium. Also, people who have retired before age 65 with the
expectation of employer-paid health insurance would be allowed to buy
into the company's program for active workers if the company drops its
retirement coverage before they are eligible for Medicare.
Our proposal is a lifeline for all these Americans. It is also a
constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed
the fundamental right to health care.
In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that
this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and
the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal,
the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this
new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed
through savings obtained by reducing fraud and abuse in Medicare.
Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing
that their final years in the workforce will not be haunted by the fear
of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic medical
needs. Uninsured Americans who are too young for Medicare but too old
to purchase affordable private insurance coverage deserve our help--and
we intend to see that they get it.
Additional assistance for the disabled is also very important. Few
issues are more important to senior citizens and their families than
how to care for a severely disable order person at home. No senior
citizens who want to remain in their own homes should be forced to
enter a nursing home. Children who want to take disabled parents into
their own homes deserve support. The issue of caring for the severely
disabled at home is not just a concern for senior citizens. No parent
should be forced to place a disabled child in institutional care. No
disabled citizen who wants to live independently and can do so should
be denied that opportunity.
President Clinton's proposal is not a comprehensive solution to the
problem of financing needed long-term care. It will not end the
enormous burdens that caregivers often assume. But it is an important
and constructive step that will provide needed help to millions of
families.
Under the proposal, disabled persons or their caregivers will be
entitled to a tax credit of $1,000--far less than the total cost of
caring for a disabled person, but still significant relief that can
help buy a critical piece of equipment, pay for a period of respite
care, or meet other unmet needs.
The proposal also creates a National Family Caregiver Support Program
to develop community resources for counseling, respite care and other
services, training in assisting persons with disabilities, and
providing information about resources available to meet the needs of
the disabled and their caregivers.
One of the most difficult aspects of caring for a disabled parent or
child is not knowing where to turn for help, or finding that help is
not available. This program will help to meet these needs.
Finally, the legislation extends and strengthens the Older Americans
Act, a step that is long overdue. The Act provides essential services
that assist senior citizens in every community. It supports 57 state
agencies on aging, 660 area agencies, and 27,000 service providers who
work with the elderly.
The Act is an essential source of nutrition for many low income and
frail elderly. In FY 1996, more than 3 million older persons were
served 238 million meals with funding from the Act. The Act supported
transportation, assistance, home care, recreation and other important
services provided by 6,400 senior centers. It funded more than 40
million rides and 15 million home care services to older persons. The
Act also pays for training and research in the field of aging. It helps
unemployed low-income older persons to find employment opportunities.
And it provides protection and advocacy services for vulnerable senior
citizens.
Elderly Americans and those nearing retirement have worked all their
lives to build America. When they face basic needs for health care and
long-term care, they deserve the best help that America can provide.
These proposals are important and timely. They will make a very
important difference in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens,
and they deserve prompt enactment by the Congress.
s____
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. 11. A bill for the relief of Wei Jingsheng; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
WEI JINGSHENG FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to seek my colleagues'
support for the Wei Jingsheng Freedom of Conscience Act. This bill will
grant lawful permanent residence to writer and philosopher Wei
Jingsheng, one of the most heroic individuals the international human
rights community has known. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous
consent in 1998 but was not acted upon in the House before the end of
last session.
Mr. President, when I first introduced this legislation I noted that,
for years, Wei has stood up to an oppressive Chinese government,
calling for freedom and democracy through speeches, writings, and as a
prominent participant in the Democracy Wall movement. I also noted that
his dedication to the principles we hold dear, and on which our nation
was founded, brought him 15 years of torture and imprisonment at the
hands of the Chinese communist regime. Seriously ill, Wei was released
only after great international public outcry. Now essentially exiled,
he lives in the United States on a temporary visa and cannot return to
China without facing further imprisonment.
Now more than ever, Mr. President, I believe that granting Wei
permanent residence will show that America stands by those who are
willing to stand up for the principles we cherish. It also will help
Wei in his continuing fight for freedom and democracy in China.
I would like to thank Senators Feingold, Allard, and Wellstone for
cosponsoring this bill. I should note also that this legislation has
been endorsed by important human rights groups such as the Laogai
Research Foundation and Human Rights in China, two organizations
devoted, at great risk to their members and their members' families, to
combating oppression in communist China.
I urge my colleagues to send a strong signal about America's
commitment to human rights, human freedom, and the dignity of the
individual by passing this bill to grant Wei Jingsheng lawful permanent
residence in the United States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S370]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 11
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Wei
Jingsheng Freedom of Conscience Act''.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101 et seq.), Wei Jingsheng shall be held and considered to
have been lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this
Act upon payment of the required visa fee.
SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.
Upon the granting of permanent residence to Wei Jingsheng
as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by one during the
current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth
under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
______
By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 13. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
additional tax incentives for education; to the Committee on Finance.
Collegiate Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concept of
prepaid tuition plans and why they are critically important to
America's families.
As a parent who has put two children through college and who has
another currently enrolled in college, I know first-hand that America's
families are struggling to meet the rising costs of higher education.
In fact, American families have already accrued more college debt in
the 1990's than during the previous three decades combined.
The reason is twofold: the federal government subsidizes student debt
with interest rate breaks and penalizes educational savings by taxing
the interest earned on those savings.
In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition
costs by taking advantage of pre-paid college tuition and savings
plans. These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in
advance.
Mr. President, 39 states, like my home state of Alabama, along with a
nationwide consortium of more than 100 private schools, have
established these tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans. These
plans are extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They
make it easier for families to save for college, while at the same time
taking the uncertainty out of the future cost of college.
Congress has supported participating families by expanding the scope
of the pre-paid tuition plans and by deferring the taxes on the
interest earned until the student goes off to college.
Mr. President, today, I along with Senators Bob Graham, Connie Mack,
Paul Coverdell, Spencer Abraham, and Thad Cochran are introducing ``The
Collegiate Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act'', a common sense
piece of legislation which could help more than 30 million students
afford a college education.
The CLASS Act will make the interest earned on all education pre-paid
plans completely tax-free.
Currently, the interest earned by families saving for college is
taxed twice. Families are taxed on the income when they earn it, and
then again on the interest that accrues from the savings.
On the other hand, the federal government subsidizes student loans by
deferring interest payments until after graduation. It is no wonder
that families are going heavily into debt and at the same time are
struggling to save for college. We strongly believe that this trend
must no longer continue.
In order to provide families a new alternative, The CLASS Act will
provide tax-free treatment to all pre-paid savings plans.
This bipartisan piece of legislation is sound education and tax
policy that provides incentives for savings rather than bureaucratic
solutions. For a small cost, the CLASS Act will provide billions in
potential savings to help families afford a college education.
Mr. President, many individuals have questioned whether these plans
will benefit all types of students. Let me say this, it is wrong to
assume that tuition savings and prepaid plans benefit mainly the
wealthy. In fact, the track record of existing state pre-paid plans
indicates that working, middle-income families, not the rich, benefit
the most from pre-paid plans.
For example, families with an annual income of less than $35,000
purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts sold by the State
of Pennsylvania in 1996. And the average monthly contribution to a
family's college savings account during 1995 in Kentucky was $43.
Tax free treatment for prepaid tuition plans must become law. The
federal government can no longer subsidize student debt with interest
rate breaks and penalize educational savings by taxing the interest
earned by families who are desperately trying to save for college. If
these goals are achieved, the federal government would no longer be
penalizing families for saving but rather be providing families with
help they need to meet the cost of college through savings rather than
through debt.
Mr. President, this legislation has received a tremendous amount of
support from the colleges and universities, higher education
associations, as well as several public policy think tanks. These
include: The Career College Association, the National Association of
Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Council on
Education, the State of Virginia's Prepaid Education Program, The
Heritage Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy.
The idea of tax-free treatment for prepaid tuition plans has also
been endorsed by the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the Birmingham
News.
Mr. President, in particular, I would like to call my colleagues
attention to a September 25, 1998 Heritage Foundation report, authored
by Rea Hederman, a Research Analyst in the Domestic Policy Department
at Heritage. This shows that over 30 million children stand to benefit
from expanded education savings accounts and tuition prepayment plans.
I'd encourage my colleagues to review the Heritage report, which breaks
down these numbers by both State and Congressional district.
Mr. President, I would also like to ask that a copy of this report be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my good friend
Congressman Joe Scarborough, who has introduced the House companion to
the CLASS Act, H.R. 254.
Mr. President, the time to act is now. I encourage my colleagues to
push for this common sense piece of legislation. This Congress should
call on the leadership of both Houses, to make this legislation, which
cold help more than 30 million students afford a college education, a
part of any tax bill we consider this year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a report and letters of
support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Association of
Independent Colleges
and Universities,
August 25, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sessions: On behalf of the over 900
independent colleges and universities that make up the
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities, I want to express our support for your
continued efforts to allow private colleges and universities
to establish prepaid tuition plans that would enjoy the same
tax treatment and preferences as state sponsored plans. We
agree that legislation is desperately needed to allow
students and families who want to utilize prepaid tuition
plans to dedicate the funds to the institution of their
choice. Your legislation allowing private colleges and
universities to compete on a level playing field in the tax
arena is absolutely necessary and fair.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your
colleagues in both the House and Senate to push for the
inclusion of tax relief for private pre-paid tuition programs
in tax legislation expected before the 105th Congress
adjourns. This issue is a top tax priority for independent
higher education and we certainly support your efforts.
Again, thank you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
and when I can be of further assistance on this or any issue
of importance to independent higher education.
Sincerely,
David L. Warren,
President.
[[Page S371]]
____
Commonwealth of Virginia, Higher Education Tuition Trust
Fund, Richmond, VA,
September 16, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
The U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Virginia prepaid education program--support of S. 2425.
Dear Senator Sessions: Thank you for your continuing
support of legislation to encourage college savings through
qualified tuition programs like the Virginia Prepaid
Education Program (``VPEP''). VPEP now represents over a
third of a billion dollars pledged to the futures of more
than 21,000 children, and we are about to begin our third
enrollment period on October 1.
In our continuing efforts to make a college education more
accessible and affordable for families, we very much
appreciate your sponsorship of S. 2425, the Collegiate
Learning and Student Saving Act, which would provide an
exclusion from gross income of interest earnings on qualified
tuition programs like VPEP.
VPEP strongly supports an exclusion from gross income for
earnings on qualified tuition program accounts. This tax
treatment would be less burdensome to administer than current
tax provisions, and would result in better compliance and
less cost to the programs and their participants. More
importantly, an exclusion from gross income would provide a
powerful additional incentive for families to save early for
college expenses.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff should you
need any additional information or have any questions. Thank
you for your continued interest in and support of qualified
tuition programs and the hundreds of thousands of children
for whom college is now an affordable reality.
Sincerely,
Diana F. Cantor,
Executive Director.
____
Enterprise State Junior College, Enterprise AL,
October 1, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sessions. I have reviewed S. 2425 with a great
deal of enthusiasm. I believe that it is a much needed piece
of legislation. It will certainly help many Alabamians who
are struggling to secure a college education for their
children.
Several members of the Enterprise State Junior College
family are participants in the Alabama Prepaid College
Tuition Program. I know that they will be pleased to learn
that those hard earned funds may soon be exempted from the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Likewise, I am sure that
citizens in Florida, Georgia and Kentucky will be
appreciative for the protection that the bill will afford
them.
Senator Sessions, this type legislation clearly
demonstrates both your leadership and sensitivity to the
needs of Alabama citizens. As the state legislative contact
person for the American Association of Community Colleges, I
will encourage my colleagues to support and petition our
friends nationwide to encourage passage of the language.
Sincerely,
Stafford L. Thompson,
President.
____
Samford University,
Birmingham, AL,
August 14, 1998.
Hon. Jeff B. Sessions,
U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
Dear Jeff: I was delighted to learn of your sponsorship of
legislation which would clarify Section 529 so that
appropriate securities statutes apply to prepaid tuition
plans for private institutions in S. 2425, The Collegiate
Learning and Student Savings (CLASS) Act of 1998.
As you may know, Samford University has joined with nearly
sixty independent institutions of higher education to form a
consortium which is working hard to establish the first
nationwide prepaid tuition program geared to American
families who want to enroll their children at independent
institutions. We are convinced this plan will offer millions
of future students and their families a convenient and
affordable method to save for college. Moreover, our
institutions will be able to offer future tuition at current
or discounted-current rates.
In addition, I believe it is important to secure tax
treatment for prepaid tuition plans for private institutions,
similar to that currently offered to state-sponsored tuition
plans. Such tax treatment is essential to the success of our
efforts by making these programs more economically
attractive.
I continue to appreciate all that you are doing for our
state and thank you for your leadership on this proposal and
your commitment to American higher education. If I can be of
further assistance as you move forward, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very sincerely yours,
Thomas E. Corts,
President.
____
Birmingham-Southern College,
Birmingham, AL,
August 5, 1998.
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
Dear Jeff: I am writing to personally thank you for your
continued efforts to bring about legislation to allow private
college prepaid tuition plans. The introduction of your and
Senators Coverdale, Graham and McConnell's ``Colleagiate
Learning and Student Savings Act'' is a valuable step in the
right direction to allow parents and students to save for all
of their educational needs, both public and private. I
applaud your efforts to include the tax-exempt status of
earnings on prepaid tuition plans that is in the bill.
Obviously, this will help students and families be better
able to afford college.
We certainly need a national prepaid tuition plan. As you
know, Birmingham-Southern College is one of more than sixty
private institutions willing to take the responsibility for
establishing a plan if it could be permitted by your
legislation. Most importantly, the private college prepaid
college tuition plan should be good for the nation, and only
the national plan lowers costs without lowering the quality
of the best system of higher education in the world.
We at Birmingham-Southern, stand ready to assist you in
getting S. 2425 passed. Please let us know what we can do to
assist. Again, thank you for your commitment to higher
education.
Sincerely,
Neal R. Berte,
President.
____
[From Time, Dec. 7, 1998]
New Way To Save--State College-Saving Plans Offer Tax Advantages to All
and Can Be Used at Any School in the U.S.
(By Daniel Kadlec)
The best college-savings program you never heard about
keeps getting better. As you think about year-end tax moves,
consider dropping some cash into a state-sponsored plan where
money for college grows tax-deferred and may garner a fat
state income tax exemption as well. This plan is relative new
and often gets confused with more common prepaid-tuition
plans, in which you pay today and attend later--removing
worries about higher tuition in the future. Savings plans are
vastly different and in most cases superior because they are
more flexible.
Prepaid plans offer tax advantages, and some are portable,
but many still apply only to public colleges within the
taxpayer's state. What if Junior gets accepted to Harvard?
You can get your contributions back. But some states refund
only principal, beating you out of years' worth of investment
gains. And state prepaid plans make it tougher to get student
aid because the moneys is held in the student's name. With
savings plans the money is in a parent's name, where it
counts less heavily in student-aid formulas--and you can set
aside as much as $100,000 for expenses at any U.S. college.
Both the prepaid and the college-savings plans vary from
state to state. Check out the website collegesavings.org for
details. It's a fast-moving area. In the next few months,
eight states will join the 15 that already have state
college-savings programs. Those are mostly in addition to the
19 that have prepaid-tuition plans. Only Massachusetts will
probably offer both.
Most of the newer savings plans make contributions
deductible against state taxes. New York, for example,
launched its plan two months ago. It permits couples to set
aside up to $10,000 a year per student and lets New York
residents deduct the full amount from their income on their
state return. Missouri will approve a tax-deductible savings
plan in December. Minnesota is expected to adopt a plan in
which the state matches 5% of your contributions. These
college-savings plans are open to everyone, regardless of
income--in contrast to the Roth IRA and other federal savings
plans in which eligibility begins to phase out for couples
earning more than $100,000.
If your state doesn't offer a college-savings plan, you can
still participate through an out-of-state plan. You won't get
the state tax deduction, but you will get tax-deferred
investment growth; and when the money is tapped, it will be
taxed at the student's rate (usually 15%). Fidelity
Investments (800-544-1722; www.state.nh.us), which runs the
New Hampshire savings plan, and TIAA-CREF (877-697-2837;
www.nysaves.org), which runs the New York plan, make it easy.
If your state later offers a savings plan with a tax
deduction, you can transfer your account penalty free.
Both plans invest mostly in stocks in the early years and
slowly shift into bonds and money markets as your student
nears college age. You get no say in this allocation. The
impact of tax deferral is big. TIAA-CREF estimates that
someone in the 28% tax bracket savings $5,000 a year and
mimicking its investments in a taxable account could expect
to accumulate $167,000 in 18 years. Deferring taxes and then
paying them at 15% brings the total to $190,000. The state
deduction, for those who qualify, pushes the nest egg to
$202,000.
____
[From the Birmingham News, Aug. 2, 1998.]
Borrowing an Idea--Prepaid Tuition Plans Good for Private Colleges as
Well
State-run, prepaid college tuition plans, such as the one
offered in Alabama, are marvelous ideas that are becoming
more popular each year.
They help make sending children to public colleges within
the reach of more families.
It's great that some private colleges are now borrowing the
concept, helping families better afford college educations at
their schools, which often can be several times as expensive
as state-supported schools.
Recently, some 56 private colleges--including Birmingham-
Southern College and Samford University--became members of
[[Page S372]]
Tuition Plan Inc., a new prepaid program designed to work
like the state-run tuition plans:
Parents invest in the plan when their children are young--
through one lump sum or through monthly payments--as a
shelter against inflation, and the fund invests the money to
cover future tuition obligations.
With the private TPI, parents get another bonus; Colleges
agree upfront to discount their tuition a guaranteed amount,
as much as 50 percent at some schools. And, as with the
public school tuition pacts, if a child decides not to go to
a school for which his or her parents already have paid, the
student gets a refund plus some of the interest and minus a
penalty (neither of the amounts has been decided).
Organizers hope to eventually sign up 400 to 500 member
schools.
Some of the important details of TPI haven't yet been
worked out, such as how the money will be invested to
maximize return and security, but the concept is grand.
Not only will it make private school more affordable for
more families, it could lessen the need for financial aid,
since four-fifths of all current students at private colleges
and universities receive some form of it.
And because schools will be discounting their tuition to
plan participants, it also might stem rising tuition costs.
This time, it's the private sector that's learning from
government.
____
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 7, 1998]
If It's for College, Taxes Are Deferred--New State Plans Offer Better
Returns on Long-Term Savings for Higher Education
(By Albert B. Crenshaw)
A growing number of states, taking advantage of recent tax
law changes, are rushing to create savings plans that enable
families to set aside tens of thousands of dollars a year in
tax-deferred accounts to pay college costs.
The new programs allow families to make upfront investments
of as much as $50,000--building accounts that could dwarf the
$500-a-year Education IRA enacted with much fanfare last
year. The initial contribution is not deductible from federal
taxes, but the account's earnings are free of tax until the
child goes to college, when they are taxed at the child's
rate.
The programs, resulting from several seemingly modest
changes in tax law in the past two years, have the potential
to allow families to save hundreds of thousands of dollars
for college while paying sharply reduced taxes on the
earnings.
``We think of it as the best-kept secret of the Taxpayer
Relief Act'' of 1997, said Stephen Mitchell of Fidelity
Investments, the big mutual fund operator.
States can tailor the programs as they see fit, but
typically they are not restricted to residents of the
sponsoring state or to colleges within their borders.
The states are crafting the programs in response to
constituent complaints about the soaring cost of higher
education. The savings accounts are expected to appeal in
particular to middle-class families that earn too much to
qualify for financial aid but often too little to cover
college costs without heavy borrowing. Affluent families
would benefit greatly as well, experts say, because they can
afford to put large sums into the plans.
There is no limit on the incomes of contributors.
Although sponsored by the states, the programs are
typically operated by a large money-management fund, which
invests the cash and handles the administration of the
accounts. Already, Fidelity is operating these plans,
variously known as savings trusts or 529 plans (after the tax
code section permitting them), for Delaware and New
Hampshire.
New York and the Teachers Investment and Annuity
Association are launching one next month. At least five other
states offer some type of savings trust, and at least a dozen
jurisdictions, including Virginia and the District, are
studying the possibility.
New Hampshire established its trust with Fidelity as
manager July 1. According to State Treasurer Georgie Thomas
and a Fidelity spokesman, it works like this:
When a parent or other donor opens an account, the donor's
payments go into the trust where they are pooled with others
and invested in one of seven portfolios of Fidelity mutual
funds.
No taxes are paid on the earnings until the money is
withdrawn, and proceeds can be used for room and board as
well as for tuition. Then, the income is taxable to the
student, who presumably would have little other income and
would be in a lower tax bracket than the parents.
The total allowable contribution for a single beneficiary
is currently $100,311.
If a parent were able to put $50,000 into one of these
accounts for a newborn, and the account earned 10 percent for
18 years, it would total about $278,000 when the child went
off to college. At 8 percent, it would amount to just under
$200,000.
``I think it's a great plan for upper-income and wealthy
people to use,'' said Raymond Loewe of College Money, a
Marlton, N.J., firm specializing in planning for college.
Thomas, though, said she sees it as ``a middle-class
program.'' Low-income people qualify for government grants
and scholarships, and the wealthy can afford to pay out of
pocket, she said, while the middle class is forced to borrow.
While it's possible to make a large contribution, accounts
can be opened with much smaller amounts. With automatic
payments, the plan will allow people to put in as little as
$50 a month, according to Fidelity.
If the child doesn't go to college for whatever reason, the
account can be transferred to a sibling or other beneficiary.
Also, parents can get at the money if they need it. Amounts
can be withdrawn for any reason, though earnings would be
subject to income tax plus a 15 percent penalty.
Politicians at the national and state levels have sought
through a variety of ways to ease the burden of college costs
for middle-class voters. State officials fear that if they do
nothing, they risk losing residents or their money to other
states with attractive programs.
Prepaid tuition plans have been successful in big states
with attractive public college systems. But smaller
jurisdictions, such as New Hampshire, Delaware and the
District, may find it difficult to attract enough families to
a prepaid program to make it viable.
Savings trusts have existed in more limited form since
1990, but they have become much more attractive over the last
two years because of changes in the tax law made by Congress,
at the request of several states.
In 1996, Congress added Section 529 to the federal tax
code, clarifying that investments in such trusts would be
tax-deferred and the distributions taxable at the student's
rate. Before that, their tax status was uncertain. Then last
year's tax law included provisions that allow a family to
contribute up to $50,000 in a lump sum to the trusts without
incurring a gift tax, and which allow the money to be used
for college expenses beyond tuition.
Because of the enormous growth potential--prepaid plans
already have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars--big
money managers are actively vying for a piece of the action.
``The big funds are out there in force,'' said Diana F.
Cantor, executive director of the Virginia Higher Education
Tuition Trust Fund.
Fidelity's Mitchell said the programs fill a gap in
government efforts to assist families in saving for college.
The Education IRA, though its proceeds are tax-free, is too
restricted, and alternatives such as giving money to a child
have a variety of tax and other pitfalls, he said.
``We think for most people who are able to save at all,
$500 a year just isn't enough to let people get to their
goals,'' Mitchell said.
The new savings trusts differ from prepaid tuition plans
that many states, including Virginia and Maryland, have
offered in recent years.
While prepaid tuition plans promise to pay the tuition no
matter what the inflation rate, savings trusts do not. The
beneficiary gets whatever the investment amounts to when it's
time to go to college--and that amount may be more or less
than needed. With prepaid tuition, the state would cover a
shortfall; with a savings trust, that would be up to the
student.
Also, most prepaid tuition plans are restricted to state
residents and state institutions--conditions that limit their
appeal to many families.
This was a factor in New Hampshire's decision to go with a
savings trust, said Thomas, the state treasurer. ``We are a
small state. We have a lot of out-of-state students coming
into our schools, and conversely we have a lot of New
Hampshire students going to out-of-state schools,'' she said.
____
[A Report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis, Sept. 25, 1998]
Who Would Benefit From Prepaid College Tuition Plans?
(By Rea S. Hederman)
In 1997, Congress enacted legislation to provide taxpaying
Americans with new ways to save for their children's college
education. Specifically, Congress created tax-advantaged
``education IRAs'' in the Taxpayer's Relief Act of 1997,
increasing the attractiveness of state-sponsored tuition
savings and prepayment plans. Many Members of Congress now
want to expand these opportunities.
Advoactes of expansion claim that these plans will make it
easier for families to save for college and will take the
uncertainty out of planning for future costs of college
education. They argue that it is time for Congress and
President Bill Clinton to eliminate the double taxation of
interest earned through these programs and end the tax
disparity that currently exists between public and private
colleges.
Indeed, the House Ways and Means Committee recently
adopted, as part of its $80 billion tax-cut package, a modest
expansion of tuition savings and prepayment plans. H.R. 4579
would extend the same tax treatment that state-sponsored
plans enjoy under the current law to plans at private
colleges and universities.
Under this legislation, federal income tax on all interest
earned through the plans--whether public or private--would be
deferred until the student enrolls in college. The
committee's proposal, however, does not go far enough for
some Members who want to make all earnings through all of the
tuition savings and prepayment plans tax-free, thus vastly
expanding their benefits to participating families and
children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many children would benefit from the universal
availability of tax-advantaged tuition savings and prepayment
plans? A Center
[[Page S373]]
for Data Analysis study shows that about 30 million children
could benefit, as demonstrated in the attached table by state
and congressional district.
It should be noted that this study does not calculate the
financial benefits that might flow to families from expanding
tuition savings and prepayment plans, though the numbers
doubtless are significant. American families accumulated more
college debt during the first five years of the 1990s than in
the previous three decades combined.\2\ Recognizing that this
trend cannot continue, several states have established
tuition savings and prepaid tuition plans.\3\
A common criticism of educational savings accounts is that
they are a tax break solely for the rich and upper class, so
not many children will benefit from them. However, the
experience of the existing state plans indicates that
working, middle-income families represent a significant
portion of participants.\4\ For example, families with annual
incomes of less than $35,000 purchased 62 percent of the
prepaid tuition contracts sold by Pennsylvania in 1996. The
average monthly contribution to a family's college savings
account during 1995 in Kentucky was 443.
The attached table shows the number of children who stand
to benefit from expanded educational savings accounts and
tuition prepayment plans.
Methodology
The data in the attached table came from the 1997 March
Current Population Survey produced by the Bureau of the
Census, and other data tabulated by the Census Bureau for The
Heritage Foundation.\5\
Children were considered eligible if they were members of
family that had an annual monetary income of at least 125
percent of the poverty threshold.\6\ The analysis was
conducted at the state level, which gave the aggregate number
of children eligible. The children were distributed based on
each district's percentage of children above the 125 percent
of poverty level.
Finally, the number of children in each district was
multiplied by the percentage of eligible high school
graduates in 1994 who went on to attend college in that
state.\7\
footnotes
\1\ John S. Barry, ``Why Congress Must Fix the Tax Bill's
Educational Savings Plans,'' Heritage Foundation Executive
Memorandum No. 491, September 3, 1997. Legislation has been
introduced by Representative Bill Archer (R-TX), Kay Granger
(R-TX), Philip English (R-PA), and Gerald Weller (R-IL), and
Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL), William Roth (R-DE), Bob
Graham (D-FL), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Paul Coverdell (R-GA),
Thad Cochran (R-MS), Rod Grams (R-MN), and Spencer Abraham
(R-MI).
\2\ ``College Debt and the American Family,'' Report from the
Education Resources Institutes and the Institute for Higher
Education Policy, September 1995, p. 6.
\3\ For an overview of the state-based plans, see College
Savings Plans Network, National Assocication of State
Treasurers, ``Special Report on State College Plans''
(Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments, 1996).
\4\ Nina H. Shokraii and John S. Barry, ``Education:
Empowering Parents, Teachers, and Principals,'' in Stuart M.
Butler and Kim R. Holmes, eds., ``Issues '98: The Candidate's
Briefing Book'' (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation,
1998), p. 280.
\5\ Data available upon request from the author.
\6\ At 125 percent of the poverty level, there is a notable
increase in the number of tax filers who could realize tax
savings from these plans.
\7\ ``Quality Counts,'' Education Week, Vol. XII, No. 17
(January 8, 1998), p. 79.
NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM PREPAID TUITION PLANS (1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of eligible
children in families
with income over 125% of
poverty level
State and U.S. Representative -------------------------
congressional district (party) Number who
are likely
Total to attend
college \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
1................. S. Callahan (R)....... 109,958 70,373
2................. T. Everett (R)........ 115,268 73,771
3................. B. Riley (R).......... 108,420 69,389
4................. R. Aderholt (R)....... 109,574 70,127
5................. B. Cramer (D)......... 115,499 73,919
6................. S. Bachus (R)......... 116,191 74,362
7................. E. Hilliard (D)....... 93,876 60,081
Alaska:...............
Single district... D. Young (R).......... 192,307 71,154
Arkansas:
1................. M. Berry (D).......... 118,855 57,050
2................. V. Snyder (D)......... 133,368 64,017
3................. A. Hutchinson (R)..... 130,365 62,575
4................. J. Dickey (R)......... 117,854 56,570
Arizona:
1................. M. Salmon (R)......... 141,109 70,555
2................. E. Pastor (D)......... 132,973 66,486
3................. B. Stump (R).......... 136,859 68,295
4................. J. Shadegg (R)........ 139,219 69,609
5................. J. Kolbe (R).......... 128,124 64,062
6................. J.D. Hayworth (R)..... 143,739 71,870
California:
1................. F. Riggs (R).......... 118,120 72,053
2................. W. Herger (R)......... 108,623 66,260
3................. V. Fazio (D).......... 118,120 72,053
4................. J. Doolittle (R)...... 119,307 72,777
5................. R. Matsui (D)......... 106,249 64,812
6................. L. Woolsey (D)........ 109,217 66,622
7................. G. Miller (D)......... 121,682 74,226
8................. N. Pelosi (D)......... 67,073 40,915
9................. B. Lee (D)............ 89,629 54,674
10................ E. Tauscher (D)....... 124,649 76,036
11................ R. Pombo (R).......... 120,494 73,502
12................ T. Lantos (D)......... 101,500 61,915
13................ P. Stark (D).......... 125,243 76,398
14................ A. Eshoo (D).......... 99,126 60,467
15................ T. Cambell (R)........ 112,184 68,433
16................ Z. Lofgren (R)........ 127,261 77,629
17................ S. Farr (D)........... 118,536 72,307
18................ G. Condit (D)......... 128,211 78,209
19................ G. Radanovich (R)..... 118,702 72,408
20................ C. Dooley (D)......... 115,087 70,203
21................ W. Thomas (R)......... 125,718 76,688
22................ L. Capps (D).......... 103,477 63,121
23................ E. Gallegly (R)....... 131,713 80,345
24................ B. Sheman (D)......... 105,655 64,450
25................ B. McKeon (R)......... 133,434 81,395
26................ H. Berman (D)......... 116,102 70,822
27................ J. Rogan (R).......... 98,817 60,279
28................ D. Dreier (R)......... 126,430 77,122
29................ H. Waxman (D)......... 59,772 36,461
30................ X. Becerra (D)........ 98,889 60,322
31................ M. Martinez (D)....... 118,714 72,415
32................ J. Dixon (D).......... 91,410 55,760
33................ L. Roybal-Allard (D).. 115,075 70,196
34................ E. Torres (D)......... 134,740 82,191
35................ M. Waters (D)......... 111,223 67,846
36................ H. Harman (D)......... 94,555 57,679
37................ J. Millender-McDon (D) 125,421 76,507
38................ S. Horn (R)........... 102,865 62,748
39................ E. Royce (R).......... 122,097 74,479
40................ J. Lewis (R).......... 127,855 77,991
41................ J. Kim (R)............ 140,379 85,631
42................ G. Brown (D).......... 143,584 87,586
43................ K. Calvert (R)........ 139,489 85,088
44................ M. Bono (R)........... 116,636 71,148
45................ D. Rohrabacher (R).... 100,313 61,191
46................ L. Sanchez (D)........ 121,147 73,900
47................ C. Cox (R)............ 113,965 69,519
48................ R. Packard (R)........ 123,450 75,305
49................ B. Bilbray (R)........ 74,523 45,459
50................ B. Filner (D)......... 119,901 73,140
51................ R. Cunningham (R)..... 120,732 73,646
52................ D. Hunter (R)......... 124,056 75,674
Colorado:
1................. D. DeGette (D)........ 97,017 50,449
2................. D. Skaggs (D)......... 137,236 71,363
3................. S. McInnis (R)........ 123,228 64,079
4................. B. Schaffer (R)....... 137,667 71,587
5................. J. Hefley (R)......... 147,008 76,444
6................. D. Schaefer (R)....... 142,118 73,901
Connecticut:
1................. B. Kennelly (D)....... 105,416 62,195
2................. S. Gejdenson (D)...... 116,249 68,587
3................. R. DeLauro (D)........ 107,728 63,560
4................. C. Shays (R).......... 107,593 63,480
5................. J. Maloney (D)........ 121,727 71,819
6................. N. Johnson (R)........ 117,467 69,305
Delaware:
Single district... M. Castle (R)......... 148,092 96,260
District of Columbia:
Delegate.......... E. Holmes-Norton (D).. 55,515 34,364
Florida:
1................. J. Scarborough (R).... 105,015 51,457
2................. A. Boyd (D)........... 102,603 50,276
3................. C. Brown (D).......... 97,342 47,697
4................. T. Fowler (R)......... 107,207 52,532
5................. K. Thurman (D)........ 77,566 38,008
6................. C. Stearns (R)........ 108,084 52,961
7................. J. Mica (R)........... 108,150 52,994
8................. B. McCollum (R)....... 104,862 51,382
9................. M. Bilirakis (R)...... 96,634 47,350
10................ B. Young (R).......... 77,829 38,136
11................ J. Davis (D).......... 95,193 46,645
12................ C. Canady (R)......... 106,550 52,209
13................ D. Miller (R)......... 77,939 38,190
14................ P. Goss (R)........... 84,034 41,177
15................ D. Weldon (R)......... 99,600 48,804
16................ M. Foley (R).......... 94,711 46,408
17................ C. Meek (D)........... 102,516 50,233
18................ I. Ros-Lehtinen (R)... 82,718 40,532
19................ R. Wexler (D)......... 88,791 43,508
20................ P. Deutsch (D)........ 105,673 51,780
21................ L. Diaz-Balart (R).... 111,395 54,583
22................ C. Shaw (R)........... 58,339 28,586
23................ A. Hastings (D)....... 99,819 48,911
Georgia:
1................. J. Kingston (R)....... 122,289 72,151
2................. S. Bishop (D)......... 104,436 61,617
3................. M. Collins (R)........ 139,461 82,282
4................. C. McKinney (D)....... 129,267 76,268
5................. J. Lewis (D).......... 94,173 55,562
6................. N. Gingrich (R)....... 140,511 82,901
7................. B. Barr (R)........... 130,930 77,249
8................. S. Chambliss (R)...... 125,811 74,228
9................. N. Deal (D)........... 126,757 74,786
10................ C. Norwood (R)........ 125,162 73,845
11................ J. Linder (R)......... 123,877 73,087
Hawaii:
1................. N. Abercrombie (D).... 85,883 53,247
2................. P. Mink (D)........... 105,297 65,284
Idaho:
1................. H. Chenoweth (R)...... 111,901 53,713
2................. M. Crapo (R).......... 134,379 64,502
Illinois:
1................. B. Rush (D)........... 96,817 61,963
2................. J. Jackson (D)........ 122,876 78,641
3................. W. Lipinski (D)....... 120,353 77,026
4................. L. Gutierrez (D)...... 128,044 81,948
5................. R. Blagojevich (D).... 92,506 59,204
6................. H. Hyde (R)........... 130,909 83,782
7................. D. Davis (D).......... 90,865 58,154
8................. P. Crane (R).......... 146,021 93,453
9................. S. Yates (D).......... 86,834 55,574
10................ J. Porter (R)......... 138,134 88,406
11................ J. Weller (R)......... 136,665 87,466
12................ J. Costello (D)....... 113,207 72,452
13................ H. Fawell (R)......... 155,443 99,483
14................ D. Hastert (R)........ 150,405 96,259
15................ T. Ewing (R).......... 116,361 74,471
16................ D. Manzullo (R)....... 140,412 89,864
17................ L. Evans (D).......... 118,541 75,866
18................ R. LaHood (R)......... 127,725 81,744
19................ G. Poshard (D)........ 113,300 72,512
20................ J. Shimkus (R)........ 123,317 78,923
Indiana:
1................. P. Visclosky (D)...... 111,638 61,401
2................. D. McIntosh (R)....... 103,673 57,020
3................. T. Roemer (D)......... 115,806 63,693
4................. M. Souder (R)......... 127,521 70,137
5................. S. Buyer (R).......... 118,667 65,267
6................. D. Burton (R)......... 125,156 68,836
7................. E. Pease (R).......... 108,033 59,418
8................. J. Hostettler (R)..... 101,105 55,608
9................. L. Hamilton (D)....... 116,673 64,170
10................ J. Carson (D)......... 98,097 53,953
Iowa:
1................. J. Leach (R).......... 134,186 85,879
2................. J. Nussle (R)......... 136,633 87,445
3................. L. Boswell (D)........ 127,263 81,449
4................. G. Ganske (R)......... 135,757 86,884
5................. T. Latham (R)......... 140,138 89,688
Kansas:
1................. J. Moran (R).......... 144,997 82,649
2................. J. Ryun (R)........... 137,921 78,615
3................. V. Snowbarger (R)..... 148,361 84,566
4................. T. Tiahrt (R)......... 148,709 84,764
Kentucky:
1................. E. Whitfield (R)...... 108,223 53,029
2................. R. Lewis (R).......... 122,191 59,874
3................. A. Northup (R)........ 106,786 52,325
4................. J. Bunning (R)........ 106,793 52,329
5................. H. Rogers (R)......... 122,476 60,013
6................. S. Baesler (D)........ 95,828 46,956
Louisiana:
1................. B. Livingston (R)..... 108,873 57,703
2................. W. Jefferson (D)...... 83,892 44,463
3................. B. Tauzin (R)......... 114,456 60,662
4................. J. McCrery (R)........ 81,386 43,135
5................. J. Cooksey (R)........ 103,361 54,782
6................. R. Baker (R).......... 111,951 59,334
7................. C. John (D)........... 111,808 59,258
Maine:
1................. T. Allen (D).......... 98,056 49,028
2................. J. Baldacci (D)....... 87,165 43,582
Maryland:
1................. W. Gilchrest (R)...... 122,453 67,349
2................. R. Ehrlich (R)........ 126,439 69,541
3................. B. Cardin (D)......... 116,874 64,281
4................. A. Wynn (D)........... 132,915 73,103
[[Page S374]]
5................. S. Hoyer (D).......... 135,008 74,254
6................. R. Bartlett (R)....... 132,118 72,665
7................. E. Cummings (D)....... 98,541 54,197
8................. C. Morella (R)........ 132,018 72,610
Massachusetts:
1................. J. Olver (D).......... 120,136 78,088
2................. R. Neal (D)........... 126,714 82,364
3................. J. McGovern (D)....... 124,290 80,789
4................. B. Frank (D).......... 123,852 80,504
5................. M. Meehan (D)......... 131,445 85,439
6................. J. Tierney (D)........ 119,674 77,788
7................. E. Markey (D)......... 104,556 67,961
8................. J. Kennedy (D)........ 76,744 49,883
9................. J. Moakley (D)........ 109,865 71,412
10................ W. Delahunt (D)....... 121,290 78,838
Michigan:
1................. B. Stupak (D)......... 119,337 71,602
2................. P. Hoekstra (R)....... 134,397 80,638
3................. V. Ehlers (R)......... 136,876 82,125
4................. D. Camp (R)........... 119,719 71,831
5................. J. Barcia (D)......... 121,053 72,632
6................. F. Upton (R).......... 118,194 70,916
7................. N. Smith (R).......... 124,675 74,805
8................. D. Stabenow (D)....... 124,294 74,576
9................. D. Kildee (D)......... 119,337 71,602
10................ D. Bonior (D)......... 127,725 76,635
11................ J. Knollenberg (R).... 125,438 75,263
12................ S. Levin (D).......... 120,862 72,517
13................ L. Rivers (D)......... 116,668 70,001
14................ J. Conyers (D)........ 101,418 60,851
15................ C. Kilpatrick (D)..... 74,348 44,609
16................ J. Dingell (D)........ 122,006 73,204
Minnesota:
1................. G. Gutknecht (R)...... 140,016 74,208
2................. D. Minge (D).......... 146,786 77,796
3................. J. Ramstad (R)........ 149,042 78,992
4................. B. Vento (D).......... 120,351 63,786
5................. M. Sabo (D)........... 90,263 47,840
6................. B. Luther (D)......... 162,582 86,168
7................. C. Peterson (D)....... 134,321 71,190
8................. J. Oberstar (D)....... 131,204 69,538
Mississippi:
1................. R. Wicker (R)......... 103,157 71,178
2................. B. Thompson (D)....... 83,724 57,770
3................. C. Pickering (R)...... 100,691 69,477
4................. M. Parker (R)......... 93,730 64,674
5................. G. Taylor (D)......... 102,093 70,444
Missouri
1................. B. Clay (D)........... 132,587 67,619
2................. J. Talent (R)......... 178,713 91,144
3................. R. Gephardt (D)....... 157,259 80,202
4................. I. Skelton (D)........ 155,542 79,327
5................. K. McCarthy (D)....... 140,310 71,558
6................. P. Danner (D)......... 160,906 82,062
7................. R. Blunt (R).......... 143,957 73,418
8................. J. Emerson (R)........ 135,161 68,932
9................. K. Hulshof (R)........ 163,266 83,266
Montana: Single R. Hill (R)........... 167,712 90,564
district.
Nebraska:
1................. D. Bereuter (R)....... 114,111 68,466
2................. J. Christensen (R).... 121,139 72,684
3................. B. Barrett (R)........ 116,184 69,710
Nevada:
1................. J. Ensign (R)......... 151,025 57,389
2................. J. Gibbons (R)........ 168,267 63,941
New Hampshire:
1................. J. Sununu (R)......... 115,308 64,572
2................. C. Bass (R)........... 116,934 65,483
New Jersey:
1................. R. Andrews (D)........ 117,947 75,486
2................. F. LoBiondo (R)....... 108,200 69,248
3................. J. Saxton (R)......... 119,218 76,300
4................. C. Smith (R).......... 113,568 72,684
5................. M. Roukema (R)........ 121,478 77,746
6................. F. Pallone (D)........ 104,669 66,988
7................. B. Franks (R)......... 108,200 69,248
8................. W. Pascrell (D)....... 102,127 65,361
9................. S. Rothman (D)........ 92,521 59,214
10................ D. Payne (D).......... 96,900 62,016
11................ R. Frelinghuysen (R).. 117,665 75,305
12................ M. Pappas (R)......... 119,360 76,390
13................ R. Menendez (D)....... 90,685 58,038
New Mexico:
1................. H. Wilson (R)......... 111,873 60,411
2................. J. Skeen (R).......... 110,860 59,864
3................. B. Redmond (R)........ 114,946 62,071
New
Yor
k:.
1................. M. Forbes (R)......... 126,450 88,515
2................. R. Lazio (R).......... 121,392 84,975
3................. P. King (R)........... 111,909 78,336
4................. C. McCarthy (D)....... 112,225 78,557
5................. G. Ackerman (D)....... 103,373 72,361
6................. G. Meeks (D).......... 113,173 79,221
7................. T. Manton (D)......... 81,561 57,092
8................. J. Nadler (D)......... 62,593 43,815
9................. C. Schumer (D)........ 90,096 63,067
10................ E. Towns (D).......... 88,199 61,739
11................ M. Owens (D).......... 107,167 75,017
12................ N. Velazquez (D)...... 84,406 59,084
13................ V. Fossella (R)....... 104,322 73,025
14................ C. Maloney (D)........ 51,529 36,070
15................ C. Rangel (D)......... 68,283 47,798
16................ J. Serrano (D)........ 80,612 56,428
17................ E. Engel (D).......... 92,309 64,616
18................ N. Lowey (D).......... 96,102 67,272
19................ S. Kelly (R).......... 117,915 82,540
20................ B. Gilman (R)......... 124,238 86,966
21................ M. McNulty (D)........ 102,425 71,697
22................ G. Solomon (R)........ 121,709 85,196
23................ S. Boehlert (R)....... 110,960 77,672
24................ J. McHugh (R)......... 117,283 82,098
25................ J. Walsh (R).......... 115,070 80,549
26................ M. Hinchey (D)........ 104,322 73,025
27................ B. Paxon (R).......... 123,289 86,302
28................ L. Slaughter (D)...... 105,586 73,910
29................ J. LaFalce (D)........ 107,167 75,017
30................ J. Quinn (R).......... 102,425 71,697
31................ A. Houghton (R)....... 113,489 79,442
North Carolina
1................. E. Clayton (D)........ 95,341 48,624
2................. B. Etheridge (D)...... 108,085 55,123
3................. W. Jones (R).......... 110,897 56,557
4................. D. Price (D).......... 108,506 55,338
5................. R. Burr (R)........... 103,406 52,737
6................. H. Coble (R).......... 110,594 56,403
7................. M. McIntyre (D)....... 107,856 55,006
8................. B. Hefner (D)......... 120,546 61,479
9................. S. Myrick (R)......... 118,039 60,200
10................ C. Ballenger (R)...... 114,700 58,497
11................ C. Taylor (R)......... 97,202 49,573
12................ M. Watt (D)........... 102,001 52,021
North Dakota: Single E. Pomeroy (D)........ 131,864 89,667
district.
Ohio:
1................. S. Chabot (R)......... 108,478 55,324
2................. R. Portman (R)........ 134,306 68,496
3................. T. Hall (D)........... 111,622 56,927
4................. M. Oxley (R).......... 127,343 64,945
5................. P. Gillmore (R)....... 138,573 70,672
6................. T. Strickland (D)..... 107,579 54,865
7................. D. Hobson (R)......... 123,525 62,998
8................. J. Boehner (R)........ 132,958 67,809
9................. M. Kaptur (D)......... 118,135 60,249
10................ D. Kucinich (D)....... 110,948 56,583
11................ L. Stokes (D)......... 94,777 48,337
12................ J. Kasich (R)......... 119,932 61,165
13................ S. Brown (D).......... 135,204 68,954
14................ T. Sawyer (D)......... 109,600 55,896
15................ D. Pryce (R).......... 109,600 55,896
16................ R. Regula (R)......... 121,279 61,852
17................ J. Traficant (D)...... 109,151 55,667
18................ B. Ney (R)............ 113,868 58,073
19................ S. LaTourette (R)..... 119,258 60,822
Oklahoma:
1................. S. Largent (R)........ 103,052 50,495
2................. T. Coburn (R)......... 97,609 47,828
3................. W. Watkins (R)........ 89,236 43,726
4................. J. C. Watts (R)....... 106,521 52,195
5................. E. Istook (R)......... 104,069 50,994
6................. F. Lucas (R).......... 97,669 47,858
Oregon:
1................. E. Furse (D).......... 117,445 66,944
2................. R. Smith (R).......... 109,222 62,256
3................. E. Blumenauer (D)..... 105,138 59,929
4................. P. DeFazio (D)........ 105,910 60,369
5................. D. Hooley (D)......... 114,189 65,088
Pennsylvania:
1................. R. Brady (D).......... 86,253 49,164
2................. C. Fattah (D)......... 83,100 47,367
3................. R. Borski (D)......... 103,594 59,049
4................. R. Klink (D).......... 108,323 61,744
5................. J. Peterson (R)....... 105,396 60,076
6................. T. Holden (D)......... 108,999 62,129
7................. C. Weldon (R)......... 112,377 64,055
8................. J. Greenwood (R)...... 131,745 75,094
9................. B. Shuster (R)........ 111,927 63,798
10................ J. McDade (R)......... 111,251 63,413
11................ P. Kanjorski (D)...... 102,018 58,150
12................ J. Murtha (D)......... 102,693 58,535
13................ J. Fox (R)............ 116,656 66,494
14................ W. Coyne (D).......... 84,452 48,137
15................ P. McHale (D)......... 112,602 64,183
16................ J. Pitts (R).......... 127,466 72,655
17................ G. Gekas (R).......... 117,782 67,136
18................ M. Doyle (D).......... 97,514 55,583
19................ W. Goodling (R)....... 117,332 66,879
20................ F. Mascara (D)........ 100,892 57,508
21................ P. English (R)........ 109,675 62,515
Rhode Island:
1................. P. Kennedy (D)........ 79,820 51,883
2................. R. Weygand (D)........ 83,345 54,174
South Carolina:
1................. M. Sanford (R)........ 115,317 66,884
2................. F. Spence (R)......... 112,748 65,394
3................. L. Graham (R)......... 109,390 63,446
4................. B. Inglis (R)......... 110,114 63,866
5................. J. Spratt (D)......... 112,814 65,432
6................. J. Clyburn (D)........ 98,194 56,952
South Dakota Single J. Thune (R).......... 140,376 70,188
district.
Tennessee:
1................. W. Jenkins (R)........ 96,498 52,109
2................. J. Duncan (R)......... 101,581 54,854
3................. Z. Wamp (R)........... 104,267 56,304
4................. V. Hilleary (R)....... 104,555 56,460
5................. B. Clement (D)........ 100,143 54,077
6................. B. Gordon (D)......... 125,082 67,544
7................. E. Bryant (R)......... 124,123 67,026
8................. J. Tanner (D)......... 108,871 58,791
9................. H. Ford (D)........... 94,004 50,762
Texas:
1................. M. Sandlin (D)........ 109,450 54,725
2................. J. Turner (D)......... 111,250 55,625
3................. S. Johnson (R)........ 137,172 68,586
4................. R. Hall (D)........... 124,931 62,466
5................. P. Sessions (R)....... 109,090 54,545
6................. J. Barton (R)......... 143,653 71,826
7................. B. Archer (R)......... 140,772 70,386
8................. K. Brady (R).......... 140,412 70,206
9................. N. Lampson (D)........ 119,891 59,945
10................ L. Doggett (D)........ 107,650 53,825
11................ C. Edwards (D)........ 114,850 57,425
12................ K. Granger (R)........ 121,331 60,665
13................ W. Thornberry (R)..... 110,890 55,445
14................ R. Paul (R)........... 117,730 58,865
15................ R. Hinojosa (D)....... 101,169 50,584
16................ S. Reyes (D).......... 114,490 57,245
17................ C. Stenholm (D)....... 114,130 57,065
18................ S. Lee (D)............ 96,128 48,064
19................ L. Combest (D)........ 130,332 65,166
20................ H. Gonzalez (D)....... 107,650 53,825
21................ L. Smith (R).......... 125,651 62,826
22................ T. DeLay (R).......... 142,573 71,286
23................ H. Bonilla (R)........ 118,090 59,045
24................ M. Frost (D).......... 132,852 66,426
25................ K. Bentsen (D)........ 128,891 64,446
26................ R. Armey (R).......... 132,132 66,066
27................ S. Ortiz (D).......... 109,810 54,905
28................ C. Rodriguez (D)...... 113,770 56,885
29................ G. Green (D).......... 118,090 59,045
30................ E. Johnson (D)........ 106,209 53,105
Utah:
1................. J. Hansen (R)......... 180,375 101,010
2................. M. Cook (R)........... 166,456 93,215
3................. C. Cannon (R)......... 174,484 97,711
Vermont: Single B. Sanders (I)........ 114,170 58,227
district.
Virginia:
1................. H. Bateman (R)........ 105,583 55,959
2................. O. Pickett (D)........ 103,453 54,830
3................. R. Scott (D).......... 80,333 42,576
4................. N. Sisisky (D)........ 101,961 54,039
5................. V. Goode (D).......... 87,791 46,529
6................. B. Goodlatte (R)...... 87,045 46,134
7................. T. Bliley (R)......... 106,223 56,298
8................. J. Moran (D).......... 83,103 44,045
9................. R. Boucher (D)........ 81,718 43,311
10................ F. Wolf (R)........... 116,770 61,888
11................ T. Davis (R).......... 111,017 58,839
Washington:
1................. R. White (R).......... 135,518 77,245
2................. J. Metcalf (R)........ 131,200 74,784
3................. L. Smith (R).......... 128,543 73,269
4................. D. Hastings (R)....... 125,111 71,313
5................. G. Nethercutt (R)..... 118,578 67,590
6................. N. Dicks (D).......... 121,236 69,104
7................. J. McDermott (D)...... 79,606 45,375
8................. J. Dunn (R)........... 145,372 82,862
9................. A. Smith (D).......... 126,993 72,386
West Virginia:
1................. A. Mollohan (D)....... 75,146 37,573
2................. B. Wise (D)........... 78,123 39,062
3................. N. Rahall (D)......... 70,579 35,290
Wisconsin:
1................. M. Neumann (R)........ 123,637 74,182
2................. S. Klug (R)........... 117,215 70,329
3................. R. Kind (D)........... 122,113 73,268
4................. G. Kleczka (D)........ 119,686 71,812
5................. T. Barrett (D)........ 93,816 56,290
6................. T. Petri (R).......... 126,575 75,945
7................. D. Obey (D)........... 124,616 74,770
8................. J. Johnson (D)........ 126,466 75,880
9................. J. Sensenbrenner (R).. 138,982 83,389
Wyoming: Single B. Cubin (R).......... 105,143 55,726
district.
-------------------------
United States..... ...................... 48,464,580 30,048,040
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This figure was obtained by multiplying the number of children
considered eligible to use the prepaid tuitions by the state
percentage of high school graduates who attend college. This study
does not attempt to predict the increase in number of children who
would attend college as a result of the prepaid tuition plans.
\2\ All data were taken from the 1997 March Current Population Survey
and other Bureau of the Census tabulations.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and tabulations by The Heritage Foundation.
[[Page S375]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of eligible
children in families
with income over 125% of
poverty level
State -------------------------
Number who
are likely
Total to attend
college
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................... 769,479 492,466
Alaska........................................ 192,307 71,154
Arizona....................................... 821,835 410,918
Arkansas...................................... 500,442 240,212
California.................................... 5,935,685 3,620,768
Colorado...................................... 784,294 407,833
Connecticut................................... 676,262 398,994
Delaware...................................... 148,092 96,260
District of Columbia.......................... 55,515 34,419
Florida....................................... 2,192,380 1,074,266
Georgia....................................... 1,362,858 804,086
Hawaii........................................ 188,381 116,796
Idaho......................................... 244,326 117,277
Illinois...................................... 2,449,191 1,567,482
Indiana....................................... 1,126,515 619,583
Iowa.......................................... 674,064 431,401
Kansas........................................ 579,989 330,594
Kentucky...................................... 664,549 325,629
Louisiana..................................... 715,800 379,374
Maine......................................... 185,220 92,610
Maryland...................................... 996,365 548,001
Massachusetts................................. 1,154,041 750,127
Michigan...................................... 1,906,347 1,143,808
Minnesota..................................... 1,074,564 569,519
Mississippi................................... 483,396 333,543
Missouri...................................... 1,072,706 547,080
Montana....................................... 167,712 90,564
Nebraska...................................... 351,434 210,860
Nevada........................................ 319,292 121,331
New Hampshire................................. 232,242 130,055
New Jersey.................................... 1,412,539 904,025
New Mexico.................................... 337,678 182,346
New York...................................... 3,161,260 2,212,882
North Carolina................................ 1,297,173 661,558
North Dakota.................................. 131,864 89,667
Ohio.......................................... 2,245,912 1,145,415
Oklahoma...................................... 598,095 293,067
Oregon........................................ 551,904 314,586
Pennsylvania.................................. 2,252,045 1,283,666
Rhode Island.................................. 163,165 106,057
South Carolina................................ 658,577 381,975
South Dakota.................................. 140,376 70,188
Tennessee..................................... 959,220 517,979
Texas......................................... 3,600,318 1,800,159
Utah.......................................... 521,315 291,936
Vermont....................................... 114,170 58,227
Virginia...................................... 1,065,424 564,675
Washington.................................... 1,107,174 631,089
West Virginia................................. 223,849 111,924
Wisconsin..................................... 1,088,351 653,011
Wyoming....................................... 105,143 55,726
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Sessions and
other colleagues in launching an initiative to increase Americans'
access to college education. Today, we are introducing the Collegiate
Learning and Student Savings Act. This bill would extend tax-free
treatment to all state sponsored prepaid tuition plans and state
savings plans in the year 2000. This legislation would also give
prepaid tuition plans established by private colleges and universities
tax-deferred treatment in 2000, and tax-exempt status by 2004.
Prepaid college tuition and savings programs have flourished at the
state level in the face of spiraling college costs. According to the
College Board, between 1980 and 1997, tuition at public colleges
increased by 107 percent, while the median income increased just 12
percent. The cause of this dramatic increase in tuition is the subject
of significant debate. But whether these increases are attributable to
increased costs to the universities, reductions in state funding for
public universities, or the increased value of a college degree, the
fact remains that financing a college education has become increasingly
difficult.
Although the federal government has increased its aid to college
students over the years, it is the states who have engineered
innovative ways to help its families afford college. Michigan
implemented the first prepaid tuition plan in 1986. Florida followed in
1988. today 43 states have either implemented or are in the process of
implementing prepaid tuition plans or state savings plans.
Mr. President, prepaid college tuition plans allow parents to pay
prospectively for their children's higher education at participating
universities. States pool these funds and invest them in a manner that
will match or exceed the pace of educational inflation. This ``locks
in'' current tuition and guarantees financial access to a future
college education. Congress has already acted to ensure that tax on
distributions from state sponsored programs are tax-deferred.
Senator Sessions and I believe the 106th Congress must move to make
state programs 100 percent tax free. Students should be able to enroll
in college without fear of then having to pay taxes on the money
accrued. The legislation would extend the same treatment to private
college prepaid programs in 2004.
We believe that these programs should be tax free for numerous
reasons. First, for most families, they have in essence purchased a
service to be provided in the future. The accounts are not liquid. The
funds are transferred from the state directly to the college or
university. Under current policy, the student is required to find other
means of generating the funds to pay the tax. Second, Congress should
make these programs tax free in order to encourage savings and college
attendance.
Perhaps most importantly, prepaid tuition and savings programs help
middle income families afford a college education. Florida's experience
shows that it is not higher income families who take most advantage of
these plans. It is middle income families who want the discipline of
monthly payments. They know that they would have a difficult time
coming up with funds necessary to pay for college if they waited until
their child enrolled. In Florida, more than 70 percent of participants
in the state tuition program have family incomes of less than $50,000.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my colleagues in
support of good tax policies which enhance our higher education goals.
Prepaid tuition plans deserve our support through enactment of
legislation that would make them tax-free for American families and
students.
______
By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 14. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the use of education individual retirement accounts, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
education savings account act of 1999
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education
Savings Account Act of 1999.
Under this bill, parents will have more control over their children's
education through IRA-style savings accounts that allow parents to save
money tax-free for elementary and secondary education expenses. This
legislation allows parents, grandparents, or scholarship sponsors to
contribute up to $2,000 (post-tax dollars) a year per child for
educational expenses while at public, private, religious or home
schools--from kindergarten through high school. The accumulated
interest in the savings accounts is tax-free if used for the child's
education.
Just consider the benefits of these innovative education savings
accounts: if a parent placed $2,000 each year in an education savings
account beginning in the year of a child's birth, then assuming a 7.5%
interest rate, $14,488 would be available by the first grade, $36,847
by the time the child starts junior high school, and $46,732 when the
child starts high school.
For a child attending public school, this money could be used for
after-school tutoring, car pooling or other transportation costs,
school uniforms, or for a home computer. The Joint Committee on
Taxation estimates that 75% of all families using these accounts--10.8
million families--will use them to support children in public schools.
These savings accounts give parents the power to obtain the necessary
tools to overcome current obstacles to obtaining a quality education
for their children.
This legislation is modeled on the Education Savings Accounts that
were established for college as part of the bipartisan Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997. Last year, a similar version of this bill passed both the
House and the Senate but was vetoed by President Clinton.
I am confident that because this is an idea that benefits millions of
working American families, President Clinton will put aside his
differences and join us in our effort this Congress.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mrs. Feinstein).
S. 17. A bill to increase the availability, affordability, and
quality of child care; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
child care a.c.c.e.s.s. act (Affordable Child Care for Early Success
and Security)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care
A.C.C.E.S.S. (Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security)
Act, legislation designed to improve the quality,
[[Page S376]]
affordability and accessibility of child care in America.
Any member who spent time in his or her state over the past two
months enters the 106th Congress knowing with certainty that no issue
weighs more heavily on the minds of parents in this country than how
their children are cared for.
Parents worry that they can't afford to take time away from work to
be with their children. When they must work, they worry that the child
care they need will be unavailable, unaffordable or unsafe. It's a
constant, daily struggle.
The challenge before us is straightforward: to do a better job of
supporting families in the choices they make about the care of their
children.
Providing support for families' choices does not require inventing a
slew of new programs. We have programs already in existence that work
and that enjoy bipartisan support. Our goal should be to build on the
foundation we've already laid with programs like the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and
with targeted tax credits that help working families defray the costs
of raising children.
But, providing real support does require making sure that adequate
resources are there when families need them. And that's where we're
falling short.
Mr. President, this is the reality in communities across the country:
Because of a lack of funding, the Child Care and Development Block
Grant serve only 1 out of 10 eligible children. In two-thirds of our
states, families earning $25,000 make too much to be eligible for any
assistance through the block grant. Ironically, these same families
earn too little and have too little tax liability to take full
advantage of the non-refundable Dependent Care Tax Credit. What kind of
choices do those families have when full-day child care costs $4,000 to
$10,000 per year--equal to the cost of college tuition plus room and
board at many public universities?
Many parents are dismayed to learn that some kinds of care are
unavailable at any cost. For example, care for infants is virtually
non-existent in many communities. And the problem is only getting
worse. The GAO estimates that by the time the 50 percent welfare to
work participation goal is reached in 2002, 88 percent of parents with
infants needing child care will not be able to find it. This
corresponds to 24,000 young children, in the city of Chicago alone,
without child care. What choices will those parents have?
We know conclusively that the experiences in the first months and
years of children's lives play a significant role in shaping their
future. Many parents would prefer to be able to stay home with their
children during that critical time, but are unable to shoulder the
financial burden of losing an income. What choices are we offering
those families?
Options are also limited for parents of school-age children. Five
million children go unsupervised each day between the hours of 3 and 6
pm. Not coincidentally, these are the hours when juvenile crime peaks
and when children are at an increased risk of being victims of crimes
themselves. We also know that eighth-graders left home alone after
school report greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than
those who are in adult-supervised settings. What kind of choices do
parents have when more than half of schools offer no afterschool
programs?
Even when families can find affordable care, they still must worry
about whether that care will be safe. Studies have found that only one
in seven child care centers provides care that promotes healthy
development. Child care at one in eight centers actually threatens
children's health and safety. And infants and toddlers--our youngest
and most vulnerable children--fare the worst. Almost half of infant and
toddler care endangers health and safety. What kind of choices are we
offering parents who must work but want their children to be in safe
and loving environments?
I know that some will argue that child care is a private problem and
one that families should be left to solve on their own. If so, then we
would be treating child care very differently than we do other
essential children's needs, like education and health care.
For example, we don't expect families to bear the financial costs of
educating their children alone. In addition to providing public
elementary and secondary schools, we pick up three-quarters of the
costs of educating a student at a public university.
And we don't expect families to shoulder the burden of providing
health care for their children alone. Two-thirds of families have that
expense subsidized through their employers or through public programs
such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
We as a nation have an interest in well-educated and healthy
children. And so, we accept that the federal government, states and
employers play a role in getting us to these laudable goals--of public
education and health.
I believe that there is just as compelling a national interest in
making sure our children are safe and well-cared for. That is why I
rise today to offer a plan that will broadly improve the ability of
families to make better choices when it comes to our children's care.
There are seven main parts to our initiative:
First, our bill would provide an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years
through the Child Care and Development Block Grant to increase the
amount of child care subsidies available to working families. This
investment will double the number of children served by the block grant
to 2 million by 2004.
Second, this legislation will provide $2 billion over 5 years to
encourage states to invest in activities known to produce significant
improvements in the quality of child care. For example, we will help
states to: bring provider-child ratios to nationally recommended
levels; improve the enforcement of quality standards by conducting
unannounced inspections; conduct background checks on child care
providers; improve the compensation, education and training of child
care providers; educate parents how to find good quality child care;
and ensure that high quality child care is available to children with
disabilities.
In addition, this bill would involve communities in improving the
quality of early childhood development by providing $2.5 billion over 5
years in grants to local collaboratives to strengthen services for
young children. The bill would also encourage dedicated child care
providers to stay in the profession by helping with the repayment of
educational loans.
This initiative would provide $2 billion over 5 years to increase the
supply and quality of school-age care through the Child Care and
Development Block Grant. In addition, we would encourage more schools
to keep their doors open beyond the regular school day by expanding the
21st Century Community Learning Centers program to $600 million in FY
2000.
This bill would also expand the existing Dependent Care Tax Credit
for families earning under $60,000 and index the credit for inflation
to help it keep pace with rising child care costs. We would also make
the credit refundable so that families with little or no tax liability
(those making under $30,000) can receive assistance with child care
expenses.
This legislation would also provide new assistance for families who
make the difficult choice to forgo a second income or career and to
stay at home with their children. Stay-at-home parents with children
under the age of 1 could claim up to $540 through an expansion of the
existing Dependent Care Tax Credit. This new credit would also be made
refundable--to allow stay-at-home parents earning under $30,000 to
benefit.
This bill would create a new discretionary program of competitive
``challenge grants'' in which communities who generate funds from the
private sector would be eligible for matched federal grants to improve
the availability and quality of child care on a community-wide basis.
This program would be authorized at $400 million over 5 years. We would
provide a new tax incentive to open high quality, on-site child care
centers or to assist their employees in finding and paying for child
care off-site.
Finally, we would also ensure that the federal government leads by
example in providing its workers only the highest quality child care.
Many people would be surprised to hear that federal child care
facilities are currently exempted from state quality regulations.
[[Page S377]]
In this bill we require that all federal child care centers meet all
state licensing standards.
Mr. President, this is a comprehensive package--it is a bold agenda--
but it is not pie in the sky. We can and must do this for America's
families.
I was disappointed, but not disheartened, about the lack of progress
made on this front last year, when I introduced similar legislation.
But I know that all good things take time. I fought for more than 3
years to see the enactment of the original Child Care and Development
Block Grant and 8 years to see the signing of the Family and Medical
Leave Act.
But, I'm not looking to set any new endurance records with this
legislation. I am hopeful that this year, we can work together again to
give families the resources they need to better care for their
children.
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a summary of this
bill be printed in the Record. I would also ask unanimous consent that
letters of support from the Children's Defense Fund and the National
Women's Law Center be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 17
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 ``Child Care
ACCESS (Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security)
Act''.
(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--IMPROVING THE AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE
Sec. 101. Increased appropriations for child care grants.
TITLE II--ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
Subtitle A--Child Care
Sec. 201. Grants to improve the quality of child care.
Subtitle B--Young Child Assistance Activities
Sec. 211. Definitions.
Sec. 212. Allotments to States.
Sec. 213. Grants to local collaboratives.
Sec. 214. Supplement not supplant.
Sec. 215. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle C--Loan Cancellation for Child Care Providers
Sec. 221. Loan cancellation.
TITLE III--EXPANDING THE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILD
CARE
Sec. 301. Appropriations for after-school care.
Sec. 302. Amendments to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
Act.
TITLE IV--SUPPORTING FAMILY CHOICES IN CHILD CARE
Sec. 401. Expanding the dependent care tax credit.
Sec. 402. Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.
Sec. 403. Credit made refundable.
TITLE V--ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
Sec. 501. Allowance of credit for employer expenses for child care
assistance.
Sec. 502. Grants to support public-private partnerships.
TITLE VI--CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Providing quality child care in Federal facilities.
Sec. 603. Child care services for Federal employees.
Sec. 604. Miscellaneous provisions relating to child care provided by
Federal agencies.
Sec. 605. Requirement to provide lactation support in new Federal child
care facilities.
Sec. 606. Federal child care evaluation.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Each day an estimated 13,000,000 children spend some
part of their day in child care.
(2) Fifty-four percent of mothers with children between the
ages of 0-3 are in the work force. Labor force participation
rises to 63 percent for mothers with children under the age
of 6 and to 78 percent for mothers with children ages 6-17.
(3) The availability of child care that is reliable,
convenient, and affordable helps parents to reach and
maintain self-sufficiency and is essential to making the
transition from welfare to work.
(4) Only an estimated 1 out of 10 eligible families receive
assistance in paying for child care through the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990.
(5) Full-day child care can cost $4,000 to $9,000 a year.
(6) In many instances, high quality child care services
cost little more than mediocre services. An investment of
only an additional 10 percent has been found to have a
significant impact on quality.
(7) Only 1 in 7 child care centers provides care that
promotes healthy development. Child care at 1 in 8 centers
actually threatens children's health and safety.
(8) The education, training, and salary of a child care
provider make the difference between poor and good quality
child care.
(A) The average salary of a child care provider in a center
is only $12,058 a year, which is approximately equal to the
poverty level for a family of 3.
(B) Home-based providers earn $9,000 a year on average.
(9) Poor compensation and limited opportunities for
professional training and education contribute to high
turnover among child care providers, which disrupts the
creation of strong provider-child relationships that are
critical to children's healthy development.
(10) Children placed in poor quality child care settings
have been found to have delayed language and reading skills,
as well as increased aggressive behavior toward other
children and adults.
(11) Nearly 5,000,000 children are home alone after school
each week.
(12) Although it is thought that juvenile crime occurs
mostly on evenings and weekends, juvenile crime actually
peaks between 3 and 6 p.m.
(13) Eighth-graders left home alone after school report
greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those
in adult-supervised settings.
TITLE I--IMPROVING THE AFFORDABILITY OF CHILD CARE
SEC. 101. INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHILD CARE GRANTS.
Section 418(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
618(a)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraphs (C) through
(F) and inserting the following:
``(C) $3,167,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(D) $3,367,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(E) $4,067,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(F) $4,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(G) $4,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
TITLE II--ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
Subtitle A--Child Care
SEC. 201. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.
Section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Grants To Improve the Quality of Child Care and Early
Childhood Development.--
``(1) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary shall use the
amounts appropriated under paragraph (2) to make grants to
States in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Appropriation.--For grants under this section, there
are appropriated--
``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(C) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(D) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
``(3) Allotments to states.--The amounts appropriated under
paragraph (2) for payments to States under this paragraph
shall be allotted among the States in the same manner as
amounts (including the redistribution of unused amounts) are
allotted or redistributed, as the case may be, under
subsection (a)(2), except that the matching requirement of
subsection (a)(2)(C) shall not apply to a grant made under
this subsection.
``(4) Use of funds.--Funds received by a State through a
grant made under this subsection may be used for any of the
following:
``(A) Bringing provider-child ratios up to standards
recommended by nationally recognized child care accrediting
bodies.
``(B) Improving the enforcement of licensing standards,
including the use of unannounced inspections of child care
providers.
``(C) Conducting background checks on child care providers.
``(D) Providing increased payment rates for child care
services for infants and for children with special health
care needs.
``(E) Providing increased payment rates for child care
services offered by licensed or accredited providers.
``(F) Improving the compensation of child care providers.
``(G) Assisting child care providers in becoming licensed
or accredited.
``(H) Expanding activities to educate parents on the
availability and quality of child care, including the
development and operation of resource and referral systems.
``(I) Creating support networks and mentoring and
apprenticeship programs for family child care providers.
``(J) Establishing linkages between child care services and
health care services.
``(K) Offering training and education to child care
providers, including offering scholarships and tax credits to
assist with the expenses of obtaining such training and
education.
``(L) Providing family support and parent education.
[[Page S378]]
``(M) Ensuring the availability and quality of child care
for children with special health care needs.''.
Subtitle B--Young Child Assistance Activities
SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801).
(2) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' means the
poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and
Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section
673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C.
9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(4) State board.--The term ``State board'' means a State
Early Learning Coordinating Board established under section
212(c).
(5) Young child.--The term ``young child'' means an
individual from birth through age 5.
(6) Young child assistance activities.--The term ``young
child assistance activities'' means the activities described
in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 213(b).
SEC. 212. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments under
subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for the Federal
share of the cost of enabling the States to make grants to
local collaboratives under section 213 for young child
assistance activities.
(b) Allotment.--
(1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under section
215 for each fiscal year and not reserved under subsection
(i), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible State an
amount that bears the same relationship to such funds as the
total number of young children in poverty in the State bears
to the total number of young children in poverty in all
eligible States.
(2) Young child in poverty.--In this subsection, the term
``young child in poverty'' means an individual who--
(A) is a young child; and
(B) is a member of a family with an income below the
poverty line.
(c) State Boards.--
(1) In general.--In order for a State to be eligible to
obtain an allotment under this subtitle, the Governor of the
State shall establish, or designate an entity to serve as, a
State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which shall receive
the allotment and make the grants described in section 213.
(2) Established board.--A State board established under
paragraph (1) shall consist of the Governor and members
appointed by the Governor, including--
(A) representatives of all State agencies primarily
providing services to young children in the State;
(B) representatives of business in the State;
(C) chief executive officers of political subdivisions in
the State;
(D) parents of young children in the State;
(E) officers of community organizations serving low-income
individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the State;
(F) representatives of State nonprofit organizations that
represent the interests of young children in poverty, as
defined in subsection (b)(2), in the State;
(G) representatives of organizations providing services to
young children and the parents of young children, such as
organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start
programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.),
providing services through a family resource center,
providing home visits, or providing health care services, in
the State; and
(H) representatives of local educational agencies.
(3) Designated board.--The Governor may designate an entity
to serve as the State board under paragraph (1) if the entity
includes the Governor and the members described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (2).
(4) Designated state agency.--The Governor shall designate
a State agency that has a representative on the State board
to provide administrative oversight concerning the use of
funds made available under this subtitle and ensure
accountability for the funds.
(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive an allotment
under this subtitle, a State board shall annually submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
At a minimum, the application shall contain--
(1) sufficient information about the entity established or
designated under subsection (c) to serve as the State board
to enable the Secretary to determine whether the entity
complies with the requirements of such subsection;
(2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying out young child
assistance activities;
(3) an assurance that the State board will provide such
information as the Secretary shall by regulation require on
the amount of State and local public funds expended in the
State to provide services for young children; and
(4) an assurance that the State board shall annually
compile and submit to the Secretary information from the
reports referred to in section 213(e)(2)(F)(iii) that
describes the results referred to in section 213(e)(2)(F)(i).
(e) Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described in
subsection (a) shall be--
(A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for which the
Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section
1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b))) is
not less than 50 percent, but is less than 60 percent;
(B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State for which such
percentage is not less than 60 percent, but is less than 70
percent; and
(C) 90 percent, in the case of any State not described in
subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) State share.--
(A) In general.--The State shall contribute the remaining
share (referred to in this paragraph as the ``State share'')
of the cost described in subsection (a).
(B) Form.--The State share of the cost shall be in cash.
(C) Sources.--The State may provide for the State share of
the cost from State or local sources, or through donations
from private entities.
(f) State Administrative Costs.--
(1) In general.--A State may use not more than 5 percent of
the funds made available through an allotment made under this
subtitle to pay for a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of
State administrative costs related to carrying out this
subtitle.
(2) Waiver.--A State may apply to the Secretary for a
waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary may grant the waiver
if the Secretary finds that unusual circumstances prevent the
State from complying with paragraph (1). A State that
receives such a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of
the funds made available through the allotment to pay for the
State administrative costs.
(g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor the activities
of States that receive allotments under this subtitle to
ensure compliance with the requirements of this subtitle,
including compliance with the State plans.
(h) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a State
that has received an allotment under this subtitle is not
complying with a requirement of this subtitle, the Secretary
may--
(1) provide technical assistance to the State to improve
the ability of the State to comply with the requirement;
(2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an allotment made
to the State under this section, for the second determination
of noncompliance;
(3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an allotment made
to the State under this section, for the third determination
of noncompliance; or
(4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive
allotments under this section, for the fourth or subsequent
determination of noncompliance.
(i) Technical Assistance.--From the funds appropriated
under section 215 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reserve not more than 1 percent of the funds to pay for the
costs of providing technical assistance. The Secretary shall
use the reserved funds to enter into contracts with eligible
entities to provide technical assistance, to local
collaboratives that receive grants under section 213,
relating to the functions of the local collaboratives under
this subtitle.
SEC. 213. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.
(a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment
under section 212 shall use the funds made available through
the allotment, and the State contribution made under section
212(e)(2), to pay for the Federal and State shares of the
cost of making grants, on a competitive basis, to local
collaboratives to carry out young child assistance
activities.
(b) Use of Funds.--A local collaborative that receives a
grant made under subsection (a)--
(1) shall use funds made available through the grant to
provide, in a community, activities that consist of education
and supportive services, such as--
(A) home visits for parents of young children;
(B) services provided through community-based family
resource centers for such parents; and
(C) collaborative pre-school efforts that link parenting
education for such parents to early childhood learning
services for young children; and
(2) may use funds made available through the grant--
(A) to provide, in the community, activities that consist
of--
(i) activities designed to strengthen the quality of child
care for young children and expand the supply of high quality
child care services for young children;
(ii) health care services for young children, including
increasing the level of immunization for young children in
the community, providing preventive health care screening and
education, and expanding health care services in schools,
child care facilities, clinics in public housing (as defined
in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and vision clinics;
(iii) services for children with disabilities who are young
children; and
(iv) activities designed to assist schools in providing
educational and other support services to young children, and
parents of young children, in the community, to be carried
out during extended hours when appropriate; and
[[Page S379]]
(B) to pay for the salary and expenses of the administrator
described in subsection (e)(4), in accordance with such
regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe.
(c) Multi-Year Funding.--In making grants under this
section, a State board may make grants for grant periods of
more than 1 year to local collaboratives with demonstrated
success in carrying out young child assistance activities.
(d) Local Collaboratives.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section for a community, a local
collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative--
(1) is able to provide, through a coordinated effort, young
child assistance activities to young children, and parents of
young children, in the community; and
(2) includes--
(A) all public agencies primarily providing services to
young children in the community;
(B) businesses in the community;
(C) representatives of the local government for the county
or other political subdivision in which the community is
located;
(D) parents of young children in the community;
(E) officers of community organizations serving low-income
individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the community;
(F) community-based organizations providing services to
young children and the parents of young children, such as
organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start
programs, or providing pre-kindergarten education, mental
health, or family support services; and
(G) nonprofit organizations that serve the community and
that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of such Code.
(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local collaborative shall submit an
application to the State board at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the State board may
require. At a minimum, the application shall contain--
(1) sufficient information about the entity described in
subsection (d)(2) to enable the State board to determine
whether the entity complies with the requirements of such
subsection; and
(2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out young child
assistance activities in the community, including information
indicating--
(A) the young child assistance activities available in the
community, as of the date of submission of the plan,
including information on efforts to coordinate the
activities;
(B) the unmet needs of young children, and parents of young
children, in the community for young child assistance
activities;
(C) the manner in which funds made available through the
grant will be used--
(i) to meet the needs, including expanding and
strengthening the activities described in subparagraph (A)
and establishing additional young child assistance
activities; and
(ii) to improve results for young children in the
community;
(D) how the local cooperative will use at least 60 percent
of the funds made available through the grant to provide
young child assistance activities to young children and
parents described in subsection (f);
(E) the comprehensive methods that the collaborative will
use to ensure that--
(i) each entity carrying out young child assistance
activities through the collaborative will coordinate the
activities with such activities carried out by other entities
through the collaborative; and
(ii) the local collaborative will coordinate the activities
of the local collaborative with--
(I) other services provided to young children, and the
parents of young children, in the community; and
(II) the activities of other local collaboratives serving
young children and families in the community, if any; and
(F) the manner in which the collaborative will, at such
intervals as the State board may require, submit information
to the State board to enable the State board to carry out
monitoring under section 212(g), including the manner in
which the collaborative will--
(i) evaluate the results achieved by the collaborative for
young children and parents of young children through
activities carried out through the grant;
(ii) evaluate how services can be more effectively
delivered to young children and the parents of young
children; and
(iii) prepare and submit to the State board annual reports
describing the results;
(3) an assurance that the local collaborative will comply
with the requirements of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of
paragraph (2), and subsection (g); and
(4) an assurance that the local collaborative will hire an
administrator to oversee the provision of the activities
described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (b).
(f) Distribution.--In making grants under this section, the
State board shall ensure that at least 60 percent of the
funds made available through each grant are used to provide
the young child assistance activities to young children (and
parents of young children) who reside in school districts in
which half or more of the students receive free or reduced
price lunches under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1751 et seq.).
(g) Local Share.--
(1) In general.--The local collaborative shall contribute a
percentage (referred to in this subsection as the ``local
share'') of the cost of carrying out the young child
assistance activities.
(2) Percentage.--The Secretary shall by regulation specify
the percentage referred to in paragraph (1).
(3) Form.--The local share of the cost shall be in cash.
(4) Source.--The local collaborative shall provide for the
local share of the cost through donations from private
entities.
(5) Waiver.--The State board shall waive the requirement of
paragraph (1) for poor rural and urban areas, as defined by
the Secretary.
(h) Monitoring.--The State board shall monitor the
activities of local collaboratives that receive grants under
this subtitle to ensure compliance with the requirements of
this subtitle.
SEC. 214. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.
Funds appropriated under this subtitle shall be used to
supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local
public funds expended to provide services for young children.
SEC. 215. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $250,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002,
$500,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, $1,000,000,000 for fiscal
year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2005 and each subsequent fiscal year.
Subtitle C--Loan Cancellation for Child Care Providers
SEC. 221. LOAN CANCELLATION.
Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087ee(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as
subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (F), the following:
``(G) as a full-time child care provider or educator--
``(i) in a child care facility operated by an entity that
meets the applicable State or local government licensing,
certification, approval, or registration requirements, if
any; and
``(ii) who has a degree in early childhood education;'';
and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``(G), (H), or (I)'' and
inserting ``(H), (I), or (J)''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or (G)'' after
``subparagraph (B)''.
TITLE III--EXPANDING THE AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF SCHOOL-AGE CHILD
CARE
SEC. 301. APPROPRIATIONS FOR AFTER-SCHOOL CARE.
(a) Grants.--Section 418 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 618), as amended by section 201, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Grants To Increase the Availability and Quality of
School-Age Child Care.--
``(1) Secretarial authority.--The Secretary shall use the
amounts appropriated under paragraph (2) to make grants to
States in accordance with this subsection.
``(2) Appropriation.--For grants under this section, there
are appropriated--
``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(C) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(D) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(E) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
``(3) Allotments to states.--The amounts appropriated under
paragraph (2) for payments to States under this paragraph
shall be allotted among the States in the same manner as
amounts (including the redistribution of unused amounts) are
allotted or redistributed, as the case may be, under
subsection (a)(2), except that the matching requirement of
subsection (a)(2)(C) shall not apply to a grant made under
this subsection.
``(4) Use of funds.--Funds received by a State through a
grant made under this subsection shall be used for the
provision of child care services before and after regular
school hours and during months in which schools are not in
session.''.
(b) Definition of Eligible Child.--Section 658P(4)(A) of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858n(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``13'' and
inserting ``16''.
SEC. 302. AMENDMENTS TO THE 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING
CENTERS ACT.
(a) Program Authorization.--Section 10903 of the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8243) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``rural and inner-city''; and
(B) by striking ``a rural or inner-city community'' and
inserting ``communities'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, among urban and
rural areas of the United States, and among urban and rural
areas of a State'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Priority of Distribution.--In awarding grants under
this part, the Secretary shall give priority to rural, urban,
and low-income communities.''.
(b) Application Requirements.--Section 10904 of the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8244) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by inserting ``, including the
programs under the Child Care
[[Page S380]]
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, '' after
``coordinated''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``a broad selection''
and all that follows and inserting ``child care services
before or after regular school hours that include mentoring
programs, academic assistance, recreational activities, or
technology training, and that may include drug, alcohol, and
gang prevention, job skills preparation, or health and
nutrition counseling.''.
(c) Uses of Funds.--Section 10905 of the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8245) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``not less than four'' and inserting ``any''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Child care services.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10907 of the
21st Century Community Learning Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8247)
is amended by striking ``$20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995''
and inserting ``$600,000,000 for fiscal year 1999''.
TITLE IV--SUPPORTING FAMILY CHOICES IN CHILD CARE
SEC. 401. EXPANDING THE DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.
(a) Percentage of Employment-Related Expenses Determined by
Taxpayer Status.--Section 21(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining applicable percentage) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) Applicable percentage defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable percentage' means--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 50 percent
reduced (but not below 20 percent) by 1 percentage point for
each $1,000, or fraction thereof, by which the taxpayers's
adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds $30,000,
and
``(B) in the case of employment-related expenses described
in subsection (e)(11), 50 percent reduced (but not below
zero) by 1 percentage point for each $800, or fraction
thereof, by which the taxpayers's adjusted gross income for
the taxable year exceeds $30,000.''.
(b) Inflation Adjustment for Allowable Expenses.--Section
21(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
dollar limit on amount creditable) is amended by striking
``The amount determined'' and inserting ``In the case of any
taxable year beginning after 1999, each dollar amount
referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be increased by
an amount equal to such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-
of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by
substituting `calendar year 1998' for `calendar year 1992' in
subparagraph (B) thereof. If any dollar amount after being
increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of
$10, such dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest
multiple of $10. The amount determined''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 402. MINIMUM CREDIT ALLOWED FOR STAY-AT-HOME PARENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 21(e) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(11) Minimum credit allowed for stay-at-home parents.--
Notwithstanding subsection (d), in the case of any taxpayer
with one or more qualifying individuals described in
subsection (b)(1)(A) under the age of 1 at any time during
the taxable year, such taxpayer shall be deemed to have
employment-related expenses with respect to such qualifying
individuals in an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) $90 for each month in such taxable year during which
at least one of such qualifying individuals is under the age
of 1, and
``(B) the amount of employment-related expenses otherwise
incurred for such qualifying individuals for the taxable year
(determined under this section without regard to this
paragraph).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 403. CREDIT MADE REFUNDABLE.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credits
against tax) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 35 as section 36, and
(2) by redesignating section 21 as section 35.
(b) Advance Payment of Credit.--Chapter 25 of such Code
(relating to general provisions relating to employment taxes)
is amended by inserting after section 3507 the following:
``SEC. 3507A. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT.
``(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, every employer making payment of wages with respect
to whom a dependent care eligibility certificate is in effect
shall, at the time of paying such wages, make an additional
payment equal to such employee's dependent care advance
amount.
``(b) Dependent Care Eligibility Certificate.--For purposes
of this title, a dependent care eligibility certificate is a
statement furnished by an employee to the employer which--
``(1) certifies that the employee will be eligible to
receive the credit provided by section 35 for the taxable
year,
``(2) certifies that the employee reasonably expects to be
an applicable taxpayer for the taxable year,
``(3) certifies that the employee does not have a dependent
care eligibility certificate in effect for the calendar year
with respect to the payment of wages by another employer,
``(4) states whether or not the employee's spouse has a
dependent care eligibility certificate in effect,
``(5) states the number of qualifying individuals in the
household maintained by the employee, and
``(6) estimates the amount of employment-related expenses
for the calendar year.
``(c) Dependent Care Advance Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, the term
`dependent care advance amount' means, with respect to any
payroll period, the amount determined--
``(A) on the basis of the employee's wages from the
employer for such period,
``(B) on the basis of the employee's estimated employment-
related expenses included in the dependent care eligibility
certificate, and
``(C) in accordance with tables provided by the Secretary.
``(2) Advance amount tables.--The tables referred to in
paragraph (1)(C) shall be similar in form to the tables
prescribed under section 3402 and, to the maximum extent
feasible, shall be coordinated with such tables and the
tables prescribed under section 3507(c).
``(d) Other Rules.--For purposes of this section, rules
similar to the rules of subsections (d) and (e) of section
3507 shall apply.
``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, terms
used in this section which are defined in section 35 shall
have the respective meanings given such terms by section
35.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 35(a)(1) of such Code, as redesignated by
paragraph (1), is amended by striking ``chapter'' and
inserting ``subtitle''.
(2) Section 35(e) of such Code, as so redesignated and
amended by subsection (c), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(12) Coordination with advance payments and minimum
tax.--Rules similar to the rules of subsections (g) and (h)
of section 32 shall apply for purposes of this section.''.
(3) Sections 23(f)(1) and 129(a)(2)(C) of such Code are
each amended by striking ``section 21(e)'' and inserting
``section 35(e)''.
(4) Section 129(b)(2) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 21(d)(2)'' and inserting ``section 35(d)(2)''.
(5) Section 129(e)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 21(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section 35(b)(2)''.
(6) Section 213(e) of such Code is amended by striking
``section 21'' and inserting ``section 35''.
(7) Section 995(f)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by
striking ``and 34'' and inserting ``34, and 35''.
(8) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by
striking ``and 34'' and inserting ``, 34, and 35''.
(9) Section 6213(g)(2)(H) of such Code is amended by
striking ``section 21'' and inserting ``section 35''.
(10) Section 6213(g)(2)(L) of such Code is amended by
striking ``section 21, 24, or 32'' and inserting ``section
24, 32, or 35''.
(11) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking
the item relating to section 35 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 35. Dependent care services.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.
(12) The table of sections for subpart A of such part IV is
amended by striking the item relating to section 21.
(13) The table of sections for chapter 25 of such Code is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 3507 the
following:
``Sec. 3507A. Advance payment of dependent care credit.''.
(14) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period ``, or enacted by the
Child Care ACCESS (Affordable Child Care for Early Success
and Security) Act''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
TITLE V--ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT
SEC. 501. ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR EMPLOYER EXPENSES FOR CHILD
CARE ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 45D. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILD CARE CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--For purposes of section 38, the
employer-provided child care credit determined under this
section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 25 percent
of the qualified child care expenditures of the taxpayer for
such taxable year.
``(b) Dollar Limitation.--The credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
$150,000.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified child care expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care
expenditure' means any amount paid or incurred--
``(i) to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, or expand
property--
[[Page S381]]
``(I) which is to be used as part of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer,
``(II) with respect to which a deduction for depreciation
(or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(III) which does not constitute part of the principal
residence (within the meaning of section 121) of the taxpayer
or any employee of the taxpayer,
``(ii) for the operating costs of a qualified child care
facility of the taxpayer, including costs related to the
training of employees of the child care facility, to
scholarship programs, to the providing of differential
compensation to employees based on level of child care
training, and to expenses associated with achieving
accreditation,
``(iii) under a contract with a qualified child care
facility to provide child care services to employees of the
taxpayer, or
``(iv) under a contract to provide child care resource and
referral services to employees of the taxpayer.
``(B) Exclusion for amounts funded by grants, etc.--The
term `qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any
amount to the extent such amount is funded by any grant,
contract, or otherwise by another person (or any governmental
entity).
``(C) Limitation on allowable operating costs.--The term
`qualified child care expenditure' shall not include any
amount described in subparagraph (A)(ii) if such amount is
paid or incurred after the third taxable year in which a
credit under this section is taken by the taxpayer, unless
the qualified child care facility of the taxpayer has
received accreditation from a nationally recognized
accrediting body before the end of such third taxable year.
``(2) Qualified child care facility.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified child care facility'
means a facility--
``(i) the principal use of which is to provide child care
assistance, and
``(ii) which meets the requirements of all applicable laws
and regulations of the State or local government in which it
is located, including, but not limited to, the licensing of
the facility as a child care facility.
Clause (i) shall not apply to a facility which is the
principal residence (within the meaning of section 121) of
the operator of the facility.
``(B) Special rules with respect to a taxpayer.--A facility
shall not be treated as a qualified child care facility with
respect to a taxpayer unless--
``(i) enrollment in the facility is open to employees of
the taxpayer during the taxable year,
``(ii) the facility is not the principal trade or business
of the taxpayer unless at least 30 percent of the enrollees
of such facility are dependents of employees of the taxpayer,
and
``(iii) the costs to employees of child care services at
such facility are determined on a sliding fee scale.
``(d) Recapture of Acquisition and Construction Credit.--
``(1) In general.--If, as of the close of any taxable year,
there is a recapture event with respect to any qualified
child care facility of the taxpayer, then the tax of the
taxpayer under this chapter for such taxable year shall be
increased by an amount equal to the product of--
``(A) the applicable recapture percentage, and
``(B) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under
section 38 for all prior taxable years which would have
resulted if the qualified child care expenditures of the
taxpayer described in subsection (c)(1)(A) with respect to
such facility had been zero.
``(2) Applicable recapture percentage.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable recapture percentage shall be determined from the
following table:
The applicable
recapture
``If the recapture evpercentage is:
Years 1-3....................................................100
Year 4........................................................85
Year 5........................................................70
Year 6........................................................55
Year 7........................................................40
Year 8........................................................25
Years 9 and 10................................................10
Years 11 and thereafter........................................0.
``(B) Years.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), year 1
shall begin on the first day of the taxable year in which the
qualified child care facility is placed in service by the
taxpayer.
``(3) Recapture event defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `recapture event' means--
``(A) Cessation of operation.--The cessation of the
operation of the facility as a qualified child care facility.
``(B) Change in ownership.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
disposition of a taxpayer's interest in a qualified child
care facility with respect to which the credit described in
subsection (a) was allowable.
``(ii) Agreement to assume recapture liability.--Clause (i)
shall not apply if the person acquiring such interest in the
facility agrees in writing to assume the recapture liability
of the person disposing of such interest in effect
immediately before such disposition. In the event of such an
assumption, the person acquiring the interest in the facility
shall be treated as the taxpayer for purposes of assessing
any recapture liability (computed as if there had been no
change in ownership).
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under subpart A, B, or D of this part.
``(C) No recapture by reason of casualty loss.--The
increase in tax under this subsection shall not apply to a
cessation of operation of the facility as a qualified child
care facility by reason of a casualty loss to the extent such
loss is restored by reconstruction or replacement within a
reasonable period established by the Secretary.
``(e) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Aggregation rules.--All persons which are treated as
a single employer under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52
shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
``(2) Pass-thru in the case of estates and trusts.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply.
``(3) Allocation in the case of partnerships.--In the case
of partnerships, the credit shall be allocated among partners
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(f) No Double Benefit.--
``(1) Reduction in basis.--For purposes of this subtitle--
``(A) In general.--If a credit is determined under this
section with respect to any property by reason of
expenditures described in subsection (c)(1)(A), the basis of
such property shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so
determined.
``(B) Certain dispositions.--If during any taxable year
there is a recapture amount determined with respect to any
property the basis of which was reduced under subparagraph
(A), the basis of such property (immediately before the event
resulting in such recapture) shall be increased by an amount
equal to such recapture amount. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `recapture amount' means any increase in
tax (or adjustment in carrybacks or carryovers) determined
under subsection (d).
``(2) Other deductions and credits.--No deduction or credit
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter
with respect to the amount of the credit determined under
this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking out ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph
(12), and inserting a comma and ``plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the employer-provided child care credit determined
under section 45D.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. Employer-provided child care credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.
SEC. 502. GRANTS TO SUPPORT PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish a program to award grants to local
communities for the purpose of expanding the availability of,
and improving the quality of, child care on a community-wide
basis.
(b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local community shall prepare and submit to
the Secretary an application at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary may require, and that includes--
(1) an assurance that the matching funds required under
subsection (c) will be provided;
(2) evidence of collaboration with parents, schools,
employers, State and local government agencies, and child
care agencies, including resource and referral agencies, in
the preparation of the application;
(3) an assessment of child care resources and needs within
the community; and
(4) any additional information that the Secretary may
require.
(c) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a local community shall provide
assurances to the Secretary that the community will provide
matching funds in the amount of $1 for every $2 provided
under the grant. Such funds shall be generated from private
sources, including employers and philanthropic organizations.
(d) Use of Funds.--A local community shall use the funds
provided under a grant awarded under this section only for
the purposes described in subsection (a).
(e) Administration.--A local community awarded a grant
under this section may authorize a public or nonprofit entity
within the community to act as the fiscal agent for the
administration of the program funded under the grant.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to
[[Page S382]]
carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2004.
TITLE VI--ENSURING THE QUALITY OF FEDERAL CHILD CARE CENTERS
SEC. 601. QUALITY CHILD CARE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Accredited child care center.--The term ``accredited
child care center'' means--
(A) a center that is accredited, by a child care
credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a State,
to provide child care to children in the State (except
children who a tribal organization elects to serve through a
center described in subparagraph (B));
(B) a center that is accredited, by a child care
credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a tribal
organization, to provide child care for children served by
the tribal organization;
(C) a center that is used as a Head Start center under the
Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) and is in compliance
with any applicable performance standards established by
regulation under such Act for Head Start programs; or
(D) a military child development center (as defined in
section 1798(1) of title 10, United States Code).
(2) Child care credentialing or accreditation entity.--The
term ``child care credentialing or accreditation entity''
means a nonprofit private organization or public agency
that--
(A) is recognized by a State agency or tribal organization;
and
(B) accredits a center or credentials an individual to
provide child care on the basis of--
(i) an accreditation or credentialing instrument based on
peer-validated research;
(ii) compliance with applicable State and local licensing
requirements, or standards described in section
658E(c)(2)(E)(ii) of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(2)(E)(ii)), as appropriate, for
the center or individual;
(iii) outside monitoring of the center or individual; and
(iv) criteria that provide assurances of--
(I) compliance with age-appropriate health and safety
standards at the center or by the individual;
(II) use of age-appropriate developmental and educational
activities, as an integral part of the child care program
carried out at the center or by the individual; and
(III) use of ongoing staff development or training
activities for the staff of the center or the individual,
including related skills-based testing.
(3) Credentialed child care professional.--The term
``credentialed child care professional'' means--
(A) an individual who is credentialed, by a child care
credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a State,
to provide child care to children in the State (except
children who a tribal organization elects to serve through an
individual described in subparagraph (B)); or
(B) an individual who is credentialed, by a child care
credentialing or accreditation entity recognized by a tribal
organization, to provide child care for children served by
the tribal organization.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the
term in section 658P of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
(b) Providing Quality Child Care in Federal Facilities.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(B) Entity sponsoring a child care center.--The term
``entity sponsoring a child care center'' means a Federal
agency that operates, or an entity that enters into a
contract or licensing agreement with a Federal agency to
operate, a child care center.
(C) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, except that the term--
(i) does not include the Department of Defense; and
(ii) includes the General Services Administration, with
respect to the administration of a facility described in
subparagraph (D)(ii).
(D) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''--
(i) means a facility that is owned or leased by an
Executive agency; and
(ii) includes a facility that is owned or leased by the
General Services Administration on behalf of a judicial
office.
(E) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
Executive agency, a judicial office, or a legislative office.
(F) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility''
means a facility that is owned or leased by a judicial office
(other than a facility that is also a facility described in
subparagraph (D)(ii)).
(G) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an
entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
(H) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative
facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a
legislative office.
(I) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office''
means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(2) Executive branch standards and compliance.--
(A) State and local licensing requirements.--
(i) In general.--Any entity sponsoring a child care center
in an executive facility shall--
(I) obtain the appropriate State and local licenses for the
center; and
(II) in a location where the State or locality does not
license executive facilities, comply with the appropriate
State and local licensing requirements related to the
provision of child care.
(ii) Compliance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(I) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
clause (i); and
(II) any contract or licensing agreement used by an
Executive agency for the operation of such a child care
center shall include a condition that the child care be
provided by an entity that complies with the appropriate
State and local licensing requirements related to the
provision of child care.
(B) Health, safety, and facility standards.--The
Administrator shall by regulation establish standards
relating to health, safety, facilities, facility design, and
other aspects of child care that the Administrator determines
to be appropriate for child care centers in executive
facilities, and require child care centers, and entities
sponsoring child care centers, in executive facilities to
comply with the standards.
(C) Accreditation standards.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations
requiring, to the maximum extent possible, any entity
sponsoring an eligible child care center (as defined by the
Administrator) in an executive facility to comply with child
care center accreditation standards issued by a nationally
recognized accreditation organization approved by the
Administrator.
(ii) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not
later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act--
(I) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
the standards; and
(II) any contract or licensing agreement used by an
Executive agency for the operation of such a child care
center shall include a condition that the child care be
provided by an entity that complies with the standards.
(iii) Contents.--The standards shall base accreditation
on--
(I) an accreditation instrument described in subsection
(a)(2)(B);
(II) outside monitoring described in subsection (a)(2)(B),
by--
(aa) the Administrator; or
(bb) a child care credentialing or accreditation entity, or
other entity, with which the Administrator enters into a
contract to provide such monitoring; and
(III) the criteria described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
(D) Evaluation and compliance.--
(i) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate the
compliance, with the requirements of subparagraph (A) and the
regulations issued pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C), of
child care centers, and entities sponsoring child care
centers, in executive facilities. The Administrator may
conduct the evaluation of such a child care center or entity
directly, or through an agreement with another Federal agency
or private entity, other than the Federal agency for which
the child care center is providing services. If the
Administrator determines, on the basis of such an evaluation,
that the child care center or entity is not in compliance
with the requirements, the Administrator shall notify the
Executive agency.
(ii) Effect of noncompliance.--On receipt of the
notification of noncompliance issued by the Administrator,
the head of the Executive agency shall--
(I) if the entity operating the child care center is the
agency--
(aa) within 2 business days after the date of receipt of
the notification, correct any deficiencies that are
determined by the Administrator to be life threatening or to
present a risk of serious bodily harm;
(bb) develop and provide to the Administrator a plan to
correct any other deficiencies in the operation of the center
and bring the center and entity into compliance with the
requirements not later than 4 months after the date of
receipt of the notification;
(cc) provide the parents of the children receiving child
care services at the center with a notification detailing the
deficiencies described in items (aa) and (bb) and actions
that will be taken to correct the deficiencies;
(dd) bring the center and entity into compliance with the
requirements and certify to the Administrator that the center
and entity are in compliance, based on an onsite evaluation
of the center conducted by an independent entity with
expertise in child care health and safety; and
(ee) in the event that deficiencies determined by the
Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of
serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business
days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the
center or portion of the center where the deficiency was
identified until such deficiencies are corrected and notify
the Administrator of such closure; and
(II) if the entity operating the child care center is a
contractor or licensee of the Executive agency--
[[Page S383]]
(aa) require the contractor or licensee within 2 business
days after the date of receipt of the notification, to
correct any deficiencies that are determined by the
Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of
serious bodily harm:
(bb) require the contractor or licensee to develop and
provide to the head of the agency a plan to correct any other
deficiencies in the operation of the center and bring the
center and entity into compliance with the requirements not
later than 4 months after the date of receipt of the
notification;
(cc) require the contractor or licensee to provide the
parents of the children receiving child care services at the
center with a notification detailing the deficiencies
described in items (aa) and (bb) and actions that will be
taken to correct the deficiencies;
(dd) require the contractor or licensee to bring the center
and entity into compliance with the requirements and certify
to the head of the agency that the center and entity are in
compliance, based on an onsite evaluation of the center
conducted by an independent entity with expertise in child
care health and safety; and
(ee) in the event that deficiencies determined by the
Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of
serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business
days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the
center or portion of the center where the deficiency was
identified until such deficiencies are corrected and notify
the Administrator of such closure, which closure shall be
grounds for the immediate termination or suspension of the
contract or license of the contractor or licensee.
(iii) Cost reimbursement.--The Executive agency shall
reimburse the Administrator for the costs of carrying out
clause (i) for child care centers located in an executive
facility other than an executive facility of the General
Services Administration. If an entity is sponsoring a child
care center for 2 or more Executive agencies, the
Administrator shall allocate the costs of providing such
reimbursement with respect to the entity among the agencies
in a fair and equitable manner, based on the extent to which
each agency is eligible to place children in the center.
(3) Legislative branch standards and compliance.--
(A) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety,
and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--The
Architect of the Capitol shall issue regulations approved by
the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and
the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
Representatives for child care centers, and entities
sponsoring child care centers, in legislative facilities,
which shall be no less stringent in content and effect than
the requirements of paragraph (2)(A) and the regulations
issued by the Administrator under subparagraphs (B) and (C)
of paragraph (2), except to the extent that the Architect
with the consent and approval of the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate and the Committee on House
Oversight of the House of Representatives, may determine, for
good cause shown and stated together with the regulations,
that a modification of such regulations would be more
effective for the implementation of the requirements and
standards described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
paragraph (2) for child care centers, and entities sponsoring
child care centers, in legislative facilities.
(B) Evaluation and compliance.--
(i) Architect of the capitol.--The Architect of the Capitol
shall have the same authorities and duties with respect to
the evaluation of, compliance of, and cost reimbursement for
child care centers, and entities sponsoring child care
centers, in legislative facilities as the Administrator has
under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to the evaluation of,
compliance of, and cost reimbursement for such centers and
entities sponsoring such centers, in executive facilities.
(ii) Head of a legislative office.--The head of a
legislative office shall have the same authorities and duties
with respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for
child care centers, and entities sponsoring child care
centers, in legislative facilities as the head of an
Executive agency has under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to
the compliance of and cost reimbursement for such centers and
entities sponsoring such centers, in executive facilities.
(4) Judicial branch standards and compliance.--
(A) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety,
and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--The
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts shall issue regulations for child care centers, and
entities sponsoring child care centers, in judicial
facilities, which shall be no less stringent in content and
effect than the requirements of paragraph (2)(A) and the
regulations issued by the Administrator under subparagraphs
(B) and (C) of paragraph (2), except to the extent that the
Director may determine, for good cause shown and stated
together with the regulations, that a modification of such
regulations would be more effective for the implementation of
the requirements and standards described in subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) for child care centers,
and entities sponsoring child care centers, in judicial
facilities.
(B) Evaluation and compliance.--
(i) Director of the administrative office of the united
states courts.--The Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts shall have the same authorities and
duties with respect to the evaluation of, compliance of, and
cost reimbursement for child care centers, and entities
sponsoring child care centers, in judicial facilities as the
Administrator has under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to the
evaluation of, compliance of, and cost reimbursement for such
centers and entities sponsoring such centers, in executive
facilities.
(ii) Head of a judicial office.--The head of a judicial
office shall have the same authorities and duties with
respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for child
care centers, and entities sponsoring child care centers, in
judicial facilities as the head of an Executive agency has
under paragraph (2)(D) with respect to the compliance of and
cost reimbursement for such centers and entities sponsoring
such centers, in executive facilities.
(5) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if 8 or more child care centers are sponsored
in facilities owned or leased by an Executive agency, the
Administrator shall delegate to the head of the agency the
evaluation and compliance responsibilities assigned to the
Administrator under paragraph (2)(D)(i).
(6) Technical assistance, studies, and reviews.--The
Administrator may provide technical assistance, and conduct
and provide the results of studies and reviews, for Executive
agencies, and entities sponsoring child care centers in
executive facilities, on a reimbursable basis, in order to
assist the entities in complying with this section. The
Architect of the Capitol and the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts may provide
technical assistance, and conduct and provide the results of
studies and reviews, or request that the Administrator
provide technical assistance, and conduct and provide the
results of studies and reviews, for legislative offices and
judicial offices, respectively, and entities operating child
care centers in legislative facilities and judicial
facilities, respectively, on a reimbursable basis, in order
to assist the entities in complying with this section.
(7) Council.--The Administrator shall establish an
interagency council, comprised of all Executive agencies
described in paragraph (5), a representative of the Office of
Architect of the Capitol, and a representative of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to
facilitate cooperation and sharing of best practices, and to
develop and coordinate policy, regarding the provision of
child care in the Federal Government.
(8) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for
fiscal year 1999 and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year.
TITLE VI--CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Quality Child Care for
Federal Employees Act''.
SEC. 602. PROVIDING QUALITY CHILD CARE IN FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Definition.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(2) Child care accreditation entity.--The term ``child care
accreditation entity'' means a nonprofit private organization
or public agency that--
(A) is recognized by a State agency or by a national
organization that serves as a peer review panel on the
standards and procedures of public and private child care or
school accrediting bodies; and
(B) accredits a facility to provide child care on the basis
of--
(i) an accreditation or credentialing instrument based on
peer-validated research;
(ii) compliance with applicable State or local licensing
requirements, as appropriate, for the facility;
(iii) outside monitoring of the facility; and
(iv) criteria that provide assurances of--
(I) use of developmentally appropriate health and safety
standards at the facility;
(II) use of developmentally appropriate educational
activities, as an integral part of the child care program
carried out at the facility; and
(III) use of ongoing staff development or training
activities for the staff of the facility, including related
skills-based testing.
(3) Entity sponsoring a child care facility.--The term
``entity sponsoring a child care facility'' means a Federal
agency that operates, or an entity that enters into a
contract or licensing agreement with a Federal agency to
operate, a child care facility primarily for the use of
Federal employees.
(4) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section 105 of title 5, United
States Code, except that the term--
(A) does not include the Department of Defense and the
Coast Guard; and
(B) includes the General Services Administration, with
respect to the administration of a facility described in
paragraph (5)(B).
(5) Executive facility.--The term ``executive facility''--
(A) means a facility that is owned or leased by an
Executive agency; and
(B) includes a facility that is owned or leased by the
General Services Administration on behalf of a judicial
office.
(6) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
Executive agency, a legislative office, or a judicial office.
(7) Judicial facility.--The term ``judicial facility''
means a facility that is owned or
[[Page S384]]
leased by a judicial office (other than a facility that is
also a facility described in paragraph (4)(B)).
(8) Judicial office.--The term ``judicial office'' means an
entity of the judicial branch of the Federal Government.
(9) Legislative facility.--The term ``legislative
facility'' means a facility that is owned or leased by a
legislative office.
(10) Legislative office.--The term ``legislative office''
means an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the
term in section 658P of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
(b) Executive Branch Standards and Compliance.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements.--
(A) In general.--Any entity sponsoring a child care
facility in an executive facility shall--
(i) comply with child care standards described in paragraph
(2) that, at a minimum, include all applicable State or local
licensing requirements, as appropriate, related to the
provision of child care in the State or locality involved;
and
(ii) obtain the applicable State or local licenses, as
appropriate, for the facility.
(B) Compliance.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
subparagraph (A); and
(ii) any contract or licensing agreement used by an
Executive agency for the provision of child care services in
such child care facility shall include a condition that the
child care be provided by an entity that complies with the
standards described in subparagraph (A)(i) and obtains the
licenses described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
(2) Health, safety, and facility standards.--The
Administrator shall by regulation establish standards
relating to health, safety, facilities, facility design, and
other aspects of child care that the Administrator determines
to be appropriate for child care in executive facilities, and
require child care facilities, and entities sponsoring child
care facilities, in executive facilities to comply with the
standards. Such standards shall include requirements that
child care facilities be inspected for, and be free of, lead
hazards.
(3) Accreditation standards.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue regulations
requiring, to the maximum extent possible, any entity
sponsoring an eligible child care facility (as defined by the
Administrator) in an executive facility to comply with
standards of a child care accreditation entity.
(B) Compliance.--The regulations shall require that, not
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act--
(i) the entity shall comply, or make substantial progress
(as determined by the Administrator) toward complying, with
the standards; and
(ii) any contract or licensing agreement used by an
Executive agency for the provision of child care services in
such child care facility shall include a condition that the
child care be provided by an entity that complies with the
standards.
(4) Evaluation and compliance.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate the
compliance, with the requirements of paragraph (1) and the
regulations issued pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3), as
appropriate, of child care facilities, and entities
sponsoring child care facilities, in executive facilities.
The Administrator may conduct the evaluation of such a child
care facility or entity directly, or through an agreement
with another Federal agency or private entity, other than the
Federal agency for which the child care facility is providing
services. If the Administrator determines, on the basis of
such an evaluation, that the child care facility or entity is
not in compliance with the requirements, the Administrator
shall notify the Executive agency.
(B) Effect of noncompliance.--On receipt of the
notification of noncompliance issued by the Administrator,
the head of the Executive agency shall--
(i) if the entity operating the child care facility is the
agency--
(I) not later than 2 business days after the date of
receipt of the notification, correct any deficiencies that
are determined by the Administrator to be life threatening or
to present a risk of serious bodily harm;
(II) develop and provide to the Administrator a plan to
correct any other deficiencies in the operation of the child
care facility and bring the facility and entity into
compliance with the requirements not later than 4 months
after the date of receipt of the notification;
(III) provide the parents of the children receiving child
care services at the child care facility and employees of the
facility with a notification detailing the deficiencies
described in subclauses (I) and (II) and actions that will be
taken to correct the deficiencies, and post a copy of the
notification in a conspicuous place in the facility for 5
working days or until the deficiencies are corrected,
whichever is later;
(IV) bring the child care facility and entity into
compliance with the requirements and certify to the
Administrator that the facility and entity are in compliance,
based on an onsite evaluation of the facility conducted by an
independent entity with expertise in child care health and
safety; and
(V) in the event that deficiencies determined by the
Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of
serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business
days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the
child care facility, or the affected portion of the facility,
until such deficiencies are corrected and notify the
Administrator of such closure; and
(ii) if the entity operating the child care facility is a
contractor or licensee of the Executive agency--
(I) require the contractor or licensee, not later than 2
business days after the date of receipt of the notification,
to correct any deficiencies that are determined by the
Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of
serious bodily harm;
(II) require the contractor or licensee to develop and
provide to the head of the agency a plan to correct any other
deficiencies in the operation of the child care facility and
bring the facility and entity into compliance with the
requirements not later than 4 months after the date of
receipt of the notification;
(III) require the contractor or licensee to provide the
parents of the children receiving child care services at the
child care facility and employees of the facility with a
notification detailing the deficiencies described in
subclauses (I) and (II) and actions that will be taken to
correct the deficiencies, and to post a copy of the
notification in a conspicuous place in the facility for 5
working days or until the deficiencies are corrected,
whichever is later;
(IV) require the contractor or licensee to bring the child
care facility and entity into compliance with the
requirements and certify to the head of the agency that the
facility and entity are in compliance, based on an onsite
evaluation of the facility conducted by an independent entity
with expertise in child care health and safety; and
(V) in the event that deficiencies determined by the
Administrator to be life threatening or to present a risk of
serious bodily harm cannot be corrected within 2 business
days after the date of receipt of the notification, close the
child care facility, or the affected portion of the facility,
until such deficiencies are corrected and notify the
Administrator of such closure, which closure may be grounds
for the immediate termination or suspension of the contract
or license of the contractor or licensee.
(C) Cost reimbursement.--The Executive agency shall
reimburse the Administrator for the costs of carrying out
subparagraph (A) for child care facilities located in an
executive facility other than an executive facility of the
General Services Administration. If an entity is sponsoring a
child care facility for 2 or more Executive agencies, the
Administrator shall allocate the costs of providing such
reimbursement with respect to the entity among the agencies
in a fair and equitable manner, based on the extent to which
each agency is eligible to place children in the facility.
(5) Disclosure of prior violations to parents and facility
employees.--The Administrator shall issue regulations that
require that each entity sponsoring a child care facility in
an executive facility, upon receipt by the child care
facility or the entity (as applicable) of a request by any
individual who is a parent of any child enrolled at the
facility, a parent of a child for whom an application has
been submitted to enroll at the facility, or an employee of
the facility, shall provide to the individual--
(A) copies of all notifications of deficiencies that have
been provided in the past with respect to the facility under
clause (i)(III) or (ii)(III), as applicable, of paragraph
(4)(B); and
(B) a description of the actions that were taken to correct
the deficiencies.
(c) Legislative Branch Standards and Compliance.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety,
and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--
(A) In general.--The Chief Administrative Officer of the
House of Representatives shall issue regulations, approved by
the Committee on House Oversight of the House of
Representatives, governing the operation of the House of
Representatives Child Care Center. The Librarian of Congress
shall issue regulations, approved by the appropriate House
and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the Library of
Congress, governing the operation of the child care center
located at the Library of Congress. Subject to paragraph (3),
the head of a designated entity in the Senate shall issue
regulations, approved by the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate, governing the operation of the
Senate Employees' Child Care Center.
(B) Stringency.--The regulations described in subparagraph
(A) shall be no less stringent in content and effect than the
requirements of subsection (b)(1) and the regulations issued
by the Administrator under paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (b), except to the extent that appropriate
administrative officers, with the approval of the appropriate
House or Senate committees with oversight responsibility for
the centers, may jointly or independently determine, for good
cause shown and stated together with the regulations, that a
modification of such regulations would be more effective for
the implementation of the requirements and standards
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b)
for child care facilities, and entities sponsoring child care
facilities, in the corresponding legislative facilities.
(2) Evaluation and compliance.--
[[Page S385]]
(A) Administration.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, the
head of the designated Senate entity, and the Librarian of
Congress, shall have the same authorities and duties--
(i) with respect to the evaluation of, compliance of, and
cost reimbursement for child care facilities, and entities
sponsoring child care facilities, in the corresponding
legislative facilities as the Administrator has under
subsection (b)(4) with respect to the evaluation of,
compliance of, and cost reimbursement for such facilities and
entities sponsoring such facilities, in executive facilities;
and
(ii) with respect to issuing regulations requiring the
entities sponsoring child care facilities in the
corresponding legislative facilities to provide notifications
of deficiencies and descriptions of corrective actions as the
Administrator has under subsection (b)(5) with respect to
issuing regulations requiring the entities sponsoring child
care facilities in executive facilities to provide
notifications of deficiencies and descriptions of corrective
actions.
(B) Enforcement.--Subject to paragraph (3), the Committee
on House Oversight of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, as
appropriate, shall have the same authorities and duties with
respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for child
care facilities, and entities sponsoring child care
facilities, in the corresponding legislative facilities as
the head of an Executive agency has under subsection (b)(4)
with respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for
such facilities and entities sponsoring such facilities, in
executive facilities.
(3) Interim status.--Until such time as the Committee on
Rules and Administration of the Senate establishes, or the
head of the designated Senate entity establishes, standards
described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b)
governing the operation of the Senate Employees' Child Care
Center, such facility shall maintain current accreditation
status.
(d) Judicial Branch Standards and Compliance.--
(1) State and local licensing requirements, health, safety,
and facility standards, and accreditation standards.--The
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts shall issue regulations for child care facilities, and
entities sponsoring child care facilities, in judicial
facilities, which shall be no less stringent in content and
effect than the requirements of subsection (b)(1) and the
regulations issued by the Administrator under paragraphs (2)
and (3) of subsection (b), except to the extent that the
Director may determine, for good cause shown and stated
together with the regulations, that a modification of such
regulations would be more effective for the implementation of
the requirements and standards described in paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3) of subsection (b) for child care facilities, and
entities sponsoring child care facilities, in judicial
facilities.
(2) Evaluation and compliance.--
(A) Director of the administrative office of the united
states courts.--The Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts shall have the same authorities and
duties--
(i) with respect to the evaluation of, compliance of, and
cost reimbursement for child care facilities, and entities
sponsoring child care facilities, in judicial facilities as
the Administrator has under subsection (b)(4) with respect to
the evaluation of, compliance of, and cost reimbursement for
such facilities and entities sponsoring such facilities, in
executive facilities; and
(ii) with respect to issuing regulations requiring the
entities sponsoring child care facilities in the judicial
facilities to provide notifications of deficiencies and
descriptions of corrective actions as the Administrator has
under subsection (b)(5) with respect to issuing regulations
requiring the entities sponsoring child care facilities in
executive facilities to provide notifications of deficiencies
and descriptions of corrective actions.
(B) Head of a judicial office.--The head of a judicial
office shall have the same authorities and duties with
respect to the compliance of and cost reimbursement for child
care facilities, and entities sponsoring child care
facilities, in judicial facilities as the head of an
Executive agency has under subsection (b)(4) with respect to
the compliance of and cost reimbursement for such facilities
and entities sponsoring such facilities, in executive
facilities.
(e) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if 8 or more child care facilities are
sponsored in facilities owned or leased by an Executive
agency, the Administrator shall delegate to the head of the
agency the evaluation and compliance responsibilities
assigned to the Administrator under subsection (b)(4)(A).
(f) Technical Assistance, Studies, and Reviews.--The
Administrator may provide technical assistance, and conduct
and provide the results of studies and reviews, for Executive
agencies, and entities sponsoring child care facilities in
executive facilities, on a reimbursable basis, in order to
assist the entities in complying with this section. The Chief
Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, the
Librarian of Congress, the head of the designated Senate
entity described in subsection (c), and the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts may provide
technical assistance, and conduct and provide the results of
studies and reviews, or request that the Administrator
provide technical assistance, and conduct and provide the
results of studies and reviews, for the corresponding
legislative offices and judicial offices, and entities
operating child care facilities in the corresponding
legislative facilities and judicial facilities, on a
reimbursable basis, in order to assist the entities in
complying with this section.
(g) Council.--The Administrator shall establish an
interagency council, comprised of representatives of all
Executive agencies that are entities sponsoring child care
facilities, a representative of the Chief Administrative
Officer of the House of Representatives, a representative of
the designated Senate entity described in subsection (c), a
representative of the Librarian of Congress, and a
representative of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, to facilitate cooperation and sharing of best
practices, and to develop and coordinate policy, regarding
the provision of child care, including the provision of areas
for nursing mothers and other lactation support facilities
and services, in the Federal Government.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $900,000 for
fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year.
SEC. 603. CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--In addition to services authorized to be
provided by an agency of the United States pursuant to
section 616 of Public Law 100-202 (40 U.S.C. 490b), an
Executive agency that provides or proposes to provide child
care services for Federal employees may use agency funds to
provide the child care services, in a facility that is owned
or leased by an Executive agency, or through a contractor,
for civilian employees of such agency.
(b) Affordability.--Funds so used with respect to any such
facility or contractor shall be applied to improve the
affordability of child care for lower income Federal
employees using or seeking to use the child care services
offered by such facility or contractor.
(c) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, and the Administrator of the General Services
Administration, shall, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, jointly issue regulations necessary to
carry out this section.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Executive agency'' has the meaning given the term in
section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not
include the General Accounting Office.
SEC. 604. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO CHILD CARE
PROVIDED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) Availability of Federal Child Care Centers for Onsite
Contractors; Percentage Goal.--Section 616(a) of Public Law
100-202 (40 U.S.C. 490b(a)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3)
and inserting the following:
``(2) such officer or agency determines that such space
will be used to provide child care and related services to--
``(A) children of Federal employees or onsite Federal
contractors; or
``(B) dependent children who live with Federal employees or
onsite Federal contractors; and
``(3) such officer or agency determines that such
individual or entity will give priority for available child
care and related services in such space to Federal employees
and onsite Federal contractors.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1)(A) The Administrator of General Services shall
confirm that at least 50 percent of aggregate enrollment in
Federal child care centers governmentwide are children of
Federal employees or onsite Federal contractors, or dependent
children who live with Federal employees or onsite Federal
contractors.
``(B) Each provider of child care services at an individual
Federal child care center shall maintain 50 percent of the
enrollment at the center of children described under
subparagraph (A) as a goal for enrollment at the center.
``(C) If enrollment at a center does not meet the
percentage goal under subparagraph (B), the provider shall
develop and implement a business plan with the sponsoring
Federal agency to achieve the goal within a reasonable
timeframe. Such plan shall be approved by the Administrator
of General Services based on--
``(i) compliance of the plan with standards established by
the Administrator; and
``(ii) the effect of the plan on achieving the aggregate
Federal enrollment percentage goal.
``(2) The Administrator of General Services Administration
may enter into public-private partnerships or contracts with
nongovernmental entities to increase the capacity, quality,
affordability, or range of child care and related services
and may, on a demonstration basis, waive subsection (a)(3)
and paragraph (1) of this subsection.''.
(b) Payment of Costs of Training Programs.--Section
616(b)(3) of such Public Law (40 U.S.C. 490b(b)(3)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) If an agency has a child care facility in its space,
or is a sponsoring agency for a child care facility in other
Federal or leased space, the agency or the General Services
[[Page S386]]
Administration may pay accreditation fees, including renewal
fees, for that center to be accredited. Any agency,
department, or instrumentality of the United States that
provides or proposes to provide child care services for
children referred to in subsection (a)(2), may reimburse any
Federal employee or any person employed to provide such
services for the costs of training programs, conferences, and
meetings and related travel, transportation, and subsistence
expenses incurred in connection with those activities. Any
per diem allowance made under this section shall not exceed
the rate specified in regulations prescribed under section
5707 of title 5, United States Code.''.
(c) Provision of Child Care by Private Entities.--Section
616(d) of such Public Law (40 U.S.C. 490b(d)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(d)(1) If a Federal agency has a child care facility in
its space, or is a sponsoring agency for a child care
facility in other Federal or leased space, the agency, the
child care center board of directors, or the General Services
Administration may enter into an agreement with 1 or more
private entities under which such private entities would
assist in defraying the general operating expenses of the
child care providers including salaries and tuition
assistance programs at the facility.
``(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a
Federal agency does not have a child care program, or if the
Administrator of General Services has identified a need for
child care for Federal employees at an agency providing child
care services that do not meet the requirements of subsection
(a), the agency or the Administrator may enter into an
agreement with a non-Federal, licensed, and accredited child
care facility, or a planned child care facility that will
become licensed and accredited, for the provision of child
care services for children of Federal employees.
``(B) Before entering into an agreement, the head of the
Federal agency shall determine that child care services to be
provided through the agreement are more cost effectively
provided through such arrangement than through establishment
of a Federal child care facility.
``(C) The agency may provide any of the services described
in subsection (b)(3) if, in exchange for such services, the
facility reserves child care spaces for children referred to
in subsection (a)(2), as agreed to by the parties. The cost
of any such services provided by an agency to a child care
facility on behalf of another agency shall be reimbursed by
the receiving agency.
``(3) This subsection does not apply to residential child
care programs.''.
(d) Pilot Projects.--Section 616 of such Public Law (40
U.S.C. 490b) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f)(1) Upon approval of the agency head, an agency may
conduct a pilot project not otherwise authorized by law for
no more than 2 years to test innovative approaches to
providing alternative forms of quality child care assistance
for Federal employees. An agency head may extend a pilot
project for an additional 2-year period. Before any pilot
project may be implemented, a determination shall be made by
the agency head that initiating the pilot project would be
more cost-effective than establishing a new child care
facility. Costs of any pilot project shall be borne solely by
the agency conducting the pilot project.
``(2) The Administrator of General Services shall serve as
an information clearinghouse for pilot projects initiated by
other agencies to disseminate information concerning the
pilot projects to the other agencies.
``(3) Within 6 months after completion of the initial 2-
year pilot project period, an agency conducting a pilot
project under this subsection shall provide for an evaluation
of the impact of the project on the delivery of child care
services to Federal employees, and shall submit the results
of the evaluation to the Administrator of General Services.
The Administrator shall share the results with other Federal
agencies.''.
(e) Background Check.--Section 616 of such Public Law (40
U.S.C. 490b) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Each child care center located in a federally owned
or leased facility shall ensure that each employee of such
center (including any employee whose employment began before
the date of enactment of this subsection) shall undergo a
criminal history background check consistent with section 231
of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13041).''.
SEC. 605. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE LACTATION SUPPORT IN NEW
FEDERAL CHILD CARE FACILITIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Federal
agency'', ``executive facility'', ``judicial facility'', and
``legislative facility'' have the meanings given the terms in
section 602.
(b) Lactation Support.--The head of each Federal agency
shall require that each child care facility in an executive
facility or a legislative facility that is first operated
after the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act by the Federal agency, or under a contract or
licensing agreement with the Federal agency, shall provide
reasonable accommodations for the needs of breast-fed infants
and their mothers, including providing a lactation area or a
room for nursing mothers in part of the operating plan for
the facility.
SEC. 606. FEDERAL CHILD CARE EVALUATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``executive
facility'', ``judicial facility'', and ``legislative
facility'' have the meanings given the terms in section 602.
(b) Evaluation.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the General
Services Administration and the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, shall jointly prepare and submit to
Congress a report that contains an evaluation, including--
(1) information on the number of children utilizing child
care in an executive facility, legislative facility, or
judicial facility, including such children who are age 6
through 12, analyzed by age;
(2) information on the number of families not utilizing
child care described in paragraph (1) because of cost; and
(3) recommendations for improving the quality and cost
effectiveness of child care described in paragraph (1),
including options for creating an optimal organizational
structure and best practices for the delivery of such child
care.
____
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Tonight, in my State of the Union address, I will outline
my agenda to help parents struggling to meet their
responsibilities at work and at home. This agenda includes an
ambitious initiative to make child care safer, better, and
more affordable for America's working families. Today,
Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and many of his Democratic
colleagues in the Senate have taken an important step toward
reaching that goal by introducing the Affordable Child Care
for Early Success and Security Act (A.C.C.E.S.S.).
This proposal, like mine, significantly increases child
care subsidies for poor children, provides greater tax relief
to help low- and middle-income families pay for child care
and to support parents who chose to stay at home to care for
their young children. This plan dramatically increases after-
school opportunities, encourages businesses to provide child
care for their employees, promotes early learning and school
readiness, and improves child care quality.
The Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act builds on the longstanding
commitment of Senator Dodd and the co-sponsors of this
legislation to improving child care for our Nation's
children. I look forward to working with Members of Congress
in both parties to enact child care legislation this year
that will help Americans fulfill their responsibilities as
workers, and, even more importantly, as parents.
____
Dear Senator Dodd: The Children's Defense Fund welcomes
the introduction of the ACCESS Act. If enacted, it would not
only provide significant help to families with young and
school-age children, but would also provide communities with
important new resources to improve the quality of child care.
It would represent a major step by the Congress to recognize
the importance of child care in helping to ensure that
children begin school ready to succeed and that parents can
work and be independent.
Thank you for your continued leadership on behalf of
children. We look forward to working with you towards the
passage of this landmark bill.
Sincerely yours,
Marian Wright Edelman.
____
Dear Senator Dodd: We are writing to express our
enthusiastic support for your comprehensive child care
legislation, the Affordable Child Care for Early Success and
Security (``ACCESS'') Act. As an organization that has been
working for over 25 years to improve economic security for
women, we know the profound interest that women and their
families have in the enactment of effective child care
policies. At a time when seven out of ten American women with
children work in the paid labor force, it is more critical
than ever that families have access to affordable, high-
quality child care that will help their children learn and
grow.
The child care package you are proposing represents a much-
needed new investment in affordable, high-quality child care
for America's families. The new funding your bill would add
to the Child Care and Development Block Grant will help
expand the supply of quality care, especially for infants and
toddlers, as well as increase the range of options for the
care of school-age children. Your bill's expansion of the
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, particularly by making
the credit refundable, would be of significant assistance in
making child care more affordable for millions of families.
We believe that this Congress presents an extraordinary
opportunity to move forward on child care, and we hope that
members of both parties in both Houses of Congress will come
together to make it happen. Your legislation is a major step
toward that goal, and we look forward to working with you in
the days to come.
Sincerely,
Nancy Duff Campbell,
Co-President.
Judith C. Appelbaum,
Vice President and Director of Employment Opportunity.
Cristina Firvida,
Counsel.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
[[Page S387]]
Torricelli, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 18. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act to provide for improved public health
and food safety through enhanced enforcement; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
safer meat and poultry act
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce S. 18 as part of
the Democratic package, the SAFER Meat and Poultry Act, a bill that
will make meat and poultry products safer for our families and our
children. The bill provisions are simple, obvious authorities the USDA
needs to assure that meat and poultry products are as safe as possible.
In 1998, we had a record 13 recalls for deadly E. coli 0157:H7,
involving more than 2 million pounds of meat products. Tragically, just
over the recent holidays, a nationwide outbreak of Listeria was
recognized, leading to the massive recall of hotdogs and cold cuts. At
least a dozen people lost their lives during that outbreak just over
the recent holiday season.
Just last Friday, another recall for Listeria was announced. So
despite the progress we have made in controlling some foodborne
pathogens through improved meat inspection laws, problems with other
pathogens may be getting worse.
Mr. President, the bill really is targeted at kids, because it is our
kids who are the most vulnerable. And this chart shows that. These are
the numbers of cases just for the State of Iowa. And as you see by age,
here is the number of cases. Here are the ages: 0 to 5, 6 to 10, up to
80 years of age. You can see, the bulk of the illnesses from foodborne
pathogens happens when you are less than 6 years of age--our kids who
have not built up the immunity that they need that get the sickest from
these foodborne pathogens. This is for Salmonella, E. coli, and
Campylobacter. It is really necessary to protect our children from
these pathogens.
S. 18 strengthens our laws in a number of ways. One is to give the
Secretary of Agriculture the authority to mandate a recall. Most people
assume that the Secretary has this authority, but he does not. Some
argue that a packer or distributor will recall the tainted meat
voluntarily, but recalls don't always go smoothly.
In June of last year, a company challenged the USDA on a Federal test
for E. coli. The Federal test showed E. coli was there. The company
said no, it was not. They contested it. And, therefore, valuable time
was lost in recalling that meat product.
Consumers were shocked in 1997 by the largest recall in history, when
a Hudson plant recalled 25 million pounds of ground beef linked to
illnesses.
When the Secretary of Agriculture is given recall authority, he can
mandate what tasks must be done and whose responsibility these tasks
will be. Communication is the most essential element of a timely
recall.
Another provision of the bill gives the Secretary the authority to
levy civil fines for violations of meat and poultry laws. Right now,
all the Secretary can do is close a plant down. That may not be the
wisest course of action. You have people working there. It would put
people out of work. The problem may not be their fault at all.
Last year, the USDA referred dozens of cases for criminal prosecution
for violation of meat and poultry laws. So clearly the current
authorities are not an adequate incentive to protect consumer safety.
I have here a chart, Mr. President, that shows what civil penalty
authority the Secretary has. For example, if there is an introduction
of an animal disease anywhere in the United States, the Secretary of
Agriculture can levy a fine. If you mistreat an animal, you can be
fined by the Secretary of Agriculture. If you have a deceptive
practice, if you violate the Pecan Promotion Act, you can be fined by
the Secretary of Agriculture. But if you violate the food safety laws,
you cannot be fined.
Civil fines are consistent with the new HACCP regulation for meat and
poultry processing, and provide a ``just right'' option for the
Secretary to assure compliance with food safety laws.
What the Secretary has is an atom bomb. He can drop the atom bomb and
close the plant down, which may not be the best course of action, but
he cannot levy a civil fine, which may be the best action for certain
violations.
Finally, the bill requires, Mr. President, that someone who knows
about a contaminated food product, other than a consumer, must notify
the Secretary of Agriculture. These are commonsense authorities.
Last year we saw a 50% increase in outbreaks, and a record number of
recalls for the deadly E. coli O157-H7 in ground beef. More and more
testing is done by grocery stores, and by purchasers for school lunch
programs and restaurant chains. This bill would require that these
parties notify the Secretary of Agriculture when there is a positive
test. This law would allow public health authorities to oversee a
recall that is timely and complete, and truly protects people from
devastating illness.
These are common sense authorities that most consumers assume the
Secretary already has. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting
this important piece of food safety legislation.
I also wish to indicate my strong support for legislation introduced
today that will help restore and enhance farm income protection. Our
farm sector, including livestock and crop production, is experiencing
one of the worst downturns in over a decade. Pork producers have just
experienced the worst real hog prices in history. There's a critical
need for Congress to respond to this financial crisis that is
threatening the livelihoods and life savings of America's farm
families, and eroding the economies of rural communities.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this good, important
piece of food safety legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a sponsor of this
important bill, and I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this
issue. With the high incidence of foodborne illnesses, it is essential
for regulatory agencies to have the authority necessary to prevent or
minimize outbreaks of these illnesses, and combat food contamination.
Microbial contamination of food is an increasing problem. The
emergence of highly virulent strains of common bacteria, such as E.
coli 0157, is a significant cause of foodborne illnesses. Common
infections that were once easily treatable are now a major public
health threat, as the microorganisms acquire the ability to resist
destruction by antibiotics.
The current enforcement authority of the Department of Agriculture is
not sufficient. Our bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the
additional authority he needs in order to recall adulterated or
misbranded meat or poultry products, and to assess civil penalties
against processors who repeatedly violate meat and poultry safety
standards. Most processors comply responsibly with USDA requests for
voluntary recalls of unsafe products. This additional authority will
ensure more timely and comprehensive removal of potentially dangerous
foods from supermarket shelves.
Such new enforcement tools are necessary to improve food safety in
general and to reduce the risk of future outbreaks of foodborne
illnesses. Families across the country deserve to have confidence that
the meat and poultry they eat are safe, and I look forward to early
action by Congress on this important legislation.
Assurance of safe meat and poultry is just one part of the challenge
of guaranteeing safe food. The safety of produce and of processed food,
including imported food, is the responsibility of the Food and Drug
Administration and a major part of President Clinton's Food Safety
Initiative. I plan to develop legislation, in cooperation with other
Senators, to ensure that no matter where our food is grown, processed,
or packaged, it meets uniform high standards of safety.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sarbanes,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Bryan, and Mr. Moynihan):
[[Page S388]]
S. 20. A bill to assist the States and local governments in assessing
and remediating brownfield sites and encouraging environmental cleanup
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
the brownfields and environmental cleanup act of 1999
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Daschle,
Baucus, Reid, Boxer, Wyden, Breaux, Bryan, Levin, Murray, Schumer,
Torricelli, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Kennedy,
and Lieberman, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental
Cleanup Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup
of potentially thousands of toxic waste sites across the country. Just
as importantly, this bill is about jobs, revenue and economic
opportunity, because it will help turn abandoned industrial sites into
engines of economic development.
Mr. President, I have been interested for a long time now in the
issue of these abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial
sites, commonly known as brownfields. Our Nation's great industrial
tradition was the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. But this
industrial tradition also entailed tremendous environmental costs.
Sites were contaminated, and then when the manufacturers, the companies
left, the legacy remained behind. Today, decaying industrial plants
define the skyline and contaminate the land in many of our urban areas.
Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of
those manufacturers that left, taking inner-city jobs and often inner-
city hope with them.
However, ``brownfields'' as we have come to know them, can be found
anywhere--in the inner cities, the suburbs and in rural areas. Any time
that an industry leaves an area or a business goes out of business we
face the specter of the unknown--they contaminate not only the
aesthetics of the area but also the opportunity for jobs and for
business investment. This bill provides the means to help investigate
and facilitate funding for the cleanup of these areas, wherever they
are found.
I continue to feel as I did when I introduced similar legislation in
1993, 1996, and again in 1997, that a brownfields cleanup program can
spur significant economic development and create jobs. The nation's
Mayors have estimated that they lose between $200 and $500 million a
year in tax revenues from brownfields sitting idle, and that returning
these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. Each
day that Congress fails to act on brownfields liability, it deprives
our cities of unique redevelopment opportunities. This type of cleanup
initiative makes good environmental sense and good business sense.
A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private
investment, a $1 million increase on the local tax base, and more than
170 new jobs. In Elizabeth, NJ, a former municipal landfill is being
turned into a major mall with 5,000 employees.
Mr. President, the potential for job creation across the country is
enormous, and every revitalized brownfields may represent for someone a
field of dreams, especially to an unemployed urban worker.
But this bill is not about jobs alone. Brownfield cleanup also means
that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment, and
future generations are not left with unknown problems and unused
properties.
On the other hand, the risks posed by many of these sites may be
relatively low and others even nonexistent, because brownfields are
often abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial sites where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by just the perception of
environmental contamination. But their full economic use is being
stymied because there is no ready mechanism for getting them evaluated
or, if necessary, cleaned up, even when the owner of the property is
ready, willing and eager to do so.
In addition, prospective purchasers and developers are reluctant to
get involved in transactions with these properties because of their
concern, however minimal, they might potentially create environmental
liability.
The challenge is to turn these abandoned properties into thriving
businesses that can generate needed jobs and act as a catalyst for
economic development.
My legislation would provide financial assistance in the form of
grants to local and State governments to inventory and evaluate
brownfields sites. This would enable interested parties to know what
would be required to clean the site and what reuse would best suit the
property.
My bill would also provide grants to State and local governments to
establish and capitalize low-interest loan programs. These funds would
be loaned to prospective purchasers, municipalities and others to
facilitate voluntary cleanup actions where traditional lending
mechanisms may not be available. The minimum seed money involved in the
program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, as well as turning
lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future.
The bill also would limit the potential liability of innocent buyers
of these properties, and it would set a standard to gauge when parties
couldn't have reasonably known that the property was contaminated. It
would also provide Superfund liability relief to persons who own
property next door to a brownfields property, so long as the person did
not cause the release and exercises appropriate care.
Mr. President, for several Congresses there has been bipartisan
interest in addressing brownfields, both in the Senate and in the other
body on the other side of the Capitol. I am hopeful we can move this
legislation forward in a cooperative way with support of Members on
both sides of the aisle.
I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1999--Summary
Provides funds to local governments and others for brownfield site
assessment and cleanup; and
provides liability relief for prospective purchasers, innocent
landowners and contiguous property owners.
Title I: Brownfields Cleanup
Authorizes $35 million per year from the Superfund for 5 years for
grants to local governments, States and Indian tribes to inventory and
assess the contamination at brownfields sites; and authorizes $50
million per year from the Superfund for 5 years for local governments,
States and Indian tribes to capitalize revolving loan funds for cleanup
of brownfield sites.
Title II: Prospective Purchasers
Provides Superfund liability relief for prospective purchasers of
sites who are not responsible for contamination and do not impede the
performance of a cleanup or restoration at a site they acquire after
enactment of this bill, provided that prior to acquisition they made
all appropriate inquiry into prior uses and ownership of the facility,
exercise appropriate care with respect to hazardous substances, and
provide cooperation and access to persons authorized to clean up the
site.
Title III: Innocent Landowners
Clarifies relief from Superfund liability for landowners who had no
reason to know of contamination at the time or purchase, despite having
made all appropriate inquiry into prior ownership and use of the
facility. Provides that the ``appropriate inquiry'' requirement is
satisfied by conducting an environmental site assessment that meets
specified standards within 180 days prior to acquisition of the
property.
Title IV: Contiguous property owners
Provides Superfund liability relief for persons who own or operate
property that is contaminated solely due to a release from contiguous
property, so long as the person did not cause or contribute to the
release, and exercised appropriate care with respect to hazardous
substances.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
S. 21. A bill to reduce social security payroll taxes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Social Security Solvency Act of 1999
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague,
Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in reintroducing legislation that would
preserve Social Security and make it solvent permanently, while
providing a
[[Page S389]]
payroll tax cut of about $800 billion over the next ten years.
Last March, Senator Kerrey and I introduced a nearly identical bill--
S. 1792, The Social Security Solvency Act of 1998. And in July of 1998
Senators Gregg and Breaux introduced S. 2313, The 21st Century
Retirement Security Plan, with a companion bill introduced in the House
by Congressmen Koble and Stenholm. All of these bills attempt to steer
a mid-course between those who seek to maintain the current system
(albeit with some traditional modifications of payroll tax rates and
benefits) and those who seek to replace Social Security with private
accounts. The Moynihan/Kerrey and Gregg/Breaux/Koble/Stenholm bills are
quite similar. In September of last year I, along with Senators Gregg,
Breaux, Kerrey, Coats, Robb, Thomas, and Thompson formed a Bipartisan
Social Security Coalition. In a ``Dear Colleague'' we argued that a
number of principles have guided us in our efforts to build a consensus
on the future of Social Security including:
A payroll tax cut for all working Americans, with an opportunity for
all workers to invest in personal savings account; Payroll tax rates
set so that annual revenues closely match annual outlays throughout the
actuarial valuation period; A progressive benefit formula; Accurate
cost-of-living adjustments; Repeal of the earnings test so that
beneficiaries are free to work while collecting benefits; and Permanent
solvency for the Social Security program with a reduction in the
Federal Government's unfunded liabilities.
For those who care, as we do, about preserving this vital program, I
would simply suggest that without these changes, Social Security as we
know it will not survive. For some 20 years now, opinion polls have
shown that a majority of non-retired adults do not believe they will
get their Social Security when they retire. Ask anyone on the street;
ask anyone in their thirties or forties. They are convinced that Social
Security will not be there for them. In one sense, they have good
reason to think so: the Social Security Trustees so state in their most
recent annual report released in April, 1998, which pointedly notes
that:
* * * in 2034, tax income of OASI (Social Security) is
estimated to be sufficient to pay about \3/4\ of program
costs; that ratio is projected to decline to about \2/3\ by
the end of the projection period.
Lack of confidence is partially the result of neglect by a Social
Security Administration that has made little effort to stay in touch
with Americans before retirement. But there is also a more powerful
influence at work: a serious ideological movement opposed to government
social insurance as a threat to individual initiative and, indeed,
liberty. There is now abroad a powerful set of distinguished political
leaders and academics who would turn the 60-year-old system of Social
Security retirement, disability, and survivors benefits over to a
system that depends solely on personal savings invested in the market.
This is a legitimate idea, with respectable intellectual support.
(One thinks of the energetic work of Martin Feldstein, who 20 years ago
argued that ``Social Security significantly depresses private wealth
accumulation.'') It is an idea that has gained world-wide recognition.
Since 1988, workers in the United Kingdom had been permitted to opt out
of a part of the Social Security system, if they sign up for some
personal retirement savings plans similar to our IRAs or 401(k)
arrangements. In Sweden, the model welfare state, a pension reform plan
that includes a mandatory private pension component equal to 2.5
percent of earnings went into effect this year, after being enacted by
a coalition government composed of Social Democrats and other left of
center parties.
As the 1990s arrived, and with it the long stock market boom, the
call for privatization of Social Security has all but drowned out the
more traditional views. For the first time, something akin to
abolishing Social Security becamer a possibility.
Don't think it couldn't happen. In 1996, we enacted legislation which
abolished Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children. The mothers' pension of the progressive era,
incorporated in the 1935 legislation, vanished with scarcely a word of
protest.
Will the Old Age pensions and survivors benefits disappear as well?
What might once have seemed inconceivable is now somewhere between
possible and probable. I, for one, hope that this will not happen. A
minimum retirement guarantee, along with disability and survivors
benefits, is surely something we ought to keep, even as we augment the
basic guarantee--as both the U.K and Sweden have done--with some form
of private accounts.
Here is what Senator Bob Kerrey and I proposed, in the legislation
that we are reintroducing today.
Our bill makes changes that will preserve Social Security and make it
solvent indefinitely. Under our plan, private accounts would complement
Social Security, not replace it. Markets go up, but they also, as we
made painfully clear last summer, frequently go down. But even with
fluctuations in markets there are ways to safeguard private accounts.
Working with the Securities and Exchange Commission and those in the
securities industry we believe that it is possible to provide private
savings instruments that meet the needs of workers planning for their
retirement, and that are reasonably secure, with diminimus
administrative costs.
We believe that the best approach to retirement savings in the 21st
century is a three-tier system founded on the basic Social Security
annuity. To which is added one's private pension--which about half of
Americans now enjoy--and one's private savings.
Our plan would return Social Security to a pay-as-you-go system. This
makes possible an immediate payroll tax cut of approximately $800
billion over the next 10 years, as payroll tax rates would be cut from
12.4 to 10.4 percent.
The bill would permit voluntary personal savings accounts, which
workers could finance with the proceeds of the two percentage point cut
in the payroll tax. Under this provision in our legislation--together
with a total of $3,500 deposited in an individual's account at birth
and at ages 1-5 under the Kidsave provision of the bill--all workers
will be able to accumulate an estate which they can pass on to their
children and grandchildren.
Our plan includes a one percentage point correction in cost of living
adjustments for all indexed programs except Supplemental Security
Income. Benefits are also adjusted to reflect projected increases in
life expectancy, similar to what has just been adopted in Sweden.
It is worth digressing here to note that under current law the so-
called normal retirement age (NRA) is scheduled to gradually increase
from 65 to 67. In practice, the NRA, is important as a benchmark for
determining the monthly benefit amount, but it does not reflect the
actual age at which workers receive retirement benefits. More than 70
percent of workers begin collecting Social Security retirement benefits
before they reach age 65, and more than 50 percent do so at age 62.
Under the bill, workers can continue to receive benefits at age 62 and
the provision in the 1983 Social Security amendments that increased the
NRA to age 67 is repealed. Instead, under this legislation, if life
expectancy increases the level of benefits payable at age 65 (or at the
age at which the worker actually retires) decreases. (Sweden has
adopted a similar provision allowing workers to continue to retire at
age 61, even as monthly benefits are reduced to mirror the projected
gradual increase in life expectancy.)
We also propose to eliminate the so-called earnings test, which
reduces Social Security benefits for retirees who have wages
significantly above $10,000 per year, and is a burden and annoyance to
persons who wish to work after age 62.
Finally, Social Security benefits would be taxed to the same extent
private pensions are taxed, with the provision phased-in over the 5
year period 2000-2004. And Social Security coverage would be extended
to newly hired employees in currently excluded State and local
positions.
This package of changes ensures the long-run solvency of Social
Security while reducing payroll taxes by almost $800 billion over the
next decade, and with little or no change in the Federal budget
surplus. Beginning in the year 2030, payroll tax rates would increase
gradually to cover growing outlays, and would rise only slightly above
the current level in the year 2035.
[[Page S390]]
Can this be done? From an actuarial perspective, it's easy. We know--
or at least the actuaries can tell us--within a couple of million
persons how many workers will be supporting how many retirees in 2050.
Contrast this with Medicare, where you do not know where gene therapy
will lead in three years, let alone 30 years. The 17 members of the
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, ably chaired
by Senator Breaux, can, I am sure, attest to the analytic complexity of
the issues they are discussing as part of that important Commission's
work.
Politically, however, it won't be easy to fix Social Security. In a
manner that the late economist Mancur Olson would recognize, over time
Social Security has acquired a goodly number of veto groups which
prevent changes, howsoever necessary. In so doing they also undermine
confidence in Social Security by supporting a promised level of
benefits which the Trustees, as noted above, readily admit cannot be
delivered.
The veto groups assert that the Moynihan-Kerrey bill will reduce
benefits by 30 percent. Not true when compared to what actually can be
delivered. With pay-as-you-go, and adjustments in benefits related to
an accurate cost of living index and the increase in life expectancy,
the Moynihan-Kerrey bill delivers higher benefits than Social Security
can actually provide with projected tax revenues under current law. For
example, in 2040 the Social Security actuaries estimate that the
current program can only deliver 73 percent of promised benefits. We do
slightly better than that. Add in the annuity--financed with voluntary
contributions of 2 percent of earnings--and benefits are 20 percent or
more higher than the current program can deliver--even assuming real
rates of interest no higher than a modest 3 percent. For 2070, the
actuaries estimate that current financing will only support benefits
equal to 68 percent of what is promised--a reduction of more than 30
percent. Again we do slightly better even without the private
accounts--and more than 25 percent better with the private accounts.
As I say, this won't be easy. Which is why this is a time for courage
as well as policy analysis. Social Security, one of the great
achievements of our government in this century, is ours to maintain.
Our bill does just that.
I ask unanimous consent the summary of the bill and the full text of
the bill be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 21
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 ``Social
Security Solvency Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Modification of FICA rates to provide pay-as-you-go financing
of social security.
Sec. 3. Voluntary investment of payroll tax cut by employees.
Sec. 4. Increase of social security wage base.
Sec. 5. Cost-of-living adjustments.
Sec. 6. Tax treatment of social security payments.
Sec. 7. Coverage of newly hired State and local employees.
Sec. 8. Increase in length of computation period from 35 to 38 years.
Sec. 9. Modification of PIA factors to reflect changes in life
expectancy.
Sec. 10. Elimination of earnings test for individuals who have attained
early retirement age.
Sec. 11. Social security kidsave accounts.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FICA RATES TO PROVIDE PAY-AS-YOU-GO
FINANCING OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Tax on employees.--Section 3101(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax on employees) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal
to the applicable percentage of the wages (as defined in
section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment
(as defined in section 3121(b)).
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage shall be the percentage set
forth in the following table:
The applicable percentage shall be::
2000 through 2029............................................5.2
2030 through 2034............................................6.2
2035 through 2049...........................................6.45
2050 through 2059...........................................6.65
2060 or thereafter.......................................6.85 .''
(2) Tax on employers.--Section 3111(a) of such Code
(relating to tax on employers) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect
to having individuals in his employ, equal to the applicable
percentage of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid
by him with respect to employment (as defined in section
3121(b)).
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage shall be the percentage set
forth in the following table:
The applicable percentage shall be:
2000 and 2001................................................6.2
2002 through 2029............................................5.2
2030 through 2034............................................6.2
2035 through 2049...........................................6.45
2050 through 2059...........................................6.65
2060 or thereafter.......................................6.85 .''
(3) Self-employment tax.--Section 1401(a) of such Code
(relating to tax on self-employment income) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to other taxes, there is
hereby imposed for each taxable year, on the self-employment
income of every individual, a tax equal to the applicable
percentage of the amount of the self-employment income for
such taxable year.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage shall be the percentage set
forth in the following table:
``In the case of a taxable year
The applicable
Beginning after: And before: percentage is:
December 31, 1999................ January 1, 2002..... 11.4
December 31, 2001................ January 1, 2030..... 10.4
December 31, 2029................ January 1, 2035..... 12.4
December 31, 2034................ January 1, 2050..... 12.9
December 31, 2049................ January 1, 2060..... 13.3
December 31, 2059................ .................... 13.7.''
(4) Effective dates.--
(A) Employees and employers.--The amendments made by
paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to remuneration paid after
December 31, 1999.
(B) Self-employed individuals.--The amendment made by
paragraph (3) applies to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1999.
(b) Reallocation of Employment Taxes.--
(1) Reallocation of tax on employees and employers.--
Section 201(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
401(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``(Q) 1.70 per centum of
the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1996, and
before January 1, 2000, and so reported, and (R) 1.80 per
centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31,
1999, and so reported'' and inserting ``(Q) 1.70 per centum
of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1996,
and before January 1, 2000, and so reported, (R) 1.80 per
centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31,
1999, and before January 1, 2030, and so reported, (S) 2.15
per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December
31, 2029, and before January 1, 2035, and so reported, (T)
2.23 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after
December 31, 2034, and before January 1, 2050, and so
reported, (U) 2.30 per centum of the wages (as so defined)
paid after December 31, 2049, and before January 1, 2060, and
so reported, and (V) 2.39 per centum of the wages (as so
defined) paid after December 31, 2059, and so reported''.
(2) Reallocation of tax on self-employment income.--Section
201(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 401(b)(2)) is amended by
striking ``(Q) 1.70 per centum of self-employment income (as
so defined) so reported for any taxable year beginning after
December 31, 1996, and before January 1, 2000, and (R) 1.80
per centum of self-employment income (as so defined) so
reported for any taxable year beginning after December 31,
1999'' and inserting ``(Q) 1.70 per centum of self-employment
income (as so defined) so reported for any taxable year
beginning after December 31, 1996, and before January 1,
2000, (R) 1.80 per centum of self-employment income (as so
defined) so reported for any taxable year beginning after
December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2030, (S) 2.15 per
centum of self-employment income (as so defined) so reported
for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2029, and
before January 1, 2035, (T) 2.23 per centum of self-
employment income (as so defined) so reported for any taxable
year beginning after December 31, 2034, and before January 1,
2050, (U) 2.30 per centum of self-employment income (as so
defined) so reported for any taxable year beginning after
December 31, 2049, and before January 1, 2060, and (V) 2.39
per centum of self-employment income (as so defined) so
reported for any taxable year beginning after December 31,
2059''.
(c) Future Rates and Allocation Between Trust Funds
Proposed by Board of Trustees for Legislative Action.--
(1) In general.--Section 201(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 401(c)) is amended in the matter following
paragraph (5) by striking ``(as defined by the Board of
Trustees).'' and inserting ``(as defined by the Board of
Trustees. If such finding shows that the combined Trust Funds
are not in close actuarial balance (as so defined), then such
[[Page S391]]
report (beginning in April 2001) shall include a legislative
recommendation by the Board of Trustees specifying new rates
of tax under sections 3101(a), 3111(a), and 1401(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the allocation of those
rates between the Trust Funds necessary in order to restore
the combined Trust Funds and each Trust Fund to actuarial
balance. If such finding shows that the combined Trust Funds
are in close actuarial balance (as so defined), but that 1 of
the Trust Funds is not in close actuarial balance, then such
report (beginning in April 2001) shall include a legislative
recommendation by the Board of Trustees specifying a new
allocation of such rates of tax between the Trust Funds, so
that each Trust Fund is in close actuarial balance. Such
recommendation shall be considered by Congress under
procedures described in subsection (n)).''.
(2) Fast-track consideration of legislative
recommendations.--Section 201 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 401) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n)(1) Any legislative recommendation included in the
report provided for in subsection (c) shall--
``(A) not later than 3 days after the Board of Trustees
submits such report, be introduced (by request) in the House
of Representatives by the Majority Leader of the House and be
introduced (by request) in the Senate by the Majority Leader
of the Senate; and
``(B) be given expedited consideration under the same
provisions and in the same way, subject to paragraph (2), as
a joint resolution under section 2908 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2678 note).
``(2) For purposes of applying paragraph (1) with respect
to such provisions, the following rules shall apply:
``(A) Section 2908(a) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2678 note) shall not
apply.
``(B) Any reference to the resolution described in
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the
legislative recommendation submitted under subsection (c) of
this Act.
``(C) Any reference to the Committee on National Security
of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be a
reference to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and any reference to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate shall be deemed to be a reference to
the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
``(D) Any reference to the date on which the President
transmits a report shall be deemed to be a reference to the
date on which the recommendation is submitted under
subsection (c).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments to FERS To Protect Payroll Tax
Cut.--The table contained in section 8422(a)(3) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``7'' the second place it appears and
inserting ``6'';
(2) by striking ``7.4'' and inserting ``6.4'';
(3) by striking ``7.5'' the first, third, fifth, and
seventh places it appears and inserting ``6.5'';
(4) by striking ``7.9'' each place it appears and inserting
``6.9''; and
(5) by striking ``8'' each place it appears and inserting
``7''.
SEC. 3. VOLUNTARY INVESTMENT OF PAYROLL TAX CUT BY EMPLOYEES.
(a) Voluntary Investment of Payroll Tax Cut.--
(1) In general.--Title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended--
(A) by inserting before section 201 the following:
``Part A--Insurance Benefits'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``Part B--Voluntary Investment Accounts
``employee election and designation of voluntary investment account
under payroll deduction plan
``Sec. 251. (a) In General.--An individual who is an
employee of a covered employer may elect to participate in
the employer's voluntary investment account payroll deduction
plan either--
``(1) not later than 10 business days after the individual
becomes an employee of the employer, or
``(2) during any open enrollment period.
The Commissioner shall by regulation provide for at least 1
open enrollment period annually.
``(b) Period of Election.--
``(1) Time election takes effect.--An election under
subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to the first
pay period beginning more than 14 days after the date of the
election.
``(2) Termination.--An election under subsection (a) shall
terminate--
``(A) upon the termination of employment of the employee of
the covered employer, or
``(B) with respect to pay periods beginning more than 14
days after the employee terminates such election.
``(c) Designation of Voluntary Investment Account.--
``(1) Initial election.--An employee shall, at the time an
election is made under subsection (a), designate the
voluntary investment account to which voluntary investment
account contributions on behalf of the employee are to be
deposited.
``(2) Changes.--The Commissioner shall by regulation
provide the time and manner by which an employee or a person
described in section 254(d) on behalf of such employee may--
``(A) designate another voluntary investment account to
which contributions are to be deposited, and
``(B) transfer amounts from one such account to another.
``(d) Form of Elections.--Elections under this section
shall be made--
``(1) on W-4 forms (or any successor forms), or
``(2) in such other manner as the Commissioner may
prescribe in order to ensure ease of administration and
reductions in burdens on employers.
``voluntary investment account payroll deduction plans
``Sec. 252. (a) In General.--Each person who is a covered
employer for a calendar year shall have in effect a voluntary
investment account payroll deduction plan for such calendar
year for such person's electing employees.
``(b) Voluntary Investment Account Payroll Deduction
Plans.--For purposes of this part, the term `voluntary
investment account payroll deduction plan' means a written
plan of an employer--
``(1) which applies only with respect to wages of any
employee who elects to become an electing employee in
accordance with section 251,
``(2) under which the voluntary investment account
contributions under section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 will be deducted from an electing employee's
wages and, together with such contributions under section
3111(a) of such Code on behalf of such employee, will be paid
to the Social Security Administration for deposit in 1 or
more voluntary investment accounts designated by such
employee in accordance with section 251,
``(3) under which the employer is required to pay the
amount so contributed with respect to the specified voluntary
investment account of the electing employee within the same
time period as other taxes under sections 3101 and 3111 with
respect to the wages of such employee,
``(4) under which the employer receives no compensation for
the cost of administering such plan, and
``(5) under which the employer does not make any
endorsement with respect to any voluntary investment account.
``(c) Penalties for Failure To Establish Voluntary
Investment Account Payroll Deduction Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Any covered employer who fails to meet
the requirements of this section for any calendar year shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed the greater
of--
``(A) $2,500, or
``(B) $100 for each electing employee of such employer as
of the beginning of such calendar year.
``(2) Rules for application of subsection.--
``(A) Penalties assessed by commissioner.--Any civil
penalty assessed by this subsection shall be imposed by the
Commissioner of Social Security and collected in a civil
action.
``(B) Compromises.--The Commissioner may compromise the
amount of any civil penalty imposed by this subsection.
``(C) Authority to waive penalty in certain cases.--The
Commissioner may waive the application of this subsection
with respect to any failure if the Commissioner determines
that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to
intentional disregard of rules and regulations.
``participation by self-employed individuals
``Sec. 253. An individual shall make an election to become
an electing self-employed individual, designate a voluntary
investment account, and have in effect a voluntary investment
account payroll deduction plan under rules similar to the
rules under sections 251 and 252.
``definitions and special rules
``Sec. 254. (a) Voluntary investment account.--For purposes
of this part--
``(1) a voluntary investment account described in this
paragraph is a voluntary investment account in the Voluntary
Investment Fund (established under section 255),
``(2) a voluntary investment account described in this
paragraph is an individual retirement plan (as defined in
section 7701(a)(37) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
other than a Roth IRA (as defined in section 408A(b) of such
Code), which is designated by the electing employee as a
voluntary investment account (in such manner as the Secretary
of the Treasury may prescribe) and which is administered or
issued by a bank or other person referred to in section
408(a)(2) of such Code, and
``(3) a voluntary investment account described in this
paragraph is a KidSave Account (as described in paragraph (1)
or (2) of section 262(a)) of the electing employee, which is
designated by the electing employee as a voluntary investment
account (in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may
prescribe).
``(b) Treatment of Accounts.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
``(A) any voluntary investment account described in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be treated in the same
manner as an account in the Thrift Savings Fund under
subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,
[[Page S392]]
``(B) any voluntary investment account described in
paragraph (2) of subsection (a) shall be treated in the same
manner as an individual retirement plan (as so defined), and
``(C) any voluntary investment account described in
paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall be treated in the same
manner as the designated KidSave Account would have been
treated under section 262(b).
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Contribution limit.--The aggregate amount of
contributions for any taxable year to all voluntary
investment accounts of an electing employee shall not exceed
the aggregate amount of contributions made pursuant to
sections 3101(a)(3), 3111(a)(3), and 1401(a)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and paid pursuant to section
252 or 253 on behalf of such employee.
``(B) No deduction allowed.--No deduction shall be allowed
under section 219 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a
contribution to a voluntary investment account.
``(C) Rollover contributions.--No rollover contribution may
be made to a voluntary investment account unless it is from
another voluntary investment account or a KidSave Account (as
described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 262(a)). A
rollover described in the preceding sentence shall not be
taken into account for purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(D) Distributions allowed to social security
beneficiaries.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
distributions may only be made from a voluntary investment
account of an electing employee on or after the earlier of--
``(i) the date on which the employee begins receiving
benefits under this title, or
``(ii) the date of the employee's death.
``(c) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) Covered employer.--The term `covered employer' means,
for any calendar year, any person on whom an excise tax is
imposed under section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 with respect to having an individual in the person's
employ to whom wages are paid by such person during such
calendar year.
``(2) Electing employee.--The term `electing employee'
means an individual with respect to whom an election under
section 251 is in effect.
``(3) Electing self-employed individual.--The term
`electing self-employed individual' means an individual with
respect to whom an election under section 253 is in effect.
``(d) Treatment of incompetent individuals.--Any
designation under section 251(c)(2) to be made by an
individual mentally incompetent or under other legal
disability may be made by the person who is constituted
guardian or other fiduciary by the law of the State of
residence of the individual or is otherwise legally vested
with the care of the individual or his estate. Payment under
this part due an individual mentally incompetent or under
other legal disability may be made to the person who is
constituted guardian or other fiduciary by the law of the
State of residence of the claimant or is otherwise legally
vested with the care of the claimant or his estate. In any
case in which a guardian or other fiduciary of the individual
under legal disability has not been appointed under the law
of the State of residence of the individual, if any other
person, in the judgment of the Commissioner, is responsible
for the care of such individual, any designation under
section 251(c)(2) which may otherwise be made by such
individual may be made by such person, any payment under this
part which is otherwise payable to such individual may be
made to such person, and the payment of an annuity payment
under this part to such person bars recovery by any other
person.
``voluntary investment fund
``Sec. 255. (a) Establishment.--There is established and
maintained in the Treasury of the United States a Voluntary
Investment Fund in the same manner as the Thrift Savings Fund
under sections 8437, 8438, and 8439 of title 5, United States
Code.
``(b) Voluntary Investment Fund Board.--
``(1) In general.--There is established and operated in the
Social Security Administration a Voluntary Investment Fund
Board in the same manner as the Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board under subchapter VII of chapter 84 of title
5, United States Code.
``(2) Specific investment duties.--The Voluntary Investment
Fund shall be managed by the Voluntary Investment Fund Board
in the same manner as the Thrift Savings Fund is managed
under subchapter VIII of chapter 84 of title 5, United States
Code.''.
(2) Exemption from erisa requirements.--Section 4(b) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1003(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'';
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) such plan is a voluntary investment account payroll
deduction plan established under part B of title II of the
Social Security Act.''.
(3) Effective date and notice requirements.--
(A) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
(and any voluntary investment account payroll deduction plan
required thereunder) apply with respect to wages paid after
December 31, 2001, for pay periods beginning after such date
and self-employment income for taxable years beginning after
such date.
(B) Notice requirements.--
(i) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the
Commissioner of Social Security shall--
(I) send to the last known address of each eligible
individual a description of the program established by the
amendments made by this subsection, which shall be written in
the form of a pamphlet in language which may be readily
understood by the average worker,
(II) provide for toll-free access by telephone from all
localities in the United States and access by the Internet to
the Social Security Administration through which individuals
may obtain information and answers to questions regarding
such program, and
(III) provide information to the media in all localities of
the United States about such program and such toll-free
access by telephone and access by Internet.
(ii) Eligible individual.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term ``eligible individual'' means an
individual who, as of the date of the pamphlet sent pursuant
to clause (i), is indicated within the records of the Social
Security Administration as being credited with 1 or more
quarters of coverage under section 213 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 413).
(iii) Matters to be included.--The Commissioner shall
include with the pamphlet sent to each eligible individual
pursuant to clause (i)--
(I) a statement of the number of quarters of coverage
indicated in the records of the Social Security
Administration as of the date of the description as credited
to such individual under section 213 of such Act and the date
as of which such records may be considered accurate, and
(II) the number for toll-free access by telephone
established by the Commissioner pursuant to clause (i).
(b) Conforming Amendments to Payroll Tax Provisions.--
(1) Employees voluntary investment contributions.--Section
3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax
on employees), as amended by section 2(a)(1), is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Voluntary investment account contribution.--In the
case of an electing employee (as defined in section 254(c)(2)
of the Social Security Act), in addition to other taxes,
there is hereby imposed on the income of such employee a
voluntary investment account contribution equal to 1 percent
of the wages (as so defined) received by him with respect to
employment (as so defined).''.
(2) Employers matching contributions.--Section 3111(a) of
such Code (relating to tax on employers), as amended by
section 2(a)(2), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Matching contribution to employee voluntary
investment account contribution.--In the case of an employer
having in his employ an electing employee (as defined in
section 254(c)(2) of the Social Security Act), in addition to
other taxes, there is hereby imposed on such employer a
voluntary investment account contribution equal to 1 percent
of the wages (as so defined) paid by him with respect to
employment (as so defined) of such employee.''.
(3) Self-employment voluntary investment account
contributions.--Section 1401(a) of such Code (relating to tax
on self-employment income), as amended by section 2(a)(3), is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Voluntary investment account contribution.--In the
case of an electing self-employed individual (as defined in
section 254(c)(3) of the Social Security Act), in addition to
other taxes, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year,
on the self-employment income of such individual, a voluntary
investment account contribution equal to 2 percent of the
amount of the self-employment income for such taxable
year.''.
(4) Effective dates.--
(A) Employees and employers.--The amendments made by
paragraphs (1) and (2) apply to remuneration paid after
December 31, 2001.
(B) Self-employed individuals.--The amendment made by
paragraph (3) applies to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2001.
SEC. 4. INCREASE OF SOCIAL SECURITY WAGE BASE.
(a) In General.--Section 230 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 430) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$60,600'' and inserting
``$99,900''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``1992'' and inserting
``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' and all that follows through
``$29,700.'' and inserting ``the `contribution and benefit
base' with respect to remuneration paid (and taxable years
beginning)--
``(1) in 2002 shall be $87,000,
``(2) in 2003 shall be $94,000, and
``(3) in 2004 shall be $99,900.''; and
(B) by striking ``specified in clause (2) of the preceding
sentence'' and inserting ``specified in the preceding
sentence''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on January 1, 2002.
[[Page S393]]
SEC. 5. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS.
(a) Cost-of-Living Board.--Title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Part D--Cost-of-Living Adjustments
``Determination of Inflation Adjustment
``Sec. 1180. (a) Modification of Cost-of-Living
Adjustment.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any cost-of-living adjustment described in subsection
(e) shall be reduced by the applicable percentage point.
``(2) Applicable percentage point.--In this section, the
term `applicable percentage point' means--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 1 percentage
point; or
``(B) the applicable percentage point adopted by the Cost-
of-Living Board under subsection (b) for the calendar year.
``(b) Cost-of-Living Board Determination.--
``(1) In general.--The Cost-of-Living Board established
under section 1181 shall for each calendar year after 1999
determine if a new applicable percentage point is necessary
to replace the applicable percentage point described in
subsection (a)(2)(A) to ensure an accurate cost-of-living
adjustment which shall apply to any cost-of-living adjustment
taking effect during such year.
``(2) Adoption or rejection of new applicable percentage
point.--
``(A) Adoption.--
``(i) In general.--If the Cost-of-Living Board adopts by
majority vote a new applicable percentage point under
paragraph (1), then, for purposes of subsection (a)(1), the
new applicable percentage point shall remain in effect during
the following calendar year.
``(ii) Appropriate adjustments.--The Cost-of-Living Board
shall make appropriate adjustments to the applicable
percentage point applied to any cost-of-living adjustment
if--
``(I) the period during which the change in the cost-of-
living is measured for such adjustment is different than the
period used by the Cost-of-Living Board; or
``(II) the adjustment is based on a component of an index
rather than the entire index.
``(B) Rejection.--If the Cost-of-Living Board fails by
majority vote to adopt a new applicable percentage point
under paragraph (1) for any calendar year, then the
applicable percentage point for such calendar year shall be
the applicable percentage point described in subsection
(a)(2)(A).
``(c) Report.--Not later than November 1 of each calendar
year, the Cost-of-Living Board shall submit a report to the
President and Congress containing a detailed statement with
respect to the new applicable percentage point (if any)
agreed to by the Board under subsection (b).
``(d) Judicial Review.--Any determination by the Cost-of
Living Board under subsection (b) shall not be subject to
judicial review.
``(e) Cost-of-Living Adjustment Described.--A cost-of-
living adjustment described in this subsection is any cost-
of-living adjustment for a calendar year after 1999
determined by reference to a percentage change in a consumer
price index or any component thereof (as published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor and
determined without regard to this section) and used in any of
the following:
``(1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(2) Titles II, XVIII, and XIX of this Act.
``(3) Any other Federal program (not including programs
under title XVI of this Act).
``COST-OF-LIVING BOARD
``Sec. 1181. (a) Establishment of Board.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established a board to be
known as the Cost-of-Living Board (in this section referred
to as the `Board').
``(2) Membership.--
``(A) Composition.--The Board shall be composed of 5
members of whom--
``(i) 1 shall be the Chairman of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System;
``(ii) 1 shall be the Chairman of the President's Council
of Economic Advisers; and
``(iii) 3 shall be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
The President shall consult with the leadership of the House
of Representatives and the Senate in the appointment of the
Board members under clause (iii).
``(B) Expertise.--The members of the Board appointed under
subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be experts in the field of
economics and should be familiar with the issues related to
the calculation of changes in the cost of living. In
appointing members under subparagraph (A)(iii), the President
shall consider appointing--
``(i) former members of the President's Council of Economic
Advisers;
``(ii) former Treasury department officials;
``(iii) former members of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System;
``(iv) other individuals with relevant prior government
experience in positions requiring appointment by the
President and Senate confirmation; and
``(v) academic experts in the field of price statistics.
``(C) Date.--
``(i) Nominations.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of the Social Security Solvency Act of 1999, the
President shall submit the nominations of the members of the
Board described in subparagraph (A)(iii) to the Senate.
``(ii) Senate action.--Not later than 60 days after the
Senate receives the nominations under clause (i), the Senate
shall vote on confirmation of the nominations.
``(3) Terms and vacancies.--
``(A) Terms.--A member of the Board appointed under
paragraph (2)(A)(iii) shall be appointed for a term of 5
years, except that of the members first appointed under that
paragraph--
``(i) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 1 year;
``(ii) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years;
and
``(iii) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 5 years.
``(B) Vacancies.--
``(i) In general.--A vacancy on the Board shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made and
shall be subject to any conditions which applied with respect
to the original appointment.
``(ii) Filling unexpired term.--An individual chosen to
fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of
the member replaced.
``(C) Expiration of terms.--The term of any member
appointed under paragraph (2)(A)(iii) shall not expire before
the date on which the member's successor takes office.
``(4) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which all members of the Board have been appointed,
the Board shall hold its first meeting. Subsequent meetings
shall be determined by the Board by majority vote.
``(5) Open meetings.--Notwithstanding section 552b of title
5, United States Code, or section 10 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Board may, by majority
vote, close any meeting of the Board to the public otherwise
required to be open under that section. The Board shall make
the records of any such closed meeting available to the
public not later than 30 days of that meeting.
``(6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
``(7) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The Board shall
select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among the
members appointed under paragraph (2)(A)(iii).
``(b) Powers of the Board.--
``(1) Hearings.--The Board may hold such hearings, sit and
act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to
carry out the purposes of this part.
``(2) Information from federal agencies.--The Board may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Board considers necessary to carry out the
provisions of this part, including the published and
unpublished data and analytical products of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Board, the head of such department or agency shall furnish
such information to the Board.
``(3) Postal services.--The Board may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
``(4) Gifts.--The Board may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
``(c) Board Personnel Matters.--
``(1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Board
who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal
Government shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which such member is engaged in the performance
of the duties of the Board. All members of the Board who
otherwise are officers or employees of the United States
shall serve without compensation in addition to that received
for their services as officers or employees of the United
States.
``(2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.
``(3) Staff.--
``(A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Board may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the Board
to perform its duties. The employment of an executive
director shall be subject to confirmation by the Board.
``(B) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Board may fix
the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
``(4) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal
Government employee may be detailed to the Board without
additional reimbursement (other than the employee's regular
compensation), and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
[[Page S394]]
``(5) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
The Chairperson of the Board may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
``(d) Termination.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Board.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Board such sums as are
necessary to carry out the purposes of this part.''.
(c) Termination of Wage Index Adjustment.--Section
215(i)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
415(i)(1)(C)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by inserting ``and before 2000'' after ``after 1988'';
and
(B) by inserting ``, or in any calendar year after 1999,
the CPI increase percentage''; and
(2) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and before 2000'' after
``after 1988''.
SEC. 6. TAX TREATMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 86(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad
retirement benefits) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Income Inclusion.--
``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding section 207 of the
Social Security Act, social security benefits shall be
included in the gross income of a taxpayer for any taxable
year in the manner provided under section 72.
``(2) Transition rules.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), with
respect to any taxable year beginning in 2000, 2001, 2002, or
2003, gross income of the taxpayer shall include social
security benefits in an amount equal to the greater of--
``(i) the applicable percentage of the amount which would
have been included under paragraph (1) for such year, or
``(ii) the amount which would have been included under this
section for such year if the amendments made by section 6 of
the Social Security Solvency Act of 1999 had not been
enacted.
``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i), the applicable percentage for any taxable year shall
be determined in accordance with the following table:
The applicable percentage is:year beginning in--
2000..........................................................20 ....
2001..........................................................40 ....
2002..........................................................60 ....
2003.......................................................80.''.....
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 86 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsections (b),
(c), and (e) and by redesignating subsections (d) and (f) as
subsections (b) and (c), respectively.
(c) Transfers to Trust Funds.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section
121(e) of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, as amended
by section 13215(c)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993, is amended by striking ``1993.'' and inserting
``1993, plus (iii) the amounts equivalent to the aggregate
increase in tax liabilities under chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which is attributable to the amendments
to section 86 of such Code made by section 6 of the Social
Security Solvency Act of 1999.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 7. COVERAGE OF NEWLY HIRED STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Amendments to the Social Security Act.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (7) of section 210(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 410(a)(7)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(7) Excluded State or local government employment (as
defined in subsection (s));''.
(2) Excluded state or local government employment.--
(A) In general.--Section 210 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 410) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``Excluded State or Local Government Employment
``(s)(1) In General.--The term `excluded State or local
government employment' means any service performed in the
employ of a State, of any political subdivision thereof, or
of any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing
which is wholly owned thereby, if--
``(A)(i) such service would be excluded from the term
`employment' for purposes of this title if the preceding
provisions of this section as in effect on December 31, 2001,
had remained in effect, and (ii) the requirements of
paragraph (2) are met with respect to such service, or
``(B) the requirements of paragraph (3) are met with
respect to such service.
``(2) Exception for Current Employment Which Continues.--
``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are
met with respect to service for any employer if--
``(i) such service is performed by an individual--
``(I) who was performing substantial and regular service
for remuneration for that employer before January 1, 2002,
``(II) who is a bona fide employee of that employer on
December 31, 2001, and
``(III) whose employment relationship with that employer
was not entered into for purposes of meeting the requirements
of this subparagraph, and
``(ii) the employment relationship with that employer has
not been terminated after December 31, 2001.
``(B) Treatment of multiple agencies and
instrumentalities.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), under
regulations (consistent with regulations established under
section 3121(t)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)--
``(i) all agencies and instrumentalities of a State (as
defined in section 218(b)) or of the District of Columbia
shall be treated as a single employer, and
``(ii) all agencies and instrumentalities of a political
subdivision of a State (as so defined) shall be treated as a
single employer and shall not be treated as described in
clause (i).
``(3) Exception for Certain Services.--
``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are
met with respect to service if such service is performed--
``(i) by an individual who is employed by a State or
political subdivision thereof to relieve such individual from
unemployment,
``(ii) in a hospital, home, or other institution by a
patient or inmate thereof as an employee of a State or
political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia,
``(iii) by an individual, as an employee of a State or
political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia,
serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, snow,
earthquake, flood, or other similar emergency,
``(iv) by any individual as an employee included under
section 5351(2) of title 5, United States Code (relating to
certain interns, student nurses, and other student employees
of hospitals of the District of Columbia Government), other
than as a medical or dental intern or a medical or dental
resident in training,
``(v) by an election official or election worker if the
remuneration paid in a calendar year for such service is less
than $1,000 with respect to service performed during 2002,
and the adjusted amount determined under subparagraph (C) for
any subsequent year with respect to service performed during
such subsequent year, except to the extent that service by
such election official or election worker is included in
employment under an agreement under section 218, or
``(vi) by an employee in a position compensated solely on a
fee basis which is treated pursuant to section 211(c)(2)(E)
as a trade or business for purposes of inclusion of such fees
in net earnings from self-employment.
``(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the terms
`State' and `political subdivision' have the meanings given
those terms in section 218(b).
``(C) Adjustments to dollar amount for election officials
and election workers.--For each year after 2002, the
Secretary shall adjust the amount referred to in subparagraph
(A)(v) at the same time and in the same manner as is provided
under section 215(a)(1)(B)(ii) with respect to the amounts
referred to in section 215(a)(1)(B)(i), except that--
``(i) for purposes of this subparagraph, 1999 shall be
substituted for the calendar year referred to in section
215(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II), and
``(ii) such amount as so adjusted, if not a multiple of
$50, shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.
The Commissioner of Social Security shall determine and
publish in the Federal Register each adjusted amount
determined under this subparagraph not later than November 1
preceding the year for which the adjustment is made.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Subsection (k) of section 210 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
410(k)) (relating to covered transportation service) is
repealed.
(ii) Section 210(p) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 410(p)) is
amended--
(I) in paragraph (2), by striking ``service is performed''
and all that follows and inserting ``service is service
described in subsection (s)(3)(A).''; and
(II) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``under subsection
(a)(7) as in effect on December 31, 2001'' after ``section''.
(iii) Section 218(c)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 418(c)(6))
is amended--
(I) by striking subparagraph (C);
(II) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as
subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(III) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the
following:
``(E) service which is included as employment under section
210(a).''
(b) Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (7) of section 3121(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to employment) is
amended to read as follows:
``(7) excluded State or local government employment (as
defined in subsection (t));''.
(2) Excluded state or local government employment.--Section
3121 of such Code is amended by inserting after subsection
(s) the following new subsection:
``(t) Excluded State or Local Government Employment.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this chapter, the term
`excluded State or local government employment' means any
service performed in the employ of a State, of any
[[Page S395]]
political subdivision thereof, or of any instrumentality of
any one or more of the foregoing which is wholly owned
thereby, if--
``(A)(i) such service would be excluded from the term
`employment' for purposes of this chapter if the provisions
of subsection (b)(7) as in effect on December 31, 2001, had
remained in effect, and (ii) the requirements of paragraph
(2) are met with respect to such service, or
``(B) the requirements of paragraph (3) are met with
respect to such service.
``(2) Exception for current employment which continues.--
``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are
met with respect to service for any employer if--
``(i) such service is performed by an individual--
``(I) who was performing substantial and regular service
for remuneration for that employer before January 1, 2002,
``(II) who is a bona fide employee of that employer on
December 31, 2001, and
``(III) whose employment relationship with that employer
was not entered into for purposes of meeting the requirements
of this subparagraph, and
``(ii) the employment relationship with that employer has
not been terminated after December 31, 2001.
``(B) Treatment of multiple agencies and
instrumentalities.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), under
regulations--
``(i) all agencies and instrumentalities of a State (as
defined in section 218(b) of the Social Security Act) or of
the District of Columbia shall be treated as a single
employer, and
``(ii) all agencies and instrumentalities of a political
subdivision of a State (as so defined) shall be treated as a
single employer and shall not be treated as described in
clause (i).
``(3) Exception for certain services.--
``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are
met with respect to service if such service is performed--
``(i) by an individual who is employed by a State or
political subdivision thereof to relieve such individual from
unemployment,
``(ii) in a hospital, home, or other institution by a
patient or inmate thereof as an employee of a State or
political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia,
``(iii) by an individual, as an employee of a State or
political subdivision thereof or of the District of Columbia,
serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, snow,
earthquake, flood, or other similar emergency,
``(iv) by any individual as an employee included under
section 5351(2) of title 5, United States Code (relating to
certain interns, student nurses, and other student employees
of hospitals of the District of Columbia Government), other
than as a medical or dental intern or a medical or dental
resident in training,
``(v) by an election official or election worker if the
remuneration paid in a calendar year for such service is less
than $1,000 with respect to service performed during 2002,
and the adjusted amount determined under section 210(s)(3)(C)
of the Social Security Act for any subsequent year with
respect to service performed during such subsequent year,
except to the extent that service by such election official
or election worker is included in employment under an
agreement under section 218 of the Social Security Act, or
``(vi) by an employee in a position compensated solely on a
fee basis which is treated pursuant to section 1402(c)(2)(E)
as a trade or business for purposes of inclusion of such fees
in net earnings from self-employment.
``(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph, the terms
`State' and `political subdivision' have the meanings given
those terms in section 218(b) of the Social Security Act.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (j) of section 3121 of such Code (relating
to covered transportation service) is repealed.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 3121(u) of such Code (relating
to application of hospital insurance tax to Federal, State,
and local employment) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``service is
performed'' in clause (ii) and all that follows through the
end of such subparagraph and inserting ``service is service
described in subsection (t)(3)(A).''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting ``under
subsection (b)(7) as in effect on December 31, 2001'' after
``chapter''.
(c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the amendments made by this section shall apply with
respect to service performed after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 8. INCREASE IN LENGTH OF COMPUTATION PERIOD FROM 35 TO
38 YEARS.
Section 215(b)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
415(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iii)--
(A) by striking ``age 62'' and inserting ``the applicable
age''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) the term `applicable age' means with respect to
individuals who attain age 62--
``(I) before 2002, age 62;
``(II) in 2002, age 63;
``(III) in 2003, age 64; and
``(IV) after 2003, age 65.''.
SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF PIA FACTORS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN
LIFE EXPECTANCY.
(a) Modification of PIA Factors.--Section 215(a)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(B)) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F) and by
inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) For individuals who initially become eligible for
old-age insurance benefits in any calendar year after 1999,
each of the percentages under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of
subparagraph (A) shall be multiplied the applicable number of
times by .988 (.997, for any calendar year after 2017). For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `applicable
number of times' means a number equal to the lesser of 66 or
the number of years beginning with 2000 and ending with the
year of initial eligibility.
``(E) For any individual who initially becomes eligible for
disability insurance benefits in any calendar year after
1999, the primary insurance amount for such individual shall
be equal to the greater of--
``(i) such amount as determined under this paragraph, or
``(ii) such amount as determined under this paragraph
without regard to subparagraph (D) thereof.''.
(b) Restoration of Normal Retirement Age at 65.--
(1) In general.--Section 216(l)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 416(l) is amended to read as follows:
``(l)(1) The term `retirement age' means 65 years of
age.''.
(2) Conforming Amendments.--
(A) Section 216(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
416(l)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(B) Section 202(q) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(q)) is
amended--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Subject to paragraph
(9), if'' and inserting ``If''; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (9).
(c) Study of the Effect of Increases in Life Expectancy.--
(1) Study plan.--Not later than February 15, 2001, the
Commissioner of Social Security shall submit to Congress a
detailed study plan for evaluating the effects of increases
in life expectancy on the expected level of retirement income
from social security, pensions, and other sources. The study
plan shall include a description of the methodology, data,
and funding that will be required in order to provide to
Congress not later than February 15, 2006--
(A) an evaluation of trends in mortality and their
relationship to trends in health status, among individuals
approaching eligibility for social security retirement
benefits;
(B) an evaluation of trends in labor force participation
among individuals approaching eligibility for social security
retirement benefits and among individuals receiving
retirement benefits, and of the factors that influence the
choice between retirement and participation in the labor
force;
(C) an evaluation of changes, if any, in the social
security disability program that would reduce the impact of
changes in the retirement income of workers in poor health or
physically demanding occupations;
(D) an evaluation of the methodology used to develop
projections for trends in mortality, health status, and labor
force participation among individuals approaching eligibility
for social security retirement benefits and among individuals
receiving retirement benefits; and
(E) an evaluation of such other matters as the Commissioner
deems appropriate for evaluating the effects of increases in
life expectancy.
(2) Report on results of study.--Not later than February
15, 2006, the Commissioner of Social Security shall provide
to Congress an evaluation of the implications of the trends
studied under paragraph (1), along with recommendations, if
any, of the extent to which the conclusions of such
evaluations indicate that projected increases in life
expectancy require modification in the social security
disability program and other income support programs.
SEC. 10. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE ATTAINED EARLY RETIREMENT AGE.
(a) In General.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 403) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the age of
seventy'' and inserting ``early retirement age (as defined in
section 216(l))'';
(2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by
striking ``the age of seventy'' each place it appears and
inserting ``early retirement age (as defined in section
216(l))'';
(3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking ``was age seventy
or over'' and inserting ``was at or above early retirement
age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
(4) in subsection (f)(3)--
(A) by striking ``33\1/3\ percent'' and all that follows
through ``any other individual,'' and inserting ``50 percent
of such individual's earnings for such year in excess of the
product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph
(8),''; and
(B) by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``early retirement
age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
(5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``age 70'' each
place it appears and inserting ``early retirement age (as
defined in section 216(l))''; and
(6) in subsection (j)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Age Seventy'' and
inserting ``Early Retirement Age''; and
[[Page S396]]
(B) by striking ``seventy years of age'' and inserting
``having attained early retirement age (as defined in section
216(l))''.
(b) Conforming Amendments Eliminating the Special Exempt
Amount For Individuals Who Have Attained Age 62.--
(1) Uniform exempt amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by
striking ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for
individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other
individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting ``a
new exempt amount which shall be applicable''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``Except'' and all that follows through ``whichever'' and
inserting ``The exempt amount which is applicable for each
month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever'';
(B) in clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``corresponding''
each place it appears; and
(C) in the last sentence, by striking ``an exempt amount''
and inserting ``the exempt amount''.
(3) Repeal of basis for computation of special exempt
amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. (f)(8)(D)) is repealed.
(c) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Elimination of redundant references to retirement
age.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403)
is amended--
(A) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking
``nor shall any deduction'' and all that follows and
inserting ``nor shall any deduction be made under this
subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if
the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving
divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit
prior to attaining age 60.''; and
(B) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and
inserting the following: ``(D) for which such individual is
entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such
individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,''.
(2) Conforming amendment to provisions for determining
amount of increase on account of delayed retirement.--Section
202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``either''; and
(B) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section
203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such
benefit''.
(3) Provisions relating to earnings taken into account in
determining substantial gainful activity of blind
individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``if
section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996
had not been enacted'' and inserting the following: ``if the
amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior
Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Social
Security Solvency Act of 1999 had not been enacted''.
(d) Study of the Effect of Taking Earnings Into Account in
Determining Substantial Gainful Activity of Disabled
Individuals.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 2001, the
Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct a study on the
effect that taking earnings into account in determining
substantial gainful activity of individuals receiving
disability insurance benefits has on the incentive for such
individuals to work and submit to Congress a report on the
study.
(2) Contents of study.--The study conducted under paragraph
(1) shall include the evaluation of--
(A) the effect of the current limit on earnings on the
incentive for individuals receiving disability insurance
benefits to work;
(B) the effect of increasing the earnings limit or changing
the manner in which disability insurance benefits are reduced
or terminated as a result of substantial gainful activity
(including reducing the benefits gradually when the earnings
limit is exceeded) on--
(i) the incentive to work; and
(ii) the financial status of the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund;
(C) the effect of extending eligibility for the Medicare
program to individuals during the period in which disability
insurance benefits of the individual are gradually reduced as
a result of substantial gainful activity and extending such
eligibility for a fixed period of time after the benefits are
terminated on--
(i) the incentive to work; and
(ii) the financial status of the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Fund; and
(D) the relationship between the effect of substantial
gainful activity limits on blind individuals receiving
disability insurance benefits and other individuals receiving
disability insurance benefits.
(3) Consultation.--The analysis under paragraph (2)(C)
shall be done in consultation with the Administrator of the
Health Care Financing Administration.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments and repeals made by
subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply with respect to
taxable years ending after December 31, 2002.
SEC. 11. SOCIAL SECURITY KIDSAVE ACCOUNTS.
Title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), as amended by section 3(a), is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Part C--KidSave Accounts
``kidsave accounts
``Sec. 261. (a) Establishment.--The Commissioner of Social
Security shall establish in the name of each individual born
on or after January 1, 1995, a KidSave Account described in
paragraph (1) of section 262(a), upon the later of--
``(1) the date of enactment of this part, or
``(2) the date of the issuance of a Social Security account
number under section 205(c)(2) to such individual.
The KidSave Account shall be identified to the account holder
by means of the account holder's Social Security account
number.
``(b) Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--There are appropriated such sums as are
necessary in order for the Secretary of the Treasury to
transfer from the general fund of the Treasury for crediting
by the Commissioner to each account holder's KidSave Account
under subsection (a), an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) in the case of any individual born on or after
January 1, 2000, $1000.00, on the date of the establishment
of such individual's KidSave Account, and
``(B) in the case of any individual born on or after
January 1, 1995, $500.00, on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th
birthdays of such individual occurring on or after January 1,
2000.
``(2) Adjustment for inflation.--For any calendar year
after 2009, each of the dollar amounts under paragraph (1)
shall be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment
determined under section 215(i) for the calendar year.
``(c) Designations Regarding KidSave Accounts.--
``(1) Initial designations of investment vehicle.--A person
described in subsection (d) shall, on behalf of the
individual described in subsection (a), designate the
investment vehicle for the KidSave Account to which
contributions on behalf of such individual are to be
deposited. Such designation shall be made on the application
for such individual's Social Security account number.
``(2) Changes in investment vehicles or types of kidsave
accounts.--The Commissioner shall by regulation provide the
time and manner by which--
``(A) an individual or a person described in subsection (d)
on behalf of such individual may change 1 or more investment
vehicles for a KidSave Account described in paragraph (1) of
section 262(a), and
``(B) an individual or a person described in subsection (d)
on behalf of such individual may designate a KidSave Account
described in paragraph (2) of section 262(a) or a voluntary
investment account described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
section 254(a) of the individual to which all or a portion of
the amounts in an existing KidSave Account described in
paragraph (1) of section 262(a) are to be transferred.
``(d) Treatment of Minors and Incompetent Individuals.--Any
designation under subsection (c) to be made by a minor, or an
individual mentally incompetent or under other legal
disability, may be made by the person who is constituted
guardian or other fiduciary by the law of the State of
residence of the individual or is otherwise legally vested
with the care of the individual or his estate. Payment under
this part due a minor, or an individual mentally incompetent
or under other legal disability, may be made to the person
who is constituted guardian or other fiduciary by the law of
the State of residence of the claimant or is otherwise
legally vested with the care of the claimant or his estate.
In any case in which a guardian or other fiduciary of the
individual under legal disability has not been appointed
under the law of the State of residence of the individual, if
any other person, in the judgment of the Commissioner, is
responsible for the care of such individual, any designation
under subsection (c) which may otherwise be made by such
individual may be made by such person, any payment under this
part which is otherwise payable to such individual may be
made to such person, and the payment of an annuity payment
under this part to such person bars recovery by any other
person.
``definitions and special rules
``Sec. 262. (a) Kidsave Accounts.--For purposes of this
part--
``(1) a KidSave Account described in this paragraph is a
KidSave Account in the Voluntary Investment Fund (established
under section 255(a)), and
``(2) a Kidsave Account described in this paragraph is any
individual retirement plan (as defined in section 7701(a)(37)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), other than a Roth IRA
(as defined in section 408A(b) of such Code), which is
designated by an individual as a KidSave Account (in such
manner as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe) and
which is administered or issued by a bank or other person
referred to in section 408(a)(2) of such Code.
``(b) Treatment of Accounts.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
``(A) any KidSave Account described in subsection (a)(1)
shall be treated in the same manner as an account in the
Thrift Savings Fund under subchapter III of chapter 84 of
title 5, United States Code, and
``(B) any KidSave Account described in subsection (a)(2)
shall be treated in the same manner as an individual
retirement plan (as so defined).
[[Page S397]]
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Contribution limit.--The aggregate amount of
contributions for any taxable year to all KidSave Accounts of
an individual shall not exceed the contribution made pursuant
to section 261(b) for such year on behalf of such individual.
``(B) Rollover contributions.--No rollover contribution may
be made to a KidSave Account unless it is from another
KidSave Account. A rollover described in the preceding
sentence shall not be taken into account for purposes of
subparagraph (A).
``(C) Distributions.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, distributions may only be made from a KidSave Account
of an individual on or after the earlier of--
``(i) the date on which the individual begins receiving
benefits under this title, or
``(ii) the date of the individual's death.''.
____
Social Security Solvency Act of 1999 Introduced on January 19, 1999, by
Senators Moynihan and Kerrey--Brief Description of Provisions
i. reduce payroll taxes and return to pay-as-you-go system with
voluntary personal savings accounts
A. Reduce payroll taxes and return to pay-as-you-go
The bill would return Social Security to a pay-as-you-go
system. That is, payroll tax rates would be adjusted so that
annual revenues from taxes closely match annual outlays. This
makes possible an immediate payroll tax cut of approximately
$800 billion over the next 10 years, with reduced rates
remaining in place for the next 30 years. Payroll tax rates
would be cut from 12.4 to 10.4 percent for the period 2002 to
2029, and the rate would not increase above 12.4 percent
until 2035. Even in the out-years, the pay-as-you-go rates
under the plan will increase only slightly above the current
rate of 12.4 percent. Based on estimates prepared last year
the proposed rate schedule is:
Years: Percent
2002-2029........................................................10.4
2030-2034........................................................12.4
2035-2049........................................................12.9
2050-2059........................................................13.3
2060 and thereafter..............................................13.7
To ensure continued solvency, the Board of Trustees of the
Social Security Trust Funds would make recommendations for a
new pay-as-you-go tax rate schedule if the Trust Funds fall
out of close actuarial balance. The new tax rate schedule
would be considered by Congress under fast track procedures.
B. Personal savings accounts
Beginning in 2002, the bill would permit voluntary personal
savings accounts which workers could finance with the
proceeds of the two percentage point cut in the payroll tax.
Alternatively, a worker could simply take the employee share
of the tax cut (one percent of wages) as an increase in take-
home pay. In addition, KidSave accounts, of up to $3,500,
would be opened for all children born in 1995 or later.
C. Increase in amount of wages subject to tax
Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax applies
only to the first $72,600 of wages in 1999. At that level,
about 85 percent of wages in covered employment are taxed.
That percentage has been falling because wages of persons
above the taxable maximum have been growing faster than wages
of persons below it.
Historically, about 90 percent of wages have been subject
to tax. Under the bill, the taxable maximum would be
increased to $99,900 (thereby imposing the tax on about 87
percent of wages) by 2004. Thereafter, automatic changes in
the base, tied to increases in average wages, would be
resumed. (Under current law, the taxable maximum is projected
to increase to $84,900 in 2004, with automatic changes also
continuing thereafter.)
II. INDEXATION PROVISIONS
A. Correct cost of living adjustments by one percentage point
The bill includes a one percentage point correction in cost
of living adjustments. The correction would apply to all
indexed programs (outlays and revenues) except Supplemental
Security Income. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has made some
improvements in the Consumer Price Index, but most of these
were already taken into account when the Boskin Commission
appointed by the Senate Finance Committee reported in 1996
that the overstatement of the cost of living by the CPI was
1.1 percentage points.\1\ Members of the Commission believe
that the overstatement will average about one percentage
point for the next several years. The proposed legislation
would also establish a Cost of Living Board to determine on
an annual basis if further refinements are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A number of improvements announced by the BLS after this
legislation was first introduced in 1998 would lower the
reported change in prices. The authors are considering what
modifications, if any, should be made to the bill as a result
of the BLS announcements. They are also discussing, with the
Social Security actuaries, the effects of this change on the
long-run projections made by the actuaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Adjustments in monthly benefits related to changes in life
expectancy
Under current law, the so-called normal retirement age
(NRA) is scheduled to gradually increase from age 65 to 67.
In practice, the NRA is important as a benchmark for
determining the monthly benefit amount, but it does not
reflect the actual age at which workers receive retirement
benefits. More than 70 percent of workers begin collecting
Social Security retirement benefits before they reach age 65,
and more than 50 percent do so at age 62. Under the bill,
workers can continue to receive benefits at age 62 and the
provision in the 1983 Social Security amendments that
increased the NRA to 67 is repealed. Instead, under this
legislation, if life expectancy increases the level of
monthly benefits payable at age 65 (or at the age at which
the worker actually retires) decreases.
These changes in monthly benefits are a form of indexation
that mirrors the projected gradual increase in life
expectancy over a period of more than 100 years. For example,
persons who retired in 1960 at age 65 had a life expectancy,
at age 65, of 15 years and spent about 25 percent of their
adult life in retirement. Persons retiring in 2060, at age
70, are projected to have a life expectancy at age 70 of more
than 16 years, and thus would also spend about 25 percent of
their adult life in retirement.
III. PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION--REPEAL OF EARNINGS TEST
The so-called earnings test would be eliminated for all
beneficiaries age 62 and over, beginning in 2003. (Under
current law, the test increases to $30,000 in 2002.) Under
the earnings test benefits are withheld (reduced) for one
million beneficiaries because wages are in excess of
the earnings limit. This is an unnecessary administrative
burden because beneficiaries eventually receive all of the
benefits that are withheld. Indeed, Social Security
Administration actuaries estimate that the long-run cost
of repealing the earnings test is zero.
iv. other changes
All three factions of the 1994-96 Social Security Advisory
Council supported some variation of the following common
sense changes in the program.
A. Normal Taxation of Benefits
Social Security benefits would be taxed to the same extent
private pensions are taxed. That is, Social Security benefits
would be taxed to the extent that the worker's benefits
exceed his or her contributions to the system (currently
about 95 percent of benefits would be taxed). This provision
would be phased-in over the 5 year period 2000-2004.
B. Coverage of Newly Hired State and Local Employees
Effective in 2002, Social Security coverage would be
extended to newly hired employees in currently excluded State
and local positions. Inclusion of State and local workers is
sound public policy because most of the five million State
and local employees (about a quarter of all State and local
employees) not covered by Social Security in their government
employment do receive Social Security benefits as a result of
working at other jobs--part-time or otherwise--that are
covered by Social Security. Relative to their contributions
these workers receive generous benefits.
C. Increase in Length of Computation Period
The legislation would increase the length of the
computation period from 35 to 38 years. Consistent with the
increase in life expectancy and the increase in the
retirement age we would expect workers to have more years
with earnings. Computation of their benefits should be based
on these additional years of earnings.
summary of budget effects
The legislation provides for long-run solvency of Social
Security, with little or no effect on the budget surplus. In
the Economic and Budget Outlook: Update, released in August,
1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that
for the five-year period FY 1999-2003, the cumulative surplus
would be $520 billion, and $1.548 trillion for the ten-year
period FY 1999-2008. Preliminary estimates, based on these
budget projections, indicate that this legislation, while
preserving Social Security, and while reducing payroll taxes
by almost $800 billion, will reduce the ten-year cumulative
surplus by less than $200 billion. In no year is there a
budget deficit. (CBO will provide updated budget estimates
after its new baseline is released later this month.)--
Prepared by the Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff,
January, 1999.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO PAYROLL TAX RATES REQUIRED TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social
Assuming Security
Year no Solvency
program Act of
changes 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................ 10.40 10.40
2005................................................ 10.40 10.40
2010................................................ 10.40 10.40
2015................................................ 12.40 10.40
2020................................................ 15.20 10.40
2025................................................ 16.50 10.40
2030................................................ 17.00 12.40
2035................................................ 17.00 12.90
2040................................................ 17.00 12.90
2045................................................ 17.00 12.90
2050................................................ 17.00 13.30
2055................................................ 17.80 13.30
2060................................................ 17.80 13.70
2065................................................ 17.80 13.70
2070................................................ 18.30 13.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The Social Security payroll tax rate is fixed by statute at 12.4
percent. Assuming no program changes the current law program is not
sustainable. In 2013, outgo for the OASDI program will exceed tax
revenues. In 2032, all OASDI assets (reserves) will be expended, after
which tax revenues will only be sufficient to pay 75 percent or less
or promised benefits.
[[Page S398]]
CBO BUDGET ESTIMATES--FISCAL YEARS 1999-2008
(In billions of dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative surplus
---------------------
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 5 years 10 years
1999-2003 1999-2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated surplus under current policies: CBO summer 1998
budget projection............................................. 80 79 86 139 136 154 170 217 236 251 520 1,548
Estimated surplus under the Social Security Solvency Act of
1999.......................................................... 80 48 50 92 89 121 153 211 240 268 359 1,352
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff based on the Congressional Budget Office Summer 1998 Budget projection and preliminary estimate
of the Social Security Solvency Act of 1999. January 1999.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle,
Mr. Thompson, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 22. A bill to provide for a system to classify information in the
interests of national security and a system to declassify information,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
the government secrecy reform act
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Government
Secrecy Reform Act. I would like to begin by thanking my cosponsors,
Senators Helms, Lott, Daschle, Thompson, Collins, and Schumer. The
legislation that we introduce today is intended to implement the core
recommendation of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government
Secrecy: a statute establishing the principles to govern the
classification and declassification of information.
The Federal government has a legitimate interest in maintaining
secrets in order to fulfill its Constitutional charge to ``provide for
the common defense.'' At the same time, this interest must be balanced
by the public's right to be informed of government activities.
The Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, which I
chaired, found a secrecy system out of balance: one which has lost the
confidence of many inside and outside the Government. Consequently,
information needing protection does not always receive it, while
innocuous information is classified and remains classified. The
Commission found in its 1997 report that ``[t]he best way to ensure
that secrecy is respected, and that the most important secrets remain
secret, is for secrecy to be returned to its limited but necessary
role. Secrets can be protected more effectively if secrecy is reduced
overall.''
Begin with the concept that secrecy should be understood as a form of
government regulation. This was an insight of the Commission, building
on the work of the great German sociologist Max Weber. The instinct of
the bureaucracy, Weber wrote, was to ``increase the superiority of the
professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions
secret.'' The concept of the `official secret' ``is the specific
invention of bureaucracy, and nothing is so fanatically defended by the
bureaucracy as this attitude.''
We traditionally think of regulation as a means to govern how
citizens are to behave. Whereas public regulation involves what
citizens may do, secrecy concerns what citizens may know. And the
citizen does not know what may not be known. As our Commission stated:
``Americans are familiar with the tendency to overregulate in other
areas. What is different with secrecy is that the public cannot know
the extent or the content of the regulation.''
Thus, secrecy is the ultimate mode of regulation; the citizen does
not even know that he or she is being regulated! It is a parallel
regulatory regime with a far greater potential for damage if it
malfunctions. In our democracy, where the free exchange of ideas is so
essential, it can be suffocating.
To reform this system, the Commission recommended legislation be
adopted. Senator Jesse Helms and I, and Representatives Larry Combest
and Lee Hamilton (all Commissioners), introduced the Government Secrecy
Act on May 7, 1997. Our core objective is to ensure that secrecy
proceed according to law. Since the Truman Administration,
classification and declassification have been governed by a series of
executive orders but not one has created a stable and reliable system
to ensure we protect what truly needs protecting and nothing more. The
system lacks the discipline of a legal framework to define and enforce
the proper uses of secrecy. The proposed statute can help ensure that
the present regulatory regime will not simply continue to flourish
without any restraint and without meaningful oversight and
accountability.
The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Chaired by Senator
Thompson of Tennessee, considered the bill is the 105th Congress and
reported it unanimously. In its report to accompany the bill, the
Committee had this important insight:
Our liberties depend on the balanced structure created by
James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution. The
national security information system has not had a clear
legislative foundation, but . . . has been developed through
a series of executive orders. It is time to bring this
executive monopoly over the issue to an end, and to begin to
engage in the same sort of dialogue between Congress and the
executive that characterizes the development of government
policy in all other means.
As the Cold War gathered, this ``executive monopoly'' as the
Governmental Affairs Committee has termed it, was spawned. The United
States had to organize itself to deal with aggression from the Soviet
Union. American society in peacetime began to experience wartime
regulation. The awful dilemma was that in order to preserve an open
society, the U.S. government took measures that in significant ways
closed it down. The culture of secrecy that evolved was intended as a
defense against two antagonists: the enemy abroad and the enemy within.
Edward Shils chronicled the perils of this growing secrecy system in
his 1956 work, The Torment of Secrecy. He said of this era:
The American visage began to cloud over. Secrets were to
become our chief reliance just when it was becoming more and
more evident that the Soviet Union had long maintained an
active apparatus for espionage in the United States. For a
country which had never previously thought of itself as an
object of systematic espionage by foreign powers, it was
unsettling.
The larger society, Shils continued, was ``facing an unprecedented
threat to its continuance.'' In such circumstances, ``the phantasies of
apocalyptic visionaries now claimed the respectability of being a
reasonable interpretation of the real situation.''
Shils was writing, as he explained in his Foreword, ``after nearly a
decade of degrading agitation and numerous unnecessary and unworthy
actions . . .'' Today, by contrast, the public and its representatives
have few of the concerns of ideological ``infiltration'' that dominated
our attention and our domestic politics during the decade preceding
Shils' book.
Indeed, if there is such a thing as a ``typical'' case of espionage,
it involves an employee well into mid-career who sells national
security secrets out of greed, not because of any ideologically-based
motivation.
Moreover, today it is the United States government that increasingly
finds itself the object of what Shils four decades ago termed the
``phantasies of apocalyptic visionaries.''
Conspiracy theories have been with us since the birth of the
Republic. The best-known and most notorious is, of course, the
unwillingness on the part of the vast majority of the American public
to accept that President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 by Lee Harvey
Oswald acting alone. A poll taken in 1966, two years after release of
the Warren Commission report concluding that Oswald had acted alone,
found that 36 percent of respondents accepted this finding, while 50
percent believed others had been involved in a conspiracy to kill the
President. By 1978 only 18 percent responded that they believed the
assassination had been the act of one man; fully 75 percent believed
[[Page S399]]
there had been a broader plot. The numbers have remained relatively
steady since; a 1993 poll also found that three-quarters of those
surveyed believed (consistent with the film JFK, released that year)
that there had been a conspiracy.
It so happens that I was in the White House at the hour of the
President's death (I was an assistant labor secretary at the time). I
feared what would become of Oswald if he were not protected and I
pleaded that we must get custody of him. But no one seemed to be able
to hear. Presently Oswald was killed, significantly complicating
matters.
I did not think there had been a conspiracy to kill the president,
but I was convinced that the American people would sooner or later come
to believe that there had been one unless we investigated the event
with exactly that presumption in mind. The Warren Commission report and
the other subsequent investigations, with their nearly universal
reliance on secrecy, did not dispel any such fantasies.
The Assassination Records Review Board has now completed its
Congressionally mandated review and release of documents related to
President Kennedy's assassination. It has assembled at the National
Archives a thorough collection of documents and evidence that was
previously secret and scattered about the government. The Review Board
found that while the public has continued to search for answers over
the past thirty-five years:
[T]he official record on the assassination of President
Kennedy remained shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
The suspicions created by government secrecy eroded
confidence in the truthfulness of federal agencies in general
and damaged their credibility.
Credibility eroded needlessly, as most of the documents which the Board
reviewed were declassified. In conducting this document-by-document
review of classified information, the Board reports that ``the federal
government needlessly and wastefully classified and then withheld from
public access countless important records that did not require such
treatment.''
With the Government Secrecy Reform Act, we are not proposing putting
an end to government secrecy. Far from it. It is at times terribly
necessary and used for the most legitimate reasons--ranging from
military operations to diplomatic endeavors. Indeed, much of our
Commission's report is devoted to explaining the varied circumstances
in which secrecy is most essential. Yet, the bureaucratic attachment to
secrecy has become so warped that, in the words of Kermit Hall, a
member of the Assassination Records Review Board, it has transformed
into ``a deeply ingrained commitment to secrecy as a form of
partriotism.'' From this perspective, it is easy to see how secrecy
became the norm.
Secrecy need not remain the only norm--particularly when one
considers that the current badly overextended system frequently fails
to protect its most important secrets adequately. We must develop what
might be termed a competing ``culture of openness''--fully consistent
with our interests in protecting national security. A culture in which
power and authority are no longer derived primarily from one's ability
to withhold information from others in government and the public at
large.
This is our purpose in introducing the Government Secrecy Reform Act.
I thank those who have agreed to cosponsor the bill and ask my
colleagues to lend it the attention it deserves.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 22
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 ``Government Secrecy Reform
Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--The President may, in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, protect from unauthorized disclosure
any information owned by, produced by or for, or under the
control of the executive branch when there is a demonstrable
need to do so in order to protect the national security of
the United States.
(b) Establishment of Standards and Procedures for
Classification and Declassification.--
(1) Governmentwide procedures.--
(A) Classification.--The President shall, to the extent
necessary, establish categories of information that may be
classified and procedures for classifying information under
subsection (a).
(B) Declassification.--At the same time the President
establishes categories and procedures under subparagraph (A),
the President shall establish procedures for declassifying
information that was previously classified.
(2) Notice and comment.--
(A) Notice.--The President shall publish in the Federal
Register notice regarding the categories and procedures
proposed to be established under paragraph (1).
(B) Comment.--The President shall provide an opportunity
for interested persons to submit comments on the categories
and procedures covered by subparagraph (A).
(C) Deadline.--The President shall complete the
establishment of categories and procedures under paragraph
(1) not later than 60 days after publishing notice in the
Federal Register under subparagraph (A). Upon completion of
the establishment of such categories and procedures, the
President shall publish in the Federal Register notice
regarding such categories and procedures.
(3) Modification.--In the event the President determines to
modify any categories or procedures established under
paragraph (1), subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2)
shall apply to such modification.
(4) Agency standards and procedures.--
(A) In general.--The head of each agency shall establish
standards and procedures to permit such agency to classify
and declassify information created by such agency in
accordance with the categories and procedures established by
the President under this section and otherwise to carry out
the provisions of this Act. Such standards and procedures
shall include mechanisms to minimize the risk of inadvertent
or inappropriate declassification of previously classified
information (including information classified by other
agencies).
(B) Guidance.--
(i) In general.--The President shall require the head of
each agency with original classification authority to produce
written guidance on the classification and declassification
of information in order to improve the classification and
declassification of information by such agency and the
derivative classification of information and declassification
of derivatively classified information by such agency and
other agencies. Such guidance may be treated as classified
information under this Act.
(ii) Declassification period for certain information.--
(I) In general.--In producing written guidance under clause
(i), the head of an agency may specify types and categories
of information that may remain classified for up to 25 years
after the date of original classification.
(II) Approval required.--The specification of a type or
category of information under subclause (I) shall be
effective only with the approval of the Director of the
Office of National Classification and Declassification
Oversight.
(C) Deadline.--Each agency head shall establish standards
and procedures under subparagraph (A) and produce written
guidance under subparagraph (B) not later than 60 days after
the date on which the President publishes notice under
paragraph (2)(C) of the categories and standards established
by the President under paragraph (1).
(D) Publication.--Each agency head shall publish in the
Federal Register the standards and procedures established by
such agency head under subparagraph (A).
(c) Standard for Classification and Declassification
Decisions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), information may
be classified under this Act, and classified information
under review for declassification under this Act may remain
classified, only if the harm to national security that might
reasonably be expected from disclosure of such information
outweighs the public interest in disclosure of such
information.
(2) Default rule.--In the event of significant doubt
whether the harm to national security that might reasonably
be expected from the disclosure of information would outweigh
the public interest in the disclosure of such information,
such information shall not be classified or, in the case of
classified information under review for declassification,
declassified.
(3) Factors in decisions.--
(A) In general.--The President shall prescribe the factors
to be utilized in deciding for purposes of paragraph (1)
whether the disclosure of information might reasonably be
expected to harm national security or might serve the public
interest.
(B) Guidance.--In prescribing factors under subparagraph
(A), the President shall also prescribe guidance to be
utilized in applying such factors. The guidance shall specify
with reasonable detail the weight to be assigned each factor
and the manner of balancing among opposing factors of similar
or different weight.
(C) Process.--The President shall prescribe factors and
guidance under this paragraph at the same time the President
establishes categories and procedures under subsection (b)(1)
and subject to the notice and
[[Page S400]]
comment procedures set forth under subsection (b)(2).
(d) Written Justification for Classification.--
(1) Original classification.--Each agency official who
makes a decision to classify information not previously
classified shall, at the time of such decision--
(A) identify himself or herself;
(B) provide in writing a detailed justification of that
decision; and
(C) indicate the basis for the classification of the
information with reference to the written guidance produced
under subsection (b)(4)(B).
(2) Derivative classification.--In any case in which an
agency official or contractor employee classifies a document
on the basis of information previously classified that is
included or referenced in the document, the official or
employee, as the case may be, shall--
(A) identify himself or herself in that document; and
(B) provide a concise explanation of that decision.
(e) Declassification of Information Classified Under Act.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3),
and (4), information classified under this Act may not remain
classified under this Act after the date that is 10 years
after the date of the original classification of the
information.
(2) Earlier declassification.--When classifying information
under this Act, an agency official may provide for the
declassification of the information as of a date or event
that is earlier than the date otherwise provided for under
paragraph (1).
(3) Later declassification.--
(A) In general.--When classifying information under this
Act, an agency official with original classification
authority over the information may provide for the
declassification of the information on a date that is up to
25 years after the date of original classification in
accordance with the guidance approved under subsection
(b)(4)(B)(ii).
(B) Postponement.--The actual date of the declassification
of information referred to in subparagraph (A) may be
postponed under paragraph (4)(D).
(4) Postponement of declassification.--
(A) In general.--The declassification of any information or
category of information that would otherwise be declassified
under paragraph (1) or (2) may be postponed if an official of
the agency with original classification authority over the
information or category of information, as the case may be,
determines, before the time of declassification for such
information otherwise provided for under paragraph (1) or
(2), as the case may be, that the information or category of
information, as the case may be, should remain classified.
(B) Procedure.--An official may not implement a
determination under subparagraph (A) until the official
obtains the concurrence of the Director of the Office of
National Classification and Declassification Oversight in the
determination.
(C) General duration of postponement.--Except as provided
in subparagraph (D), information the declassification of
which is postponed under this paragraph may remain classified
not longer than 15 years after the date of the postponement.
(D) Extended duration of postponement.--
(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), the
declassification of any information that would otherwise be
declassified under subparagraph (C) or paragraph (3) may be
postponed if an official of the agency with original
classification authority over the information determines that
extraordinary circumstances require that the information
remain classified.
(ii) Procedures.--An official may not implement a
determination under clause (i) until the official--
(I) obtains the concurrence of the Director of the Office
of National Classification and Declassification Oversight in
the determination; and
(II) submits to the President a certification of the
determination.
(iii) Review.--The President shall establish a schedule for
the review of the need for continued classification of any
information the declassification of which is postponed under
this subparagraph. Such information shall be declassified at
the earliest possible time after the termination of the
circumstances with respect to such information referred to in
clause (i).
(E) Concurrences.--A concurrence at the direction of the
Classification and Declassification Review Board on appeal
under section 4(c)(2) and a concurrence at the direction of
the President on appeal under section 5(a) shall be treated
as a concurrence of the Director of the Office of National
Classification and Declassification Oversight for purposes of
subparagraphs (B) and (D)(ii)(I).
(5) Approval required for declassification of
information.--Except as provided in this Act, no information
classified under this Act may be declassified or released
without the approval of the agency that originally classified
the information.
(6) Specification of declassification date or event.--Each
agency official making a decision to classify information
under this subsection shall specify upon such information the
date or event of its declassification.
(f) Declassification of Current Classified Information.--
(1) Procedures.--The President shall establish procedures
for declassifying information that was classified before the
effective date of this Act. Such procedures shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, be consistent with the provisions
of this section.
(2) Automatic Declassification.--The procedures established
under paragraph (1) shall include procedures for the
automatic declassification of information referred to in that
paragraph that has remained classified for more than 25 years
as of the effective date referred to in that paragraph.
(3) Notice and comment.--
(A) Notice.--The President shall publish notice in the
Federal Register of the procedures proposed to be established
under this subsection.
(B) Comment.--The President shall provide an opportunity
for interested persons to submit comments on the procedures
covered by subparagraph (A).
(C) Deadline.--The President shall complete the
establishment of procedures under this subsection not later
than 60 days after publishing notice in the Federal Register
under subparagraph (A). Upon completion of the establishment
of such procedures, the President shall publish in the
Federal Register notice regarding such procedures.
(g) Conforming Amendment to FOIA.--Section 552(b)(1) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) (A) specifically authorized to be classified under
the Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1999 or specifically
authorized under criteria established by an Executive order
to be kept secret in the interest of national security and
(B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to that Act or
Executive order;''.
SEC. 3. OFFICE OF NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND
DECLASSIFICATION OVERSIGHT.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established within the National
Archives and Records Administration an office to be known as
the Office of National Classification and Declassification
Oversight (in this section referred to as the ``Oversight
Office'').
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Oversight Office is to
standardize the policies and procedures used by agencies to
assess information for initial classification and to review
information for declassification.
(3) Policy guidance.--On behalf of the President, the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
shall provide policy guidance to the Oversight Office.
(4) Budget.--
(A) Consultation in preparation.--The Archivist of the
United States shall consult with the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs and the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget in preparing the annual
budget request for the Oversight Office.
(B) Presentation.--The annual budget request for the
Oversight Office shall appear as a distinct item in the
annual budget request of the National Archives and Records
Administration.
(b) Director.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a Director of the Office of
National Classification and Declassification Oversight who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. The Director shall be the head of
the Oversight Office.
(2) Qualifications.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
President shall nominate for appointment as Director
individuals who have experience in policy relating to
classification and declassification of information, records
management, and information technology.
(3) Supervision.--The Director shall report directly to the
Archivist of the United States.
(4) Executive schedule.--Section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Director, Office of National Classification and
Declassification Oversight.''.
(c) Personnel and Resources.--
(1) Transfer.--All personnel, funds, and other resources of
the Information Security Oversight Office are hereby
transferred to the Oversight Office and shall constitute the
personnel, funds, and other resources of the Oversight
Office.
(2) Interim director.--The Director of the Information
Security Oversight Office shall serve as acting Director of
the Oversight Office until a Director of the Oversight Office
is appointed under subsection (b)(1).
(d) Duties.--The Oversight Office shall--
(1) coordinate and oversee the classification and
declassification policies and practices of agencies in order
to ensure the compliance of such policies and procedures with
the provisions of this Act;
(2) develop and issue directives, instructions, and
educational aids and forms to assist in the implementation of
the provisions of this Act;
(3) develop a program of research and development of
technologies to improve the efficiency of classification and
declassification processes under this Act;
(4) determine whether or not information is classified in
violation of this Act and order that information determined
to be classified in violation of this Act be declassified by
the agency that originated the classification;
(5) determine whether an agency determination to postpone
the declassification of information under section 2(e)(4) is
consistent with the provisions of this Act;
[[Page S401]]
(6) review the proposed budgets of agencies for
classification and declassification programs and make
recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget as to
means of ensuring that such budgets provide sufficient funds
to permit agencies to comply with the requirements of this
Act;
(7) oversee special access programs consistent with its
other duties under this section;
(8) conduct audits and on-site reviews of agency
classification and declassification programs; and
(9) establish and maintain a Government-wide database on
the declassification activities of the Government, including
an unclassified version of the database available to the
public.
(e) Agency Cooperation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the control and supervision of
the President, each agency shall provide the Oversight Office
such information and other cooperation as the Director of the
Oversight Office considers appropriate to permit the
Oversight Office to carry out its duties.
(2) Special access programs.--The head of an agency with
jurisdiction over special access programs may--
(A) limit access to such programs to not more than the
Director and one other employee of the Oversight Office; and
(B) upon the concurrence of the President, deny access by
the Oversight Office to any such program if the head of such
agency determines that such access would pose an exceptional
risk to national security.
(f) Appeals from Certain Decisions.--
(1) In general.--An agency may appeal to the Classification
and Declassification Review Board any declassification order
or determination under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection
(d).
(2) Deadline.--An agency may appeal an order or
determination under paragraph (1) only if the agency submits
the appeal to the Board not later than 60 days after the date
of the order or determination, as the case may be.
(g) Protection of Information.--The Director of the
Oversight Office shall take appropriate actions to prevent
disclosure to the public of classified information that is
provided to the Oversight Office. Such actions shall include
a requirement that the staff of the Oversight Office possess
security clearances appropriate for the information
considered and reviewed by the Oversight Office.
(h) Annual Report.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than March 31 each year, the
Director of the Oversight Office shall submit to Congress and
to the President a report on the compliance of agencies with
the requirements of this Act.
(2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) include a summary of the extent of the compliance of
agencies Government-wide with the requirements of this Act as
of the date of such report; and
(B) set forth an assessment of the compliance of each
agency with such requirements as of that date.
(3) Form.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(4) Availability.--The Oversight Office shall make
available to the public the unclassified form of each report
under paragraph (1) on an Internet Web site maintained by the
Oversight Office.
SEC. 4. CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Executive Office of the President a board to be known as the
Classification and Declassification Review Board (in this
section referred to as the ``Board'').
(b) Membership and Procedural Matters.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall consist of five members
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, of whom--
(A) four shall be private citizens;
(B) two shall be officers or employees of the Federal
Government; and
(2) Qualifications.--
(A) Private citizens.--The members of the Board who are
private citizens shall be appointed from among individuals
who are distinguished historians, political scientists,
archivists, and other social scientists or who otherwise have
demonstrated expertise in matters relating to the national
security of the United States, records management, or
government information policy.
(B) Government employees.--The members of the Board who are
officers or employees of the Federal Government shall be
appointed from among such officers and employees who have
demonstrated expertise in matters referred to in subparagraph
(A).
(C) Change in employment.--Notwithstanding any provision of
paragraph (1), the commencement or termination of service as
an officer or employee of the Federal Government of an
individual appointed as a member of the Board under that
paragraph before such commencement or termination shall not
affect the continuation of such individual as a member of the
Board.
(3) Nominations.--
(A) Consultation.--In nominating individuals for
appointment to the Board, the President shall consult with
the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney
General, Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, Director of Central Intelligence, Archivist of the
United States, and Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
(B) Limitation.--The President may not nominate for
appointment to the Board any individual who has previously
served as a member of the Board.
(C) Initial nominations.--The President shall make the
first nominations of individuals for appointment to the Board
not later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act.
(D) Bipartisan Representation.--Of the members of the Board
appointed under paragraph (1)(A), not more than tow shall be
of the same political party.
(4) Presiding Officer.--The President shall designate a
member of the Board appointed under paragraph (1)(A) to serve
as the Presiding Officer of the Board.
(5) Term.--Members of the Board shall be appointed for a
term of 4 years, except that of the members first nominated
for appointment to the Board under paragraph (3)(C)--
(A) two shall be nominated for a 4-year term (including the
member who shall be the Presiding Officer of the Board);
(B) two shall be nominated for a 3-year term; and
(C) two shall be nominated for a 2-year term.
(6) Vacancies.--An individual appointed to fill a vacancy
shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member
replaced.
(7) Procedural matters.--
(A) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
(B) Rules and procedures.--
(i) Requirement.--The Board shall establish, and may from
time to time modify, such rules and procedures as the Board
considers appropriate to carry out its duties. Such rules and
procedures shall provide that a decision of the Board
requires a vote of a majority of the members of the Board.
(ii) Publication.--The Board shall publish its rules and
procedures in the Federal Register.
(iii) Initial rules and procedures.--The Board shall
establish its initial rules and procedures not later than 90
days after the date of initial meeting of the Board.
(c) Powers and Duties.--The Board shall--
(1) decide on appeals by agencies which challenge a
declassification order of the Office of National
Classification and Declassification Oversight under section
3(d)(4);
(2) decide on appeals by agencies which challenge a
determination of that Office not to concur in the
postponement of the declassification of information under
section 3(d)(5); and
(3) decide on appeals by persons or entities who have filed
requests for mandatory declassification review.
(d) Protection of Information.--The Board shall take
appropriate actions to prevent the disclosure to the public
of classified information that is provided to the Board. Such
actions shall include a requirement that the members and
staff of the Board possess security clearances appropriate
for the information considered and reviewed by the Board.
(e) Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation.--
(A) Compensation.--Each member of the Board who is a
private citizen shall be compensated at a rate equal to the
daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which such member is engaged in the performance
of the duties of the Board.
(B) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.
(2) Staff.--The Presiding Officer of the Board may, with
the concurrence of the Board, appoint such staff, including
an executive secretary, as the Board requires to carry out
its duties.
(3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Board without reimbursement,
and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of
civil service status or privilege.
SEC. 5. APPEAL OF DETERMINATIONS OF CLASSIFICATION AND
DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD.
(a) Appeal.--Subject to subsection (c), any agency may
appeal to the President a decision or other action of the
Classification and Declassification Review Board under
section 4(c).
(b) Deadline.--An agency may appeal a decision or other
action under subsection (a) only if the agency submits the
appeal to the President not later than 60 days after the date
of the decision or other action concerned.
(c) Finality.--A decision of the President on an appeal
under subsection (a) shall be final.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS.
(a) Withholding Information from Congress.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to authorize the withholding of
information from Congress.
(b) Judicial Review.--Except in the case of the amendment
to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, made by
section 2(g), no person may seek or obtain judicial review of
any provision of this Act or any action taken under a
provision of this Act.
[[Page S402]]
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term ``agency'' means any executive agency as
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, any
military department as defined in section 102 of such title,
and any other entity in the Executive Branch of the
Government that comes into the possession of classified
information.
(2) The terms ``classify'', ``classified'', and
``classification'' refer to the process by which information
is determined to require protection from unauthorized
disclosure pursuant to this Act in order to protect the
national security of the United States.
(3) The terms ``declassify'', ``declassified'', and
``declassification'' refer to the process by which
information that has been classified is determined to no
longer require protection from unauthorized disclosure
pursuant to this Act.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendment made by section 2(g) shall take
effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Moynihan today
in introducing a bill that would for the first time place in statute
the government system for the classification of information. To date
this has been accomplished solely through executive order.
The statute is based on the recommendations contained in the report
of the Commission to Protect and Reduce Government Secrecy chaired by
my colleague Pat Moynihan, the senior senator from New York. The
Secrecy Commission achieved a unified report of recommendations--a feat
that should not be underrated, especially in Washington. The bill also
makes changes based on recommendations by the Government Affairs
Committee during its consideration of our legislation during the 105th
Congress.
The bill recognizes that over-classification can actually weaken the
protections of those secrets that truly are in our national interest.
All the same I am obliged to begin with a reiteration of the obvious--
that the protection of true national security information remains vital
to the well-being and security of the United States. The end of the
Cold War notwithstanding, the United States continues to face serious
and long-term threats from a variety of fronts. While communist and
anti-American regimes, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Iraq,
continue to wage a war against the United States, new threats have
arisen as well. Indeed, there is even a growing trend of espionage
conducted not by our enemies but by American allies. Such espionage is
on the rise especially against U.S. economic secrets.
At first blush, a push to reduce government secrecy may seem at odds
with these increasing threats. I am convinced it is not. The sheer
volume of government ``secrets''--and their costs to the taxpayers and
U.S. business--is staggering. In 1996 the taxpayers spent more than
$5.2 billion to protect classified information. We know all too well
from our own experiences that when everything is secret nothing is
secret.
Secrecy all too often then becomes a political tool used by Executive
Branch agencies to shield information which may be politically
sensitive or policies which may be unpopular with the American people.
Worse yet, information may be classified to hide from public view
illegal or unethical activity. On numerous occasions, I, and other
Members of Congress, have found the Executive Branch to be reluctant to
share certain information, the nature of which is not truly a
``national secret,'' but which would potentially politically
embarrassing to officials in the Executive Branch or which would make
known an illegal or indefensible policy.
I have also found that one of the largest impediments to openness is
the perverse incentives of the government bureaucracy itself in favor
of classification, and the lack of accountability for those who do the
actual classification. I strongly endorse the Commission's
recommendation of adding individual accountability to the process by
requiring a detailed justification of the decision to classify.
On the other hand, declassification decisions can be politicized.
Limited resources for declassification are used to declassify
information for political purposes. Only recently, in the case of
documents relating to U.S. activities in Central and South America the
Administration has made decisions to declassify documents at the
request of certain interest groups. As a result the resources for
routine declassification are being redirected to serve political ends.
This bill would serve to eliminate politicized declassification
decisions by requiring routine declassification and oversight by an
independent board.
I would add a note of caution regarding declassification, however. In
the course of the two years of its work, the Commission became very
interested in the declassification of existing documents and materials.
In a perfect world, if information remains relevant to true U.S.
national interests it should remain classified indefinitely.
Information that does not compromise U.S. interests and sources should
be made public. We all realize, however, that this is a tremendously
costly venture. In fact, the Commission was unable to come up with
solid data on the true cost of declassification.
In this era when Congress has finally begun to grasp the essential
need to reduce government spending and balance the budget, the issue of
balancing costs and benefits is an essential one. The financial costs
to the American taxpayers must be balanced against the necessity of the
declassification. The real lesson to take from the work of this
Commission is the need to redress for the future the problems of over
classification and a systematic process for declassification, so that
the costs and timeliness of declassification does not pose the same
economic and regulatory burdens on future generations. At the same
time, it may be too costly to declassify all of the countless
classified documents now in existence.
I hope the 106th Congress will complete the work of the 105th
Congress and bring government wide rationalization to the
classification process. It is an area where tough Congressional
oversight is long overdue.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 23. A bill to promote a new urban agenda, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
the new urban agenda act of 1999
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation that will deal with the plight of our nation's cities and
Washington's increasing neglect of them. With 80% of the U.S.
population living in metropolitan areas, there is an urgent need to
improve our urban economies and the quality of life for the millions of
Americans who live and work in cities. By simply making our cities an
appealing place to live, work, recreate, and visit, urban areas can
rebound to the vibrant economic centers they once were.
There is a common perception that urban areas are abandoned and
stripped of their resources, burdened with poverty and crime. However,
cities have a wealth of resources available to not only the urban
dweller but to the world--cultural centers, business hubs, and some of
the finest educational and medical institutions. The real problem is
that we do not draw upon these riches or strive to better coordinate
them to serve people, most especially those in need.
My proposal, the ``New Urban Agenda Act of 1999'' is based on
legislation which I have endeavored to make law since the 103rd
Congress. I am pleased to be introducing it today, in this first
Congress of the new millennium, with my distinguished colleague from
Illinois, Senator Durbin, who also recognizes the potential of both
small cities and large metropolitan areas.
The bill constitutes an effort to give our cities some much-needed
attention, but reflects the federal budgetary constraints which govern
all that we in Congress do these days. This bill, based in significant
part on suggestions by Philadelphia Mayor Edward G. Rendell and the
League of Cities, offers aid to the cities while containing federal
expenditures and by re-instituting important cost-effective tax breaks
which have been discontinued.
If we are to really address many of the very serious social issues
that we face--unemployment, teenage pregnancy, welfare dependency, and
other pressing issues--we cannot give up on our cities. There must be
new strategies for dealing with the problems of urban America. The days
of creating ``Great Society'' federal aid programs are clearly past,
but that is no excuse for the national government to turn a blind eye
to the problems of the cities.
[[Page S403]]
Urban areas remain integral to America's greatness as centers of
commerce, industry, education, health care, and culture. Yet urban
areas, particularly the inner cities which tend to have a
disproportionate share of our nation's poor, also have special needs
which must be recognized. We must develop ways of aiding our cities
that do not require either new taxes or more government bureaucracy.
As a Philadelphia resident, I have first-hand knowledge of the
growing problems that plague our cities. The most recent U.S. Census
data collected showed that Philadelphia has over 300,000 individuals in
poverty and when federal welfare reform took effect in October 1996,
113,000 adults were receiving some form of cash assistance. Reflecting
on my experience as a Philadelphian, I have long supported a variety of
programs to assist our cities, such as increased funding for Community
Development Block Grants and legislation to establish enterprise and
empowerment zones. To encourage similar efforts, in April, 1994, I
hosted my Senate Republican colleagues on a visit to explore urban
problems in my hometown. We talked with people who wanted to obtain
work, but had found few opportunities. We saw a crumbling
infrastructure and its impact on residents and businesses. We were
reminded of the devastating effect that the loss of inner city
businesses and jobs has had on our neighborhoods in America's cities.
What my Republican colleagues saw then in Philadelphia is the urban
rule across our country and not the exception.
There are many who do not know of city life, who are far removed from
the cities and would not be expected to have any key interest in what
goes on in the big cities of America. I cite my own boyhood experience
illustratively: Born in Wichita, Kansas, raised in Russell, a small
town of 5,000 people on the plains of Kansas, where there is not much
detailed knowledge of what goes on in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or
other big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami,
Pittsburgh, Dallas, Detroit or Chicago.
Those big cities are alien to people in much of America. But there is
a growing understanding that the problems of big cities contribute
significantly to the general problems affecting our nation and have an
economic impact, at the very least, on our small towns. For rural
America to prosper, we need to make sure that urban America prospers
and vice-versa. For example, if cities had more economic growth, taxes
could be reduced on all Americans at the federal and state level
because revenues would increase and social welfare spending would be
reduced.
There is indeed a domino effect from our cities to rural communities
of the country. Lately, we have been witnessing this in the violent
behavior of adolescents. School violence and juvenile crime are no
longer endemic to urban living. Take the Bloods and the Crips gangs
from Los Angeles, California, and similar gangs; that are all over
America. They are in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Des Moines, Iowa;
Portland, Oregon; Jackson, Mississippi; Racine, Wisconsin; and
Martinsburg, West Virginia. They are literally everywhere, big city and
small city alike.
In the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's 1998 report
on the ``State of the Cities,'' findings show that large urban schools
still deal with a higher concentration of violence, and the data only
represents crimes which were serious enough to report to the police.
The School District of Philadelphia's most recent report on school
violence shows that in the 1994-1995 academic year, students, teachers
and administrators were the victims of 2,147 reported criminal
incidents, up by almost 100% from the previous year. These included
assault, robbery, rape, and students being stabbed or even shot. The
school district also reported troubling news about abysmal attendance
rates. On any given day, more than one in every four students are
absent.
Understandably so, city residents are afraid to continue leading an
urban lifestyle. Each day, small business owners question whether they
should remain in the city because they fear for the safety of their
children, their employees, and ultimately, their businesses. I have
personally met and spoken with shop owners in the University City
section of Philadelphia who tell me that they look desperately for
reasons to stay, but it gets harder and harder.
Joblessness and a less skilled work force are additional problems. To
facilitate economic development and job creation in the United States,
I supported the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which contained such
provisions as the Job Training Partnership Act and the Targeted Job Tax
Credit. As Congress put the final touches on that legislation, I
circulated a joint letter from several Senators to then-Majority Leader
Dole and Speaker Gingrich recommending spurring job creation and
economic growth in our cities through several urban initiatives such
as: a targeted capital gains exclusion, commercial revitalization tax
credit, historic rehabilitation tax credit, and child care credit. Last
year, I introduced the ``Job Preparation and Retention Training Act of
1998,'' which was included in the recently enacted Workforce
Development Act of 1998. My legislation authorized funding for States
to enroll long-term welfare dependents into a training program which
would provide the necessary skills to locate and maintain gainful and
unsubsidized employment.
The last census taken in 1990, reported that New York City led the
way, with 1.3 million individuals in poverty. My home of Philadelphia
had 313,374 individuals in poverty at that time. And in HUD's 1998
``State of the Cities'' report, by 1996, one in every five urban
families lived in poverty, compared with fewer than one in ten suburban
families. These facts emphasize the need for more efforts to be focused
on strengthening our inner city businesses which, in turn, will boost
local economies and serve to provide more jobs, reduce poverty and,
hopefully, reduce crime.
I have long supported efforts to encourage the growth of small
business. During the 105th Congress, I once again introduced
legislation to provide targeted tax incentives for investing in small
minority- or women-owned businesses. Small businesses provide the bulk
of the jobs in this country. Many minority entrepreneurs, for instance,
have told me that they are dedicated to staying in the cities to employ
people there, but continue to confront capital access issues. My
legislation, the ``Minority and Women Capital Formation Act'' would
help to remove the capital access barriers, thereby enabling these
entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and payrolls.
Municipal leaders are stressing many of the same concerns that
business people are voicing. In a July, 1994 National League of Cities
report dealing with poverty and economic development, municipal leaders
ranked inadequate skills and education of workers as one of the top
three reasons, in addition to shortage of jobs and below-poverty wages,
for poverty and joblessness in their cities. They said, according to
the survey, that more jobs must be created through local economic
development initiatives.
This ``skills deficit'' is highlighted in an urban revitalization
plan prepared in 1991 by the National Urban League called ``Playing to
Win: A Marshall Plan for America's Cities.'' The report cites a
statistic by the Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills which showed
that 60 percent of all 21-25 year-olds lack the basic reading and
writing skills needed for the modern workplace, and only 10 percent of
those in that age group have enough mathematical competence for today's
jobs. The economic problems our cities are facing are not easy to deal
with or answer. In a report by the National League of Cities entitled
``City Fiscal Conditions in 1996,'' municipal officials from 381 cities
answered questions on the economic state of their cities. In response
to state budgetary problems, 21.7 percent of responding cities reduced
municipal employment and 18.5 percent had frozen municipal employment.
Nearly six out of ten cities raised or imposed new taxes or user fees
during the past twelve months.
These numbers are of concern to me and I believe they highlight the
need for federal legislation to enhance the ability of cities to
achieve competitive economic status. An added concern is that city
managers are forced to balance cuts in services or enact higher taxes.
Neither choice is easy and it often counteracts municipal efforts to
retain residents or businesses.
[[Page S404]]
One issue, in particular, that is hurting many cities is the erosion
of their tax bases, evidenced particularly by middle-class flight to
the suburbs. Mr. Ronald Walters, professor of Political Science at
Howard University, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in
April 1993, stated that in 1950, 23 percent of the American population
lived outside central cities; by 1988, that number was up to 46
percent. The District of Columbia's population loss is among the worst
in the nation, with a quarter of its population relocating since the
1970s. This trend of shrinking urban populations gives no sign of
ceasing. Middle-class families continue to leave for the suburbs where
there are typically better public services.
These losses are devastating, not only to the financial stability of
the city, but to the social fabric as well. On the financial side,
statistics show that those people fleeing cities were earning an
average of $30,000 to $75,000 a year. On the social side, roughly half
of these are African-American Middle-class families. By losing this
critical demographic group, the city loses much of what makes it
strong. As America's cities struggle with the exodus of residents,
businesses and industry, city residents who remain are faced with
problems ranging from increased tax burdens and lesser services to
dwindling economic opportunities, leading to welfare dependence and
unemployment assistance. In the face of all this, what do we do?
The federal government has attempted to revitalize our ailing urban
infrastructure by providing federal funding for transit and sewer
systems, roads and bridges. I have supported this. For example, as a
member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and as co-
chair of an informal Senate Transit Coalition, I have been a strong
supporter of public transit which provides critically needed
transportation services in urban areas. Transit helps cities meet clean
air standards, reduce traffic congestion, and allows disadvantaged
persons access to jobs. Federal assistance for urban areas, however,
has become increasingly scarce as we grapple with the nation's deficit
and debt. Therefore, we must find alternatives to reinvigorate our
nation's cities so they can once again be economically productive areas
providing promising opportunities for residents and neighboring areas.
To address the need for reliable transportation systems in our nation's
cities and to provide access to jobs for city residents, I introduced
reverse commute and jobs access legislation, which was successfully
included in last year's highway and transit reauthorization bill. The
bill authorizes $400 million over the next five years in access-to-jobs
transit grants targeted at low-income individuals. Up to $10 million
per year can be used for reverse commute projects to move individuals
from cities to suburban job centers.
In addition to support for infrastructure, I believe there are ways
Congress can assist the cities. In 1994, Mayor Rendell came up with a
legislative package which contains many good ideas. I have taken many
of these suggestions and have since added and revised provisions to
take into account new developments at the federal, state and local
levels to create the ``New Urban Agenda Act of 1999.''
First, recognizing that the federal government is the nation's
largest purchaser of goods and services, this legislation would require
that no less than 15 percent of federal government purchases are made
from businesses and industries within designated urban Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities. Similarly, my bill would require that
not less than 15 percent of foreign aid funds be redeemed through
purchases of products manufactured in urban Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities. The General Services Administration will be
required to submit to Congress its assessment of the extent to which
federal agencies are committed to this policy and in general, economic
revitalization in distressed urban areas.
The second major provision of this bill would commit the federal
government to play an active role in restoring the economic health of
our cities by encouraging the location, or relocation, of federal
facilities in urban areas. To accomplish this, all federal agencies
would be required to prepare and submit to the President an Urban
Impact Statement detailing the impact that relocation or downsizing
decisions would have on the affected city. Presidential approval would
be required to place a federal facility outside an urban area, or to
downsize a city-based agency.
The third critical component of this bill would revive and expand
federal tax incentives that were eliminated or restricted in the Tax
Reform Act of 1986. Until there is passage of legislation on the flat
tax, which would provide benefits superior to all targeted tax breaks,
I believe America's cities should have the advantages of such tax
benefits. These provisions offer meaningful incentives to business to
invest in our cities. I am calling for the restoration of the Historic
Rehabilitation Tax Credit which supports inner city revitalization
projects. According to information provided by Mayor Rendell, there
were 8,640 construction jobs involved in 356 projects in Philadelphia
from 1978 to 1985 stimulated by the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit.
In Chicago, 302 projects prior to 1985 generated $524 million in
investment and created 20,695 jobs. In St. Louis, 849 projects
generated $653 million in investment and created 27,735 jobs.
Nationally, according to National Park Service estimates for the 16
years before the 1986 Act, the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
stimulated $16 billion in private investment for the rehabilitation of
24,656 buildings and the creation of 125,306 homes which included
23,377 low and moderate income housing units. The 1986 Tax Act
dramatically reduced the pool of private investment capital available
for rehabilitation projects. In Philadelphia, projects dropped from 356
to 11 by 1988 from 1985 levels. During the same period, investments
dropped 46 percent in Illinois and 92 percent in St. Louis.
Another tool is to expand the authorization of commercial industrial
development bonds. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, authorization for
commercial industrial bonds was permitted to expire. Consequently,
private investment in cities declined. For instance, according to Mayor
Rendell, from 1986--the last year commercial development bonds were
permitted--to 1987, the total number of city--supported projects in
Philadelphia was reduced by more than half.
Industrial development or private activity bonds encourage private
investment by allowing, under certain circumstances, tax-exempt status
for projects where more than 10 percent of the bond proceeds are used
for private business purposes. The availability of tax-exempt
commercial industrial development bonds will encourage private
investment in cities, particularly the construction of sports,
convention and trade show facilities; free standing parking facilities
owned and operated by the private sector; air and water pollution
facilities owned and operated by the private sector; and, industrial
parks.
The bill I am introducing would allow this. It would also increase
the small issue exemption, which means a way to help finance private
activity in the building of manufacturing facilities from $10 million
to $50 million to allow increased private investment in our cities.
A minor change in the federal tax code related to arbitrage rebates
on municipal bond interest earnings could also free additional capital
for infrastructure and economic development by cities. Currently,
municipalities are required to rebate to the federal government any
arbitrage--a financial term meaning interest earned in excess of
interest paid on the debt--earned from the issuance of tax-free
municipal bonds. I am informed that compliance, or the cost for
consultants to perform the complicated rebate calculations, is actually
costing municipalities more than the actual rebate owed to the
government. This bill would allow cities to keep the arbitrage earned
so that they can use it to fund city projects and for other necessary
purposes.
My legislation also provides important incentives for businesses to
invest and locate in our nation's cities. Specifically, the bill
includes a provision which I have advocated to provide a 50 percent
exclusion for capital gains tax purposes for any gain resulting from
targeted investments in small businesses located in urban empowerment
zones, enterprise communities, or enterprise zones. I also want to note
that the exclusion would extend to any venture funds that invest in
those small
[[Page S405]]
businesses, which is critical because venture funds are often the
lifeblood of a small business. This is one of the incentives I
recommended to Senator Dole in December 1995 for inclusion in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 which was later vetoed by President
Clinton. A targeted capital gains exclusion will serve as a catalyst
for job creation and economic growth in our cities by encouraging
additional private investment in our urban areas.
A fourth provision of this legislation provides needed reforms to
regulations and the financial challenges to obtaining affordable
housing. This legislation provides language to study streamlining
federal housing program assistance to urban areas into a block grant
form so that municipal agencies can better serve local residents. Safe,
clean, and affordable housing is not widely available to most low
income families. According to the National Housing Law Project, in
1996, only one in four families was eligible to receive HUD assistance,
with waits of up to five years. In HUD's most recent annual report,
just as many families are still struggling with the lack of affordable
housing as they were when a record 5.3 million low-income renters were
paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent between 1993 and
1995. This provision of the bill steers the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to take a hard look at these conditions and determine
what works and what does not work in federally-subsidized housing and
to consider alternatives that will provide suitable homes for America's
families.
I believe that we as a nation should work toward providing
individuals and their families with more opportunities for
homeownership which stabilizes a community and would especially restore
our cities. Urban homeownership including middle-income homeownership
lags behind the suburbs. According to the Harvard University Joint
Center for Housing Studies, city residents of all income levels are
less likely to own a home than suburban residents with similar incomes.
I hear time and time again from families starting out that they move
out to the suburbs for better schools, because central cities lack the
property tax base to provide for quality schools. Homeownership is key
to saving our cities, both socially and economically. A 1998 Fannie Mae
national housing survey indicated that even though homeownership rates
continue to increase in the late 1990s, six in every ten renters said
that buying a home is a very important priority, if not their number-
one priority in life. Yet for so many families financial barriers make
that dream unattainable. That is why my bill includes a tax credit to
restore the American dream of homeownership. A tax credit could be used
by income-eligible individuals and families to purchase homes in
distressed areas. In the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, Congress approved
such a tax credit for homebuyers in the District of Columbia. While
single family home sales can be attributed to a multitude of factors,
such as historically low interest rates and a strong economy, let me
just share with you some amazing statistics related to homeownership
since enactment of the tax credit in the District of Columbia. The Home
Purchase Assistance Program through the District of Columbia's Office
of Housing and Community Development helped 410 families purchase
homes. Further, a group called the ``Washington Partners for
Homeownership,'' a collaboration of realtors, banks, community and
faith-based organizations, set a goal last year to create 1,000 new
homeowners in the District of Columbia for each of the next three
years. Remarkably, the Washington Partners have already reached that
goal before the end of the first year. I believe that this country will
reap extraordinary benefits if we expand such a credit on a national
basis, as I propose in the ``New Urban Agenda Act of 1999.''
I believe that the revitalization of cities will require social and
economic facets, but it is also imperative that our cities are safe and
clean. This last component of my bill helps urban areas to address
their unique environmental challenges and reforms Superfund law. First,
the legislation authorizes a federal brownfields program to help clean
up idle or underused industrial and commercial facilities and waives
federal liability for persons who fully comply with a state cleanup
plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant to state law, provided that
the site is not listed or proposed to be listed on the National
Priorities List. The Environmental Protection Agency currently operates
this pilot program under general authority provided by the Superfund
law.
My legislation would make this a permanent program and substantially
increase the funding levels to a $50 million authorized level for
Fiscal Year 2000. The EPA could expend funds to identify and examine
potential idle or underused Brownfield sites and to provide grants to
States and local governments of up to $200,000 per site to put them
back to productive use. One such grant has been used to great success
by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, and I hope this provision will generate
additional success stories of redeveloping urban brownfields.
The Brownfields Program allows sites with minor levels of toxic waste
to be cleaned up by State and local governments with federal and other
funding sources. Companies and individuals who are interested in
developing land into industrial, commercial, recreational, or
residential use are often reluctant to purchase property with any level
of toxic waste because of a fear of being saddled with cleanup
liability under the Superfund law. Through expanded Brownfields grants,
cleanup at such sites will be expedited and will encourage
redevelopment of otherwise unusable urban property.
My bill would also waive federal liability for persons who fully
comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban areas pursuant
to state law, providing that the site is not listed or proposed to be
listed on the National Priorities List. Many states, including
Pennsylvania, have developed their own toxic waste cleanup programs and
have done good work to clean up many of these sites. Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Ridge has developed an extensive plan, where contaminated
sites are made safe based on sound science by returning the site to
productive use through the development of uniform cleanup standards, by
creating a set of standardized review procedures, by releasing owners
and developers from liability who fully comply with the state cleanup
standards and procedures, and by providing financial assistance.
However, the efforts of states like Pennsylvania are often stifled
because the federal government has not been willing to work with the
States to release owners and developers from liability, even when they
fully comply with the state plans.
This section of my bill only applies to sites that are not on the
National Priorities List. These are sites that the state has identified
for which the state has created a comprehensive cleanup plan. If the
federal government has concerns with the cleanup procedure or the
safety of the site, then the government has full authority to place
that site on the National Priority List. The plans, like that developed
by Governor Ridge, deal with sites not controlled by the Superfund law.
By not allowing the individual states to take the initiative to clean
up these sites, and by not providing a waiver for federal liability to
those who fully comply with the procedures and standards of the state
cleanup, the federal government impedes the efforts of the states to
work to clean up their own sites. This provision takes a significant
step toward encouraging states to take the responsibility for their
toxic waste sites and to encourage the effective cleanup of these sites
in our nation's urban areas.
The final environmental provision calls for the reauthorization of an
existing federal program, which has served cities across the nation
very well, but has not been authorized since 1995 and has also been
unable to meet the demand for an ``urban greening effort.'' The Urban
and Community Forestry Assistance Program through the U.S. Department
of Agriculture provides financial and technical assistance to urban
areas to help establish and maintain community parkland and forests in
our nation's 45,000 towns and cities. The number of requests for
federal assistance and grants exceeds the capacity of the existing
Urban and Community Forestry program by eight times. The number of
communities assisted through the Urban and Community Forestry
Assistance Program has grown from 7,548 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 11,675
in Fiscal Year 1997, a 56% increase in five years. An enhanced Urban
and Community Forestry Program will enable cities to put vacant
[[Page S406]]
areas and abandoned structures back into use. There are more than
15,000 vacant lots in Pennsylvania, which as we know, pose serious
health and safety risks, detract commercial investments, reduce
property values, and cost municipalities hundreds of millions of
dollars in maintenance and lost revenue. The Urban and Community
Forestry Program has been very successful due to its flexible design
and emphasis on local creativity. In fact, the program has allowed for
benefits that go beyond revenue and other economic gains. Many of the
formerly broken down concrete lots are now green and welcoming to the
community have provided children and their parents with a safe haven
for recreation outside the home. Some city public schools have even
begun to use these areas as their ``science parks'' for after-school
and weekend educational activities.
Mr. President, I realize that this is an initial step to reinvesting
in our cities. Nevertheless, it is time to take a comprehensive
approach to reversing urban decay, which is what I believe my bill can
accomplish. It may well be that America has given up on its cities.
That is a stark statement, but it is one which I believe may be true--
that America has given up on its cities. But this Senator has not done
so. And I believe there are others in this body on both sides of the
aisle who have not done so and I invite the input and assistance of my
colleagues in order to fashion a strong plan of action to help cities
to face their pressing problems.
As one of a handful of United States Senators who lives in a big
city, I understand both the problems and the promise of urban America.
This legislation for our cities is good public policy. The plight of
our cities must be of extreme concern to America. We can ill-afford for
them to wither and die. I am committed to a new urban agenda that
relies on market forces, and not a welfare state, for urban
revitalization.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
New Urban Agenda Act of 1999--Summary
Title I--Promote Urban Economic Development
Requires a portion of federal and foreign aid purchases
(not less than 15 percent) to be from businesses operating in
urban zones, and commits the government to purchase recycled
products from businesses operating in urban zones.
Requires an urban impact statement, with Presidential
approval, that details the impact on cities of agency
downsizing or relocation. Under the bill, a ``distressed
urban area'' follows HUD's definition, namely any city having
a population of more than 100,000.
Title II--Tax Incentives To Stimulate Urban Economic Development
Expands the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit which was
reduced in 1986. It would restore the issuance of tax-free
industrial development bonds and would allow cities to keep
the arbitrage earned from the issuance of tax-free municipal
bonds. Currently, local governments are required to rebate to
the federal government arbitrage earned from the issuance of
tax-free municipal bonds, and often spend more on compliance
than on the actual rebate.
To encourage businesses to invest and locate in our
nation's cities, provides a 50 percent exclusion for capital
gains tax purposes for any gain resulting from targeted
investments in small businesses located in urban empowerment
zones, enterprise communities, or enterprise zones. The
exclusion also extends to any venture that invest in those
small businesses.
Title III--Community-Based Housing Development
Lifts Federal restrictions on community-based housing
development.
To boost the efficiency of regional housing authorities, a
study would be done to streamline current and future housing
programs into ``block grants.''
Provides a tax credit to encourage the purchase and
ownership of homes in distressed urban areas.
Title IV--Response to Urban Environmental Challenges
Reforms Superfund law to encourage industrial cleanup.
Authorizes an expanded federal brownfields grant program to
help clean up idle or underused industrial and commercial
facilities. Also provides regulatory relief by waiving
federal liability for businesses and individuals that fully
comply with a state cleanup plan to clean sites in urban
areas pursuant to state law, provided that the site is not
listed or proposed to be listed on the National Priorities
List.
Reauthorizes the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance
Program to provide cities with the financial and technical
assistance necessary to revitalize abandoned, heavily
littered and demolished lands.
______
By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 24. A bill to provide improved access to health care, enhance
informed individual choice regarding health care services, lower health
care costs through the use of appropriate providers, improve the
quality of health care, improve access to long term care, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE HEALTH CARE ASSURANCE ACT OF 1999
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as the 106th Congress commences, those of
us in the Senate and the House have a new opportunity to make a real
difference in the lives of the American people. It is a chance for us
to learn from the past, determine how best to respond to the challenges
that are before us, and forge important alliances which will enable us
to pass legislation that is important to this nation. I believe it is
clear that one of our first priorities must be additional incremental
reforms of our health care system.
Mr. President, there is no time to waste. Many of our nation's health
care problems are getting worse, not better. In its December 1998
report, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) analyzed the
March 1998 Current Population Survey, a document generated yearly by
the U.S. Census Bureau. EBRI's analysis tells us that in 1997, about
193 million working-age Americans derived their health insurance
coverage as follows: approximately 64.2 percent from employer plans;
13.0 percent from Medicare and Medicaid within a total of 14.8 percent
from public sources of coverage; and 6.7 percent from other private
insurance. This survey also details another troubling statistic: 43.1
million Americans, or 18.3 percent of Americans aged 18-64, were
uninsured. This reflects an increase of 7 percent, or 2.8 million
uninsured working-age people, since 1995. Among the elderly, the
outlook is a bit brighter, with only 1 percent uninsured, and 96.4
percent deriving coverage from public sources.
As I have said many times, we can fix the problems felt by this
growing number of uninsured Americans without resorting to big
government and without completely overhauling our current system, one
that works well for most Americans--serving 81.7 percent of our non-
elderly citizens. We must enact reforms that improve upon our current
market-based health care system, as it is clearly the best health care
system in the world.
Accordingly, today I am introducing the Health Care Assurance Act of
1999, which, if enacted, will take us further down the path of the
incremental reforms started by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Kassebaum-Kennedy) and various health care
provisions enacted during the 105th Congress. I would note that the
final version of Kassebaum-Kennedy contained many elements which were
in S. 18, the incremental health care reform bill I introduced when the
104th Congress began on January 4, 1995.
I would note that the bill I am introducing today is distinct from my
recent efforts regarding managed care reform. During the 105th
Congress, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the
Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act of 1998, a balanced proposal
which would ensure that patients receive the benefits and services to
which they are entitled, without compromising the savings and
coordination of care that can be achieved through managed care. I look
forward to working again with my colleagues to enact responsible
managed care legislation.
The Health Care Assurance Act of 1999 is intended to initiate and
stimulate new discussion, so we may move the health care reform debate
forward. I welcome any suggestions my colleagues may have concerning
how this bill can be improved, as long as such suggestions are
consistent with the incremental approach to reform that has proven to
be the only way to achieve successful health care reform.
Given the importance of enacting this type of legislation, it is
worth reviewing recent history which has taught us that bipartisanship
is crucial in accomplishing these goals for the American people. In
particular, the debate over President Clinton's Health Security Act
during the 103rd Congress
[[Page S407]]
is replete with lessons concerning the pitfalls and obstacles that
inevitably lead to legislative failure. Several times during the 103rd
Congress, I spoke on the Senate floor to address what seemed to be the
wisest course--to pass incremental health care reforms with which we
could all agree. Unfortunately, what seemed obvious to me, based on
comments and suggestions by a majority of Senators who favored a
moderate approach, was not obvious at the time to the Senate's
Democratic leadership.
This failure to understand the merits of an incremental approach was
demonstrated during April 1993 during my attempts to offer a health
care reform amendment based on the text of S. 631, an incremental
reform bill I had introduced earlier in the session. This bill
incorporated moderate, consensus principles in a reasonable reform
package. First, I attempted to offer the bill as an amendment to
legislation dealing with debt ceilings. Subsequently, I was informed
that the consideration of this bill would be structured in a way that
precluded my offering an amendment. Therefore, I prepared to offer my
health care bill as an amendment to the fiscal year 1993 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bill. To my dismay, Senator Mitchell, then
Majority Leader, and Senator Byrd, then Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, worked together to ensure that I could not offer my
amendment by keeping the Senate in a quorum call, a parliamentary
tactic used to delay and obstruct. I was unable to obtain unanimous
consent to end the quorum call, and thus could not proceed with my
amendment.
Three years later, well after the behemoth Clinton health care reform
bill was derailed, the Senate once again endured a lengthy political
battle concerning the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, which I was pleased to
cosponsor. We achieved a breakthrough in August 1996, when enough
Senators sensed the growing frustration of the American people to
finally pass Kassebaum-Kennedy and its vital health insurance market
reforms, such as increased portability of health insurance coverage.
There is no question that Kassebaum-Kennedy made significant steps
forward in addressing troubling issues in health care, although I
recognize that there is much more to be done. The bill's incremental
approach to health care reform is what allowed it to generate
bipartisan, consensus support in the Senate. We knew that it did not
address every single problem in the health care delivery system, but it
would make life better for millions of American men, women, and
children.
In retrospect, I urge my colleagues to note a most important fact--
the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill was enacted only after Democrats abandoned
their hopes for passing a nationalized, big government health care
scheme, and Republicans abandoned their position that access to health
care is not really a major problem in the United States which demands
Federal action.
Perhaps the greatest recent example of the power of bipartisanship
took place during the 105th Congress, with the passage of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997. This historic bipartisan agreement between Congress
and the White House to balance the budget by 2002 extended the life of
the vital Medicare hospital trust fund by ten years, while expanding
needed benefits for seniors. The new law created a National Bipartisan
Commission on the Future of Medicare to address the implications of the
retirement of the Baby Boom generation, and marked the first balanced
Federal budget in thirty years. This landmark accomplishment clearly
would not have occurred without all members of Congress and the
Administration crossing party lines, compromising, and doing what was
right for the American people regardless of political affiliations.
We must realize that if we are to continue to be successful in
meeting the nation's health care needs, the solutions to the system's
problems must come from the political center, not from the extremes.
I have advocated health care reform in one form or another throughout
my 18 years in the Senate. My strong interest in health care dates back
to my first term, when I sponsored S. 811, the Health Care for
Displaced Workers Act of 1983, and S. 2051, the Health Care Cost
Containment Act of 1983, which would have granted a limited antitrust
exemption to health insurers, permitting them to engage in certain
joint activities such as acquiring or processing information, and
collecting and distributing insurance claims for health care services
aimed at curtailing then escalating health care costs. In 1985, I
introduced the Community Based Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Projects Act of 1985, S. 1873, directed at reducing the human tragedy
of low birth weight babies and infant mortality. Since 1983, I have
introduced and cosponsored numerous other bills concerning health care
in our country. A complete list of the 26 health care bills that I have
sponsored since 1983 is included for the Record.
During the 102nd Congress, I pressed the Senate to take action on
this issue. On July 29, 1992, I offered a health care amendment to
legislation then pending on the Senate floor. This amendment included
provisions from legislation introduced by Senator Chafee, which I
cosponsored and which was previously proposed by Senators Bentsen and
Durenberger. The amendment included a change from 25 percent to 100
percent deductibility for health insurance purchased by self-employed
persons, and small business insurance market reforms to make health
coverage more affordable for small businesses. When then-Majority
Leader George Mitchell argued that the health care amendment I was
proposing did not belong on that bill, I offered to withdraw the
amendment if he would set a date certain to take up health care, just
as product liability legislation had been placed on the calendar for
September 8, 1992. The Majority Leader rejected that suggestion and the
Senate did not consider comprehensive health care legislation during
the balance of the 102nd Congress. My July 29, 1992 amendment was
defeated on a procedural motion by a vote of 35 to 60, along party
lines.
The substance of that amendment, however, was adopted later by the
Senate on September 23, 1992 when it was included in an amendment to
broader tax legislation (H.R. 11), offered by Senators Bentsen and
Durenberger and which I cosponsored. This amendment, which included
essentially the same self-employed tax deductibility and small group
reforms that I had proposed on July 29th of that year, passed the
Senate by voice vote. Unfortunately, these provisions were later
dropped from H.R. 11 in the House-Senate conference.
On August 12, 1992, I introduced legislation entitled the Health Care
Affordability and Quality Improvement Act of 1992, S. 3176, that would
have enhanced informed individual choice regarding health care services
by providing certain information to health care recipients, would have
lowered the cost of health care through use of the most appropriate
provider, and would have improved the quality of health care.
On January 21, 1993, the first day of the 103rd Congress, I
introduced the Comprehensive Health Care Act of 1993, S. 18. This
legislation was comprised of reforms that our health care system could
have adopted immediately. These initiatives would have both improved
access and affordability of insurance coverage and would have
implemented systemic changes to lower the escalating cost of care in
this country. S. 18 is the principal basis of the legislation I
introduced in the 104th (S. 18) and 105th Congresses (S. 24), and the
Health Care Assurance Act of 1999, which I am introducing today.
On March 23, 1993, I introduced the Comprehensive Access and
Affordability Health Care Act of 1993, S. 631, which was a composite of
health care legislation introduced by Senators Cohen, Kassebaum, Bond,
and McCain, and included pieces of my bill, S. 18. I introduced this
legislation in an attempt to move ahead on the consideration of health
care legislation and provide a starting point for debate. As I noted
earlier, I was precluded by Majority Leader Mitchell from obtaining
Senate consideration of my legislation as a floor amendment on several
occasions. Finally, on April 28, 1993, I offered the text of S. 631 as
an amendment to the pending Department of Environment Act (S. 171) in
an attempt to urge the Senate to act on health care reform. My
amendment was defeated 65 to 33 on a procedural motion, but the Senate
had finally been forced to contemplate action on health care reform.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, January 4, 1995, I introduced
a
[[Page S408]]
slightly modified version of S. 18, the Health Care Assurance Act of
1995 (also S. 18), which contained provisions similar to those
ultimately enacted in the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, including
insurance market reforms, an extension of the tax deductibility of
health insurance for the self employed, and deductibility of long term
care insurance for employers.
I continued these efforts in the 105th Congress, with the
introduction of Health Care Assurance Act of 1997 (S. 24), which
included market reforms similar to my previous proposals with the
addition of a new Title I, an innovative program to provide vouchers to
States to cover children who lack health insurance coverage. I also
introduced Title I of this legislation as a stand-alone bill, the
Healthy Children's Pilot Program of 1997 (S. 435) on March 13, 1997.
This proposal targeted the approximately 4.2 million children of the
working poor who lacked health insurance. These are children whose
parents earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid, but do not earn
enough to afford private health care coverage for their families. This
legislation would have established a $10 billion/5 year discretionary
pilot program to cover these uninsured children by providing grants to
States. Modeled after Pennsylvania's extraordinarily successful Caring
and BlueCHIP programs, this legislation was the first Republican-
sponsored child health insurance bill during the 105th Congress.
I was encouraged that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, signed into
law on August 5, 1997, included a combination of the best provisions
from many of child health insurance proposals throughout this Congress.
The new legislation allocated $24 billion for the next five years to
establish State Child Health Insurance Programs, funded in part by a
slight increase in the cigarette tax. The bill I am introducing today,
the Health Care Assurance Act of 1999, would further augment this new
State Child Health Insurance Program and would enable States to cover
even more children, and includes new provisions to assist individuals
with disabilities to maintain quality health care coverage.
My commitment to the issue of health care reform across all
populations has been consistently evident during my tenure in the
Senate, as I have taken to this floor and offered health care reform
bills and amendments on countless occasions. I will continue to urge
the Senate to address this vital issue and to stress the importance of
the Federal government's investment in and attention to the system's
future.
As my colleagues are aware, I can personally report on the miracles
of modern medicine. Five years ago, an MRI detected a benign tumor
(meningioma) at the outer edge of my brain. It was removed by
conventional surgery, with five days of hospitalization and five more
weeks of recuperation.
When a small regrowth was detected by a follow-up MRI in June 1996,
it was treated with high powered radiation from the ``Gamma Knife.'' I
entered the hospital in the morning of October 11, 1996, and left the
same afternoon, ready to resume my regular schedule. Like the MRI, the
Gamma Knife is a recent invention, coming into widespread use in the
past decade.
In July 1998, I was pleased to return to the Senate after a
relatively brief period of convalescence following heart bypass
surgery. This experience again led me to marvel at our health care
system and made me more determined than ever to support Federal funding
for biomedical research and to support legislation which will
incrementally make health care available to all Americans.
My concern about health care has long pre-dated my own personal
benefits from the MRI and other diagnostic and curative procedures. As
I have previously discussed, my concern about health care began many
years ago and been intensified by my service on the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which
I now have the honor to chair.
My own experience as a patient has given me deeper insights into the
American health care system beyond my perspective from the U.S. Senate.
I have learned: (1) our health care system, the best in the world, is
worth every cent we pay for it; (2) patients sometimes have to press
their own cases beyond the doctors' standard advice; (3) greater
flexibility must be provided on testing and treatment; (4) our system
has the resources to treat the 43.1 million Americans currently
uninsured, but we must find the way to pay for it; and (5) all
Americans deserve the access to health care from which I and others
with coverage have benefitted.
I have long been convinced that our Federal budget of
$1,700,000,000,000, could provide sufficient funding for America's
needs if we establish our real priorities. The real question has been
whether we have enough doctors, hospitals, medical personnel, etc. to
take care of Americans in need of medical attention. I am convinced
that we do. The part which has yet to be accomplished is to work out
the financing for the delivery of such health care. As specified in the
legislation which I have introduced, I am convinced that sufficient
savings are possible within the current system to provide health care
for all Americans within the current expenditures.
I share the American people's frustration with government and their
desire to have their problems addressed. Over the past six years, I
believe we have learned a great deal about our health care system and
what the American people are willing to accept from the Federal
government. The message we heard loudest was that Americans did not
want a massive overhaul of the health care system. Instead, our
constituents want Congress to proceed more slowly and to target what
isn't working in the health care system while leaving in place what is
working.
As I have said both publicly and privately, I am willing to cooperate
with the Administration in solving the health care problems facing our
country. However, in the past I have found many important areas where I
differed with President Clinton's approach to solutions and I did so
because I believed that the proposals would have been deleterious to my
fellow Pennsylvanians, to the American people, and to our health care
system. Most important, I did not support creating a large new
government bureaucracy because I believe that savings should go to
health care services and not bureaucracies.
On this latter issue, I first became concerned about the potential
growth in bureaucracy in September 1993 after reading the President's
239-page preliminary health care reform proposal. I was surprised by
the number of new boards, agencies, and commissions, so I asked my
legislative assistant, Sharon Helfant, to make me a list of all of
them. Instead, she decided to make a chart. The initial chart depicted
77 new entities and 54 existing entities with new or additional
responsibilities.
When the President's 1,342-page Health Security Act was transmitted
to Congress on October 27, 1993, my staff reviewed it and found an
increase to 105 new agencies, boards, and commissions and 47 existing
departments, programs and agencies with new or expanded jobs. This
chart received national attention after being used by Senator Bob Dole
in his response to the President's State of the Union address on
January 24, 1994.
The response to the chart was tremendous, with more than 12,000
people from across the country contacting my office for a copy; I still
receive requests for the chart. Groups and associations, such as United
We Stand America, the American Small Business Association, the National
Federation of Republican Women, and the Christian Coalition, reprinted
the chart in their publications--amounting to hundreds of thousands
more in distribution. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post later stated
that he thought the chart was the single biggest factor contributing to
the demise of the Clinton health care plan. And, as recently as the
November 1996 election, my chart was used by Senator Dole in his
presidential campaign to illustrate the need for incremental health
care reform as opposed to a big government solution.
With the history of the health care reform debate in mind, I have
drafted an incremental bill which would provide quality health care
without adversely affecting the many positive aspects of our health
care system, which works for 81.7 percent of working-age Americans. It
is more prudent to implement targeted reforms and then act later to
improve upon what we have
[[Page S409]]
done. I call this trial and modification. We must be careful not to
damage the positive aspects of our health care system upon which more
than 193 million Americans justifiably rely.
The legislation I am introducing today has three objectives: (1) to
provide affordable health insurance for the 43.1 million working-age
Americans now not covered; (2) to reduce health care costs for all
Americans; and (3) to improve coverage for underinsured individuals,
families, and children. This legislation is comprised of initiatives
that our health care system can readily adopt in order to meet these
objectives, and it does not create an enormous new bureaucracy to meet
them.
This bill includes provisions to encourage the formation of small
group purchasing arrangements, to expand access to health insurance for
children, to improve health coverage for individuals with disabilities,
to strengthen preventive health benefits under the Medicare program, to
increase access to prenatal care and outreach for the prevention of low
birth weight babies, to facilitate the implementation of patients'
rights regarding medical care at the end of life, to improve health
education, to place greater emphasis on and to expand access to primary
and preventive health services, to utilize non-physician providers, to
reform the COBRA law to extend the time period for employees who leave
their jobs to maintain their health benefits until alternative coverage
becomes available, to increase the availability and use of consumer
information and outcomes research, and to establish a national fund for
health research within the Department of Treasury.
Taken together, I believe the reforms proposed in the Health Care
Assurance Act of 1999 will both improve the quality of health care
delivery and will bring down the escalating costs of health care in
this country. These initiatives represent a blueprint which can be
modified, improved and expanded. In total, I believe this bill can
significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans, improve the
affordability of care, ensure the portability and security of coverage
between jobs, and yield cost savings of billions of dollars to the
Federal Government, which can be used to cover the remaining uninsured
and underinsured Americans.
TITLE I
As I mentioned previously, Title I of the bill builds on the State
Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the new program established in
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which allocated $24 billion/five years
to increase health insurance coverage for children. The S-CHIP program
gives States the option to use federally funded grants to provide
vouchers to eligible families to purchase health insurance for their
children, or to expand Medicaid coverage for those uninsured children,
or a combination of both. This title would increase the income
eligibility to families with incomes at or below 235 percent of the
Federal poverty level ($38,658 annually for a family of four), and
would strengthen the States' ability to conduct Medicaid outreach to
eligible children. The S-CHIP program anticipates enrolling 2.3 million
uninsured children by the end of 2000. This provision would allow
eligibility for approximately another 876,000 uninsured children,
representing a 38 percent increase over current law.
TITLE II
Title II assists another of our Nation's most vulnerable populations,
persons with disabilities. This title would expand health services for
disabled individuals in two ways. Currently, disabled individuals, or
recipients of Social Security Disability Income (SSDI), may receive
health insurance coverage under the Medicare program for a short time
after returning to work. One provision of my bill would extend to 24
months the period during which the individual may continue to receive
Medicare benefits after returning to work, and allow the individual to
purchase Medicare coverage at a reduced rate, subject to yearly review.
In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those
with long-term disabilities, the second provision would allow for
reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, instead of
institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such
services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's
age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available
tell us that 5.9 million individuals receive care for disabilities
under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not
currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved
benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given
the preference of home and community-based care over institutional
care.
TITLE III
The next title contains provisions to make it easier for small
businesses to buy health insurance for their workers by establishing
voluntary purchasing groups. It also obligates employers to offer, but
not pay for, at least two health insurance plans that protect
individual freedom of choice and that meet a standard minimum benefits
package. It extends COBRA benefits and coverage options to provide
portability and security of affordable coverage between jobs.
Specifically, Title III extends the COBRA benefit option from 18
months to 24 months. COBRA refers to a measure which was enacted in
1985 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(COBRA '85) to allow employees who leave their job, either through a
lay-off or by choice, to continue receiving their health care benefits
by paying the full cost of such coverage. By extending this option,
such unemployed persons will have enhanced coverage options.
In addition, options under COBRA are expanded to include plans with
lower premiums and higher deductibles of either $1,000 or $3,000. This
provision is incorporated from legislation introduced in the 103rd
Congress by Senator Phil Gramm and will provide an extra cushion of
coverage options for people in transition. According to Senator Gramm,
with these options, the typical monthly premium paid for a family of
four would drop by as much as 20 percent when switching to a $1,000
deductible and as much as 52 percent when switching to a $3,000
deductible.
This year I have also included a provision which would extend to 36
months the time period for COBRA coverage for a child who is no longer
a dependent under a parent's health insurance policy. Again, EBRI
statistics indicate that young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 are
more likely than any other age to be uninsured; 30.1% were without
coverage in 1997. This provision would allow those who are no longer
dependents on their parents' plan to have a more secure safety net.
With respect to the uninsured and underinsured, my bill would permit
individuals and families to purchase guaranteed, comprehensive health
coverage through purchasing groups. Health insurance plans offered
through the purchasing groups would be required to meet basic,
comprehensive standards with respect to benefits. Such benefits must
include a variation of benefits permitted among actuarially equivalent
plans to be developed by the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners. The standard plan would consist of the following
services when medically necessary or appropriate: (1) medical and
surgical devices; (2) medical equipment; (3) preventive services; and
(4) emergency transportation in frontier areas.
My bill would also create individual health insurance purchasing
groups for individuals wishing to purchase health insurance on their
own. In today's market, such individuals often face a market where
coverage options are not affordable. Purchasing groups will allow small
businesses and individuals to buy coverage by pooling together within
purchasing groups, and choose from among insurance plans that provide
comprehensive benefits, with guaranteed enrollment and renewability,
and equal pricing through community rating adjusted by age and family
size. Community rating will assure that no one small business or
individual will be singularly priced out of being able to buy
comprehensive health coverage because of health status. With community
rating, a small group of individuals and businesses can join together,
spread the risk, and have the same purchasing power that larger
companies have today.
For example, Pennsylvania has the ninth lowest rate of uninsured in
the nation, with 90 percent of all Pennsylvanians enrolled in some form
of health coverage. Lewin and Associates found that one of the factors
enabling Pennsylvania to achieve this low rate
[[Page S410]]
of uninsured persons is that Pennsylvania's Blue Cross/Blue Shield
plans provide guaranteed enrollment and renewability, an open
enrollment period, community rating, and coverage for persons with pre-
existing conditions. My legislation seeks to enact reforms to provide
for more of these types of practices. The purchasing groups, as
developed and administered on a local level, will provide small
businesses and all individuals with affordable health coverage options.
Title III of my bill also includes an important provision to give the
self employed 100 percent deductibility of their health insurance
premiums. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill extended the deductibility of
health insurance for the self employed to 80 percent by 2006. The
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Omnibus Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 both contained new phase-in scales for health
insurance deductibility for the self-employed. Currently, self-employed
persons may deduct 60 percent of their health insurance costs through
2002, to be fully deductible in 2003. My bill would speed up the phase-
in to allow self-employed individuals and their families to deduct 100
percent of their health insurance costs beginning in 2001, thereby
giving the currently 2.9 million self-employed Americans who are
uninsured a better incentive to purchase coverage.
The provisions contained in this portion of my bill are vital, as
EBRI statistics tell us that 48 percent of all uninsured workers in
1997 were either self-employed or were working in private-sector firms
with fewer than 25 employees. The disparity is further demonstrated by
this telling statistic: 35 percent of workers in private-sector firms
with fewer than 10 employees were uninsured, compared with only 12.3
percent of workers in private-sector firms with 1000 or more employees.
It is anticipated that the increased costs to employers electing to
cover their employees as provided under Title III in my bill would be
offset by the administrative savings generated by development of the
small employer purchasing groups. Such savings have been estimated at
levels as high as $9 billion annually. In addition, by addressing some
of the areas within the health care system that have exacerbated costs,
significant savings can be achieved and then redirected toward direct
health care services.
TITLE IV
Although our existing health care system suffers from very serious
structural problems, common sense steps can be taken to head off the
remaining problems before they reach crisis proportions. Title IV of my
bill includes initiatives which will enhance primary and preventive
care services aimed at preventing disease and ill-health.
Each year about 7 percent of babies born in the United States are
born with a low birth weight, multiplying their risk of death and
disability. Most of the deaths which do occur are preventable. Although
the infant mortality rate in the United States fell to an all-time low
in 1989, an increasing percentage of babies continue to be born of low
birth weight. The Executive Director of the National Commission To
Prevent Infant Mortality put it this way: ``More babies are being born
at risk and all we are doing is saving them with expensive
technology.''
It is a human tragedy for a child to be born weighing 16 ounces with
attendant problems which last a lifetime. I first saw one pound babies
in 1984 when I was astounded to learn that Pittsburgh, PA had the
highest infant mortality rate of African-American babies of any city in
the United States. I wondered how that could be true of Pittsburgh,
which has such enormous medical resources. It was an amazing thing for
me to see a one pound baby, about as big as my hand. However, I am
pleased to report that as a result of successful prevention
initiatives, Pittsburgh's infant mortality has decreased 20% (currently
14.9 deaths per 1000 births, according to the 1997 statistics).
My legislation also focuses attention on women at-risk for delivering
low birth weight babies. The Department of Health and Human Services
has estimated that between $1.1 billion and $2.5 billion per year could
be saved if the number of low birth weight children were reduced by
82,000 births. We know that in most instances, prenatal care is
effective in preventing low birth weight babies. Numerous studies have
demonstrated that low birth weight that does not have a genetic link is
most often associated with inadequate prenatal care or the lack of
prenatal care. The short and long-term costs of saving and caring for
infants of low birth weight is staggering. In the most recent available
study on the costs of low birth weight babies, the Office of Technology
Assessment in 1988 concluded that $8 billion was expended in 1987 for
the care of 262,000 low birth weight infants in excess of that which
would have been spent on an equivalent number of babies born of normal
birth weight, averted by earlier or more frequent prenatal care. If
adequate prenatal care had been provided, especially to women at-risk
for delivering low birth weight babies, the U.S. health care system
could have saved between $14,000 and $30,000 per child in the first
year in addition to the projected savings over the lifetime of each
child.
To improve pregnancy outcomes for women at risk of delivering babies
of low birth weight, my legislation would strengthen the Healthy Start
program to reduce infant mortality and the incidence of low birth
weight births, as well as to improve the health and well-being of
mothers and their families, pregnant women and infants. Funds are
awarded under this program with the goal of developing and coordinating
effective health care and social support services for women and their
babies.
I initiated action that led to the creation of the Healthy Start
program in 1991, working with the Bush Administration and Senator
Harkin. As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with
jurisdiction over the Department of Health and Human Services, I have
worked with my colleagues to ensure the continued growth of this
important program. In 1991, we allocated $25 million for the
development of 15 demonstration projects. This number grew to 22 in
1994, to 75 projects in 1998, and the Health Resources and Services
Administration expects this number to continue to increase. For fiscal
year 1999, we secured $105 million for this vital program.
Title IV also provides increased support to local educational
agencies to develop and strengthen comprehensive health education
programs, and to Head Start resource centers to support health
education training programs for teachers and other day care workers.
Many studies indicate that poor health and social habits are carried
into adulthood and often passed on to the next generation. To interrupt
this tragic cycle, our nation must invest in proven preventive health
education programs.
Title IV further expands the authorization of a variety of public
health programs, such as breast and cervical cancer prevention,
childhood immunizations, family planning, and community health centers.
These existing programs are designed to improve the public health and
prevent disease through primary and secondary prevention initiatives.
It is essential that we invest more resources in these programs now if
we are to make any substantial progress in reducing the costs of acute
care in this country.
As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over
the Department of Health and Human Services, I have greatly encouraged
the development of prevention programs which are essential to keeping
people healthy and lowering the cost of health care in this country. In
my view, no aspect of health care policy is more important.
Accordingly, my prevention efforts have been widespread. Specifically,
I joined my colleagues in efforts to ensure that funding for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) increased $1.6 billion
or 160 percent since 1989; fiscal year 1999 funding for the CDC totals
$2.6 billion. We have also worked to elevate funding for CDC's breast
and cervical cancer early detection program to $159 million in fiscal
year 1999, a 123 percent increase since 1993. In addition, I have
supported providing funding to CDC to improve the detection and
treatment of re-emerging infectious diseases.
I have also supported programs at CDC which help children. CDC's
childhood immunization program seeks to eliminate preventable diseases
through immunization and to ensure that at least 90 percent of 2 year
olds are vaccinated. The CDC also continues to educate parents and
caregivers on the importance of immunization for children under two
years. Along with my
[[Page S411]]
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I have helped to ensure
that funding for this important program totaled $421.5 million for
fiscal year 1999. The CDC's lead poisoning prevention program annually
identifies about 50,000 children with elevated blood levels and places
those children under medical management. The program prevents the
amount of lead in children's blood from reaching dangerous levels and
is currently funded at about $38 million.
In recent years, we have also strengthened funding for Community
Health Centers, which provide immunizations, health advice, and health
professions training. These Centers, administered by the Health
Resources and Services Administration, provide a critical primary care
safety net to rural and medically underserved communities, as well as
uninsured individuals, migrant workers, the homeless, residents of
public housing, and Medicaid recipients. In 1996, 940 Health Centers
provided comprehensive health care to 10 million children and adults
across the United States. For fiscal year 1999, these Centers received
$925 million, a $100 million increase over fiscal year 1998.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and Chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department
of Health and Human Services, I have worked to transfer CIA imaging
technology to the fight against breast cancer. Through the Office of
Women's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services, I
secured a $2 million contract in fiscal year 1996 for the University of
Pennsylvania and a consortium to perform the first clinical trials
testing the use of intelligence community technology for breast cancer
detection. My Appropriations Subcommittee has continued to provide
funds to continue the clinical trials.
I have also been a strong supporter of funding for AIDS research,
education, and prevention programs. Funding for Ryan White AIDS
programs has increased from $757.4 million in 1996 to $1.41 billion for
fiscal year 1999. Within the fiscal year 1999 funding, $46 million was
included for pediatric AIDS programs and $461 million for the AIDS Drug
Assistance Program (ADAP). AIDS research at the NIH totaled $742.4
million in 1989, and has increased to $1.85 billion in fiscal year
1999. AIDS funding across the Department of Health and Human Services
has steadily increased to over $3.9 billion for fiscal year 1999.
The health care community continues to recognize the importance of
prevention in improving health status and reducing health care costs.
In this bill, I have also included provisions which refine and
strengthen preventive benefits within the Medicare program, including
coverage of yearly pap smears, pelvic exams, and mammography screening
for women, with no copayment or Part B deductible; and coverage of
insulin pumps for certain Type I Diabetics.
The proposed expansions in preventive health services included in
Title IV of my bill are conservatively projected to save approximately
$2.5 billion per year or $12.5 billion over five years. However, I
believe the savings will be higher. It is clearly difficult to quantify
today the savings that will surely be achieved tomorrow from future
generations of children that are truly educated in a range of health-
related subjects including hygiene, nutrition, physical and emotional
health, drug and alcohol abuse, and accident prevention and safety.
TITLE V
Title V of my bill would establish a federal standard and create
uniform national forms concerning a patient's right to decline medical
treatment. Nothing in my bill mandates the use of uniform forms.
Rather, the purpose of this provision is to make it easier for
individuals to make their own choices and determination regarding their
treatment during this vulnerable and highly personal time. Studies have
also indicated that advance directives do not increase health care
costs. Data indicate that end-of-life costs account for 10 percent of
total health expenditures and 28 percent of total Medicare
expenditures. Loose projections indicate that a 10 percent savings made
in the final days of life would result in approximately $10 billion of
savings in medical costs per year, and about $4.7 billion in savings
for Medicare alone.
However, economic considerations are not and should not be the
primary reasons for using advance directives. They provide a means for
patients to exercise their autonomy over end-of-life decisions. A study
done at the Thomas Jefferson University Medical College in Philadelphia
cited research which found that about 90 percent of the American
population has expressed interest in discussing advance directives.
However, even more recent studies indicate that living wills would be
used by many more Americans if they were better understood. My bill
would provide information on an individual's rights regarding living
wills and advanced directives, and would make it easier for people to
have their wishes known and honored. In my view, no one has the right
to decide for anyone else what constitutes appropriate medical
treatment to prolong a person's life. Encouraging the use of advance
directives will ensure that patients are not needlessly and unlawfully
treated against their will. No health care provider would be permitted
to treat an adult contrary to the adult's wishes as outlined in an
advance directive. However, in no way would the use of advance
directives condone assisted suicide or any affirmative act to end human
life.
TITLE VI
The next title addresses the unique barriers to coverage which exist
in both rural and urban medically underserved areas. Within my State of
Pennsylvania, such barriers result from a lack of health care providers
in rural areas, and other problems associated with the lack of coverage
for indigent populations living in inner cities. Title VI of my bill
improves access to health care services for these populations by: (1)
expanding Public Health Service programs and training more primary care
providers to serve in such areas; (2) increasing the utilization of
non-physician providers, including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse
specialists and physician assistants, through direct reimbursements
under the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and (3) increasing support
for education and outreach.
I believe these provisions will also yield substantial savings. A
study of the Canadian health system utilizing nurse practitioners
projected savings of 10 to 15 percent of all medical costs. While our
system is dramatically different from that of Canada, it may not be
unreasonable to project annual savings of five percent, or $55 billion,
from an increased number of primary care providers in our system.
Again, experience will raise or lower this projection. Assuming these
savings, based on an average expenditure for health care of $3,821 per
person in 1995, it seems reasonable that we could cover over 10 million
uninsured persons with these savings.
TITLE VII
Outcomes research, included in title VII of my bill, is another area
where we can achieve considerable long term health care savings while
also improving the quality of care. According to most outcomes
management experts, it is estimated that about 25 to 30 percent of
medical care is inappropriate or unnecessary. Dr. Marcia Angell, former
editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, also stated
that 20 to 30 percent of health care procedures are either
inappropriate, ineffective or unnecessary. In 1997, health care
expenditures totaled $1.1 trillion annually.
A well-funded program for outcomes research is therefore essential,
and is supported by Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the
United States. Title VII of my bill would establish such a program by
imposing a one-tenth of one cent surcharge on all health insurance
premiums. Based on the Health Care Financing Administration's 1995
health spending review, private health insurance premiums totaled
$325.4 billion. As provided in my bill, a surcharge would generate
$325.4 million for an outcomes research fund.
Title VII also authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to award grants to States to establish or improve a health care data
information system. Currently, 38 States have a mandate to establish
such a system, and 22 States are in various stages of implementation.
In my own State, the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council
has received national
[[Page S412]]
recognition for the work it has done to help control health care costs
through the promotion of competition in the collection, analysis and
distribution of uniform cost and quality data for all hospitals and
physicians in the Commonwealth. Consumers, businesses, labor, insurance
companies, health maintenance organizations, and hospitals have
utilized this important information. Specifically, hospitals have used
this information to become more competitive in the marketplace;
businesses and labor have used this data to lower their health care
expenditures; health plans have used this information when contracting
with providers; and consumers have used this information to compare
costs and outcomes of health care providers and procedures.
TITLE VIII
Nursing home care is another significant issue which must be
addressed. The cost of this care is exorbitant, averaging in excess of
$40,000 annually. Public expenditures on nursing home care, largely
through the Medicaid program, were over $33 billion in 1995. Despite
these large public expenditures, the elderly face significant uncovered
liability for long term care. Title VIII of my bill therefore would
provide a tax credit for premiums paid to purchase private long-term
care insurance. It also proposes home and community-based care benefits
as less costly alternatives to institutional care. Other tax incentives
and reforms provided in my bill to make long term care insurance more
affordable include: (1) allowing employees to select long-term care
insurance as part of a cafeteria plan and allowing employers to deduct
this expense; (2) excluding from income tax the life insurance savings
used to pay for long term care; and (3) setting standards for long term
care insurance that reduce the bias that currently favors institutional
care over community and home-based alternatives.
TITLE IX
The final title of my bill would create a national fund for health
research within the Department of the Treasury, to supplement the
monies appropriated for the National Institutes of Health. To
capitalize this fund, health insurance companies would be required to
contribute 1 percent of all health insurance premiums received. This
creative proposal was first developed by my distinguished colleagues,
Senators Mark Hatfield and Tom Harkin. Their idea is a sound one and
ought to be adopted. To this end, Senator Harkin and I introduced the
National Fund for Health Research Act of 1997 (S. 441) on March 13,
1997. I look forward to continuing to work together with Senator Harkin
to enact a biomedical research fund this Congress.
While precision is again impossible, it is reasonable to project that
my proposal could achieve a net annual savings of between $90 and $100
billion. I arrive at this sum by totaling the projected savings of $90
to $100 billion annually--$9 billion in small employer market reforms
coupled with employer purchasing groups; $2.5 billion for preventive
health services; $22 to $33 billion for reducing inappropriate care
through outcomes research; $10 billion from advanced directives; $55
billion from increasing primary care providers; and $2.9 billion by
reducing administrative costs and netting this against the $2.8 billion
for long term care. Although these estimates are not exact, I propose
this bill as a starting point to address the remaining problems with
our health care system. Experience will require modification of these
projections, and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to develop
implementing legislation and to press for further action in the
important area of health care reform.
The provisions which I have outlined today contain the framework for
providing affordable health care for all Americans. I am opposed to
rationing health care. I do not want rationing for myself, for my
family, or for America. In my judgment, we should not scrap, but rather
we should build on our current health delivery system. We do not need
the overwhelming bureaucracy that President Clinton and other
Democratic leaders proposed in 1993 to accomplish this. I believe we
can provide care for the 43.1 million Americans who are now not covered
and reduce health care costs for those who are covered within the
currently growing $1.1 trillion in health care spending.
This bill is a significant next step forward in obtaining the
objective of reforming our health care system, although that reform
will not be achieved immediately or easily. Mr. President, the time has
come for concerted action in this arena.
I urge the Congressional leadership, including the appropriate
committee chairmen, to move this legislation and other health care
bills forward promptly.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and a list of the
26 health care bills I have sponsored since 1983 be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
26 Health Care Bills Introduced by Senator Arlen Specter
98th Congress 1/3/83 until 1/2/85:
(1) S.811: The Health Care for Displaced Workers Act of
1983 (3/15/83)
(2) S.2051: The Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1983
(11/4/83)
99th Congress 1/3/85 until 1/2/87:
(3) S.379: The Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1985 (2/
5/85)
(4) S.1873: The Community Based Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion Projects Act of 1985 (11/21/85)
100th Congress 1/3/87 until 1/2/89:
(5) S.281: The Aid to Families and Employment Transition
Act (1/6/87)
(6) S.1871: The Pediatric Acquired Immunodeficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) Resource Centers Act (11/17/87)
(7) S.1872: The Minority Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
(AIDS) Awareness and Prevention Projects Act (11/17/87):
101st Congress 1/3/89 until 1/2/91
(8) S.896: The Pediatric AIDS Resource Centers Act (5/2/89)
(9) S.1607: Authorization of the Office of Minority Health
(9/12/89):
102nd Congress 1/3/91 until 1/5/93:
(10) S.1122: The Long-Term Care Incentives Act of 1991 (5/
22/91)
(11) S.1214: The Change in Designation of Lancaster County,
PA, for Purposes of Medicare Services (6/4/91)
(12) S.1864: The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Medical Research Facility Act (10/23/91)
(13) S.1995: The Health Care Access and Affordabililty Act
of 1991 (11/20/91)
(14) S.2028: The Women Veteran's Health Equity Act of 1991
(11/22/91)
(15) S.2029: Self-Funding of Veteran's Administrative
Health Care Act (11/22/91)
(16) S.2188: Rural Veterans Health Care Facilities Act (2/
5/92)
(17) S.3176: The Health Care Affordabililty and Quality
Improvement Act of 1992 (8/12/92)
(18) S.3353: The Deferred Acquisition Cost Act (10/6/92)
103rd Congress 1/5/93 until 12/11/94:
(19) S.18: The Comprehensive Health Care Act of 1993 (1/21/
93)
(20) S.631: The Comprehensive Access and Affordabililty
Health Care (3/23/93):
104th Congress 1/4/95 until 10/3/96:
(21) S.18: The Health Care Assurance Act of 1995 (1/4/95)
(22) S.1716: The Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence
Education Act of 1996 (4/29/96)
105th Congress 1/7/97 to 10/21/98:
(23) S.24: The Health Care Assurance Act of 1997 (1/21/97)
(24) S.435: The Healthy Children's Pilot Program Act of
1997 (3/13/97)
(25) S.934: The Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence
Education Act of 1997 (6/18/97)
(26) S.999: Authorizing the Department of Veteran's Affairs
to Specify the Frequency of Screening Mammograms (7/9/97)
____
Health Care assurance Act of 1999--Summary
TITLE I: Expanded State Child Health Insurance Program--
This title will expand upon the State Child Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP), the new program established in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 which allocates $24 billion/five years to
increase health insurance coverage for children. The S-CHIP
program gives States the option to use federally funded
grants to provide vouchers to eligible families to purchase
health insurance for their children, or to expand Medicaid
coverage for those uninsured children, or a combination of
both. These grants are distributed to participating States
based on the number of uninsured children residing there.
This title would increase the income eligibility to families
with incomes at or below 235 percent of the Federal poverty
level ($38,658 annually for a family of four), and would
strengthen the States' ability to conduct Medicaid outreach
to eligible children.
TITLE II: Expanded Health Services for Disabled
Individuals:--Extension of Medicare Eligibility for Disabled
Individuals Who Return to Work: Currently, disabled
individuals, or recipients of Social Security Disability
Income (SSDI), may receive health insurance coverage under
the Medicare program for a short time after returning to
work. This provision would extend to 24 months the period
during which the individual may continue to receive Medicare
benefits after returning to work, and allow the individual to
``buy-into'' Medicare at a reduced rate, subject to yearly
review.
Expansion of Community-Based Attendant Care Services--
Medicaid currently covers the costs associated with
institutional care
[[Page S413]]
for disabled individuals. In an effort to improve the
delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term
disabilities, this section would allow for reimbursement for
community-based attendant care services, instead of
institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require
such services based on functional need, without regard to the
individual's age or the nature of the disability.
TITLE III: General Health Insurance Coverage Provisions--
Tax Equity for the Self-Employed: Under current law, self-
employed persons may deduct 60 percent of their health
insurance costs through 2002, and those costs would be fully
deductible in 2003. However, all other employees may already
deduct 100 percent of such costs. Title III corrects this
inequity for the self-employed, 2.9 million of whom are
currently uninsured, by speeding up the phase-in to allow
self-employed individuals and their families to deduct 100
percent of their health insurance costs beginning in 2001.
Small Employer and Individual Purchasing Groups:
Establishes voluntary small employer and individual
purchasing groups designed to provide affordable,
comprehensive health coverage options for such employers,
their employees, and other uninsured and underinsured
individuals and families. Health plans offering coverage
through such groups will: (1) provide a standard, actuarially
equivalent health benefits package; (2) adjust community
rated premiums by age and family size in order to spread risk
and provide price equity to all; and (3) meet certain other
guidelines involving marketing practices.
Standard Benefits Package: The standard package of benefits
would include a variation of benefits permitted among
actuarially equivalent plans developed through the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). The standard
plan will consist of the following services when medically
necessary or appropriate: (1) medical and surgical services;
(2) medical equipment; (3) preventive services; and (4)
emergency transportation in frontier areas.
COBRA Portability Reform: For those persons who are
uninsured between jobs and for insured persons who fear
losing coverage should they lose their jobs, Title III
reforms the existing COBRA law by: (1) extending to 24 months
the minimum time period in which COBRA may cover individuals
through their former employers' plan, and extending to 36
months the time period in which a child who is no longer a
dependent under a parent's health insurance policy may
receive COBRA coverage; (2) expanding coverage options to
include plans with a lower premium and a $1,000 deductible--
saving a typical family of four 20 percent in monthly
premiums--and plans with a lower premium and a $3,000
deductible--saving a family of four 52 percent in monthly
premiums.
TITLE IV: Primary and Preventive Care Services:
New Medicare Preventive Care Services: The health care
community continues to recognize the importance of prevention
in improving health status and reducing health care costs.
This provision institutes new preventive benefits within the
Medicare program, and refines and strengthens existing ones.
Under this provision, Medicare would cover yearly pap smears,
pelvic exams, and mammography screening for women, with no
copayment or Part B deductible; and cover insulin pumps for
certain Type I Diabetics.
Primary Health and Education Assistance Programs: The
Department of Health and Human Service administers many
programs designed to increase access to primary and
preventive care. This provision provides increased
authorization for several existing preventive health programs
such as breast and cervical cancer prevention, Healthy Start
project grants aimed at reducing infant mortality and low
weight births and to improve the health and well-being of
mothers and their families, pregnant women and infants, and
childhood immunizations. This section also authorizes a new
grant program for local education agencies and pre-school
programs to provide comprehensive health education, and
reauthorizes the Adolescent Family Life (AFL) program (Title
XX) for the first time since 1984. The AFL program provides
funding for initiatives focusing directly on abstinence
education.
TITLE V: Patient's Right to Decline Medical Treatment:
Improves the effectiveness and portability of advance
directives by strengthening the federal law regarding patient
self-determination and establishing uniform federal forms
with regard to self-determination.
TITLE VI: Primary and Preventive Care Providers: Encourages
use of non-physician providers such as nurse practitioners,
physician assistants, and clinical nurse specialists by
increasing direct reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid
without regard to the setting where services are provided.
Title VI also seeks to encourage students early on in their
medical training to pursue a career in primary care and it
provides assistance to medical training programs to recruit
such students.
TITLE VII: Cost Containment:
Outcomes Research: Expands funding for outcomes research
necessary for the development of medical practice guidelines
and increasing consumers' access to information in order to
reduce the delivery of unnecessary and overpriced care.
New Drug Clinical Trials Program: Authorizes a program at
the National Institutes of Health to expand support for
clinical trials on promising new drugs and disease treatments
with priority given to the most costly diseases impacting the
greatest number of people.
Health Care Cost Containment and Quality Information
Project: Authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to award grants to States to establish a health care
cost and quality information system or to improve an existing
system. Currently, 38 States have State mandates to establish
an information system, approximately 22 States of which have
information systems in various stages of operation.
Information such as hospital charge data and patient
procedure outcomes data, which the State agency or council
collects is used by businesses, labor, health maintenance
organizations, hospitals, researchers, consumers, States,
etc. Such data has enabled hospitals to become more
competitive, businesses to save health care dollars, and
consumers to make informed choices regarding their care.
TITLE VIII: Tax Incentives for Purchase of Qualified Long-
Term Care Insurance: Increases access to long-term care by:
(1) establishing a tax credit for amounts paid toward long-
term care services of family members; (2) excluding life
insurance savings used to pay for long-term care from income
tax; (3) allowing employees to select long-term care
insurance as part of a cafeteria plan and allowing employers
to deduct this expense; (4) setting standards that require
long-term care to eliminate the current bias that favors
institutional care over community and home-based
alternatives.
TITLE IX: National Fund for Health Research: Authorizes the
establishment of a National Fund for Health Research to
supplement biomedical research through the contributions of
1% of premiums collected by health insurers. Funds will be
distributed to the National Institutes of Health's member
institutes and centers in the same proportion as the amount
of appropriations they receive for the fiscal year.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lott, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Gregg, Ms.
Mikulski, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 25. A bill to provide Coastal Impact Assistance to State and local
governments, to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments
of 1978, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, the Urban
Park and Recreation Recovery Act, and the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Act) to
establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and recreation needs
of the American people, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
conservation and reinvestment act of 1999
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today with great enthusiasm and
pride to introduce a very important piece of legislation. I worked with
my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as
well as with other members for over a year before introducing this
legislation during the 105th Congress. Now, on this first date of
introductions in the 106th Congress, I am reintroducing that
legislation with a broad array of cosponsors. We have worked hard to
arrive at this long awaited and anticipated point to introduce a
bipartisan piece of legislation that may well be the most significant
environmental effort of the century. I am pleased to be joined by my
colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Lott, Breaux, Sessions, Cleland,
Johnson, Gregg, Cochran and Mikulski.
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 will go farther than
any legislation to date to make good on promises that were made to the
people of this country decades ago. In addition, it will begin to right
a wrong endured by oil and gas producing states for over 50 years,
particularly for the states along the Gulf of Mexico, and my state of
Louisiana.
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act first provides a guaranteed
source of funding equal to twenty-seven percent of all Outer
Continental Shelf revenues for Coastal Impact Assistance to states to
offset the impacts of offshore oil and gas activity, as well as to non-
producing states for environmental purposes. This funding goes directly
to States and local governments for improvements in air and water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, or other coastal
resources, including shoreline protection and coastal restoration.
These revenues to coastal states will help offset a range of costs
unique to maintaining a coastal zone for specific enumerated uses. The
formula is based on population, coastline and proximity to production.
[[Page S414]]
Second, the bill provides a permanent stream of revenue for the State
and Federal sides of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as
for the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. Under the bill,
funding to the LWCF becomes automatic at sixteen percent of annual
revenues. Receiving just under half this amount, the state side of LWCF
will provide funds to state and local governments for land acquisition,
urban conservation and recreation projects, all under the discretion of
state and local authorities. Since its enactment in 1965, the LWCF
state grant program has funded more than 37,000 park and recreation
projects throughout the nation, including in Louisiana the Joe Brown
Park Development in New Orleans, the Baton Rouge Animal Exhibit, the
Veterans Memorial Park in Point Barre and the Northwestern State
University Recreation Complex in Natchitoches. The Urban Parks program
would enable cities and towns to focus on the needs of its populations
within our more densely inhabited areas with fewer greenspaces,
playgrounds and soccer fields for our youth. Stable funding, not
subject to appropriations, will provide greater revenue certainty to
state and local planning authorities.
A stable baseline will be established for Federal land acquisition
through the LWCF at a level higher than the historical average over the
past decade. Federal LWCF will receive just under half of the amount in
this title of the bill. And, nothing in this bill will preclude
additional Federal LWCF funds to be sought through the annual
appropriations process. Some very worthy national projects that have
received funding in the past include the Atchafalaya National Wildlife
Refuge in Louisiana, the Mississippi Sandhill Crane Wildlife Refuge,
the Cape Cod National Seashore, Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota
and the Sterling Forest in New Jersey. Federal LWCF dollars will be
used for land acquisition in areas which have been and will be
authorized by Congress. Property will be acquired on a willing seller
basis. The bill will restore Congressional intent with respect to the
LWCF, the goal of which is to share a significant portion of revenues
from offshore development with the states to provide for protection and
public use of the natural environment.
Finally, the wildlife conservation and restoration provision include
guaranteed funding of seven percent of annual OCS revenues for wildlife
habitat protection, conservation education and de-listing of endangered
species. Moreover, this funding may be used by states for habitat
preservation and land acquisition of wintering habitat for important
species, therefore preventing listings under the Endangered Species
Act.
There is an incredible groundswell of support for this legislation
that is growing. Just a few days ago, in recognition of the efforts
undertaken here in Congress in both the House and the Senate, our
Nation's President unveiled the Lands Legacy Initiative, which mirrors
a number of provisions in the bills introduced here in Congress. I want
to acknowledge this praiseworthy effort by the President. Such a
development goes even further to emphasize the importance of this
bipartisan, bicameral inititative--it is the will of the people. During
last November's elections, many states enacted bond initiatives
totaling almost $700 million that overwhelmingly demonstrate the value
that the public places on green space and recreational opportunities.
It is our duty to support those efforts for the benefit of future
generations by reinvesting in our renewable resources. It is the right
thing to do.
While I am proud of the accomplishments represented by the
introduction of this bill, I feel compelled to mention other interests
that are not included in the legislation, but for which I maintain a
strong level of support and commitment. The National Historic
Preservation fund is an important authorized use for Outer Continental
Shelf revenues. In fact, I introduced legislation last Congress to
reauthorize the fund for its continued viability and vitality. In
addition, I would like to work with proponents of historic preservation
over the course of the 106th Congress to see their needs addressed in
the future. This would include similar consideration for Historic
Battlefield Preservation.
I see the Conservation and Reinvestment Act as a starting point for
debate and consideration of additional issues. My cosponsors and I have
made some changes to the legislation to reflect the concerns and
desires of interested groups. As we move forward on this measure, in
the hearing and committee consideration process, I also wish to work
with other Members and groups. Indeed, this is a measure that should
enjoy broad support, and I want to continue to work toward that end.
All three portions of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999
will effectively free up State resources which in turn may then be used
for other pressing local needs. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act
is a perfect opportunity to reinvest in our nation's renewable
resources for our children's future and our grandchildren's future. It
is an idea whose time has come. I urge my colleagues to carefully
consider this proposal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill
appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 25
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 ``Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999''.
TITLE I--COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Coastal Conservation and
Impact Assistance Act of 1998''.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENT TO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978
(92 Stat. 629), as amended, is amended to add at the end
thereof a new Title VII as follows:
``SEC. 701. FINDINGS.
``The Congress finds and declares that--
``(1) The Nation owns valuable mineral resources that are
located both onshore and in the Federal Outer Continental
Shelf, and the Federal Government develops these resources
for the benefit of the Nation, under certain restrictions
designed to prevent environmental damage and other adverse
impacts.
``(2) Nonetheless, the development of these mineral
resources for the Nation is accompanied by unavoidable
environmental impacts and public service impacts in the
States that host this development, whether the development
occurs onshore or on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf.
``(3) The Federal Government has a responsibility to the
States affected by development of Federal mineral resources
to mitigate adverse environmental and public service impacts
incurred due to that development.
``(4) The Federal Government discharges its responsibility
to States where onshore Federal mineral development occurs by
sharing 50 percent of the revenue derived from the Federal
mineral development in that State pursuant to section 35 of
the Mineral Leasing Act.
``(5) Federal mineral development is occurring as far as
200 miles offshore and occurs off the coasts of only 6
States, yet section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act does not adequately compensate these States for onshore
impacts of the offshore Federal mineral development.
``(6) Federal Outer Continental Shelf mineral development
is an important and secure source of our Nation's supply of
oil and natural gas.
``(7) Further technological advancements in oil and natural
gas exploration and production need to be pursued and
encouraged.
``(8) These technological achievements have and will
continue to result in new Outer Continental Shelf production
having an unparalleled record of excellence on environmental
safety issues.
``(9) Additional technological advances with appropriate
incentives will further improve new resource recovery and
therefore increase revenues to the Treasury for the benefit
of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by Outer
Continental Shelf moneys.
``(10) The Outer Continental Shelf Advisory Committee of
the Department of the Interior, consisting of representatives
of coastal States, recommended in October 1997 that Federal
mineral revenue derived from the entire Outer Continental
Shelf be shared with all coastal States and territories to
mitigate onshore impacts from Federal offshore mineral
development and for other environmental mitigation; and
``(11) The Nation's Federal mineral resources are a
nonrenewable, capital asset of the Nation, with the
production and sale of this resource producing revenue for
the Nation, a portion of the revenue derived from the
production and sale of Federal mineral resources should be
reinvested in the Nation through environmental mitigation and
public service improvements;
``(12) Nothing in this Title shall be interpreted to repeal
or modify any existing moratorium on leasing Federal OCS
leases for
[[Page S415]]
drilling nor shall anything in this Title be interpreted as
an incentive to encourage the development of Federal OCS
resources where such resources currently are not being
developed.
``SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this Act:
``(1) The term `allocable share' means, for a coastal
State, that portion of revenue that is available to be
distributed to that coastal State under this title. For an
eligible political subdivision of a coastal State, such term
means that portion of revenue that is available to be
distributed to that political subdivision under this title.
``(2) The term `coastal population' means the population of
political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent
official data of the Census Bureau, contained in whole or in
part within the designated coastal boundary of a State as
defined in a State's coastal zone management program under
the Coast Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1455).
``(3) The term `coastline' has the same meaning that it has
in the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1301 et seq.).
``(4) The term `eligible political subdivision' means a
coastal political subdivision of a coastal State which
political subdivision has a seaward boundary that lies within
a distance of 200 miles from the geographic center of any
leased tract. The Secretary shall annually provide a list of
all eligible political subdivisions of each coastal State to
the Governor of such State.
``(5) The term `political subdivision' means the local
political jurisdiction immediately below the level of State
government, including counties, parishes, and boroughs. If
State law recognizes an entity of general government that
functions in lieu of, and is not within, a county, parish, or
borough, the Secretary may recognize an area under the
jurisdiction of such other entities of general government as
a political subdivision for purposes of this Act.
``(6) The term `coastal State' means any State of the
United States bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific
Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Mexico,
or any of the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
``(7) The term `distance' means minimum great circle
distance, measured in statute miles.
``(8) The term `fiscal year' means the Federal Government's
accounting period which begins on October 1st and ends on
September 30th, and is designated by the calendar year in
which it ends.
``(9) The term `Governor' means the highest elected
official of a coastal State.
``(10) The term `leased tract' means a tract, leased under
section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.
Sec. 1337) for the purpose of drilling for, developing and
producing oil and natural gas resources, which is a unit
consisting of either a block, a portion of a block, a
combination of blocks and/or portions of blocks, as specified
in the lease, and as depicted on an Outer Continental Shelf
Official Protraction Diagram.
``(11) The term `revenues' means all moneys received by the
United States as bonus bids, rents, royalties (including
payments for royalty taken in kind and sold), net profit
share payments, and related late-payment interest from
natural gas and oil leases issued pursuant to the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act.
``(12) The term `Outer Continental Shelf' means all
submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the area of
`lands beneath navigable waters' as defined in section 2(a)
of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a)), and of
which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States
and are subject to its jurisdiction and control.
``(13) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary's designee.
``SEC. 703. IMPACT ASSISTANCE FORMULA AND PAYMENTS.
``(a) Establishment of Fund.--(1) There is established in
the Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known
as the `Outer Continent Shelf Impact Assistance Fund'
(referred to in this Act as `the Fund'). The Secretary shall
deposit in the Fund 27 percent of the revenues from each
leased tract or portion of a leased tract lying seaward of
the zone defined and governed by section 8(g) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(g)), or
lying within such zone but to which section 8(g) does not
apply, the geographic center of which lies within a distance
of 200 miles from any part of the coastline or any coastal
State.
``(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest moneys in
the Fund that are excess to expenditures at the written
request of the Secretary, in public debt securities with
maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund, as determined
by the Secretary, and bearing interest at rates determined by
the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration
current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations
of the United States of comparable maturity.
``(b) Payment of States.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1338), the
Secretary shall, without further appropriation, make payments
in each fiscal year to coastal States and to eligible
political subdivisions equal to the amount deposited in
the Fund for the prior fiscal year, together with the
portion of interest earned from investment of the funds
which corresponds to that amount (reduced by any refunds
paid under section 705(c)). Such payments shall be
allocated among the coastal States and eligible political
subdivisions as provided in this section.
``(c) Determination of States' Allocable Shares.--
``(1) Allocable share for each state.--For each coastal
State, the Secretary shall determine the State's allocable
share of the total amount of the revenues deposited in the
Fund for each fiscal year using the following weighted
formula:
``(A) 25 percent to the States's allocable share shall be
based on the ratio of such State's shoreline miles to the
shoreline miles of all coastal States.
``(B) 25 percent to the States's allocable share shall be
based on the ratio of such State's coastal population to the
coastal population of all coastal States.
``(C) 50 percent of the State's allocable share shall be
computed based upon Outer Continental Shelf production. If
any portion of a coastal State lies within a distance of 200
miles from the geographic center of any leased tract, such
State shall receive 50 percent of its allocable share based
on the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production
offshore of such State. Such part of its allocable share
shall be inversely proportional to the distance between the
nearest point on the coastline of such State and the
geographic center of each leased tract or portion of the
leased tract (to the nearest whole mile), as determined by
the Secretary.
``(2) Minimum state share.--
``(A) In general.--The allocable share of revenues
determined by the Secretary under this subsection for each
coastal State with an approved coastal management program (as
defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C.
Sec. 1451) or which is making satisfactory progress toward
one shall not be less than 0.50 percent of the total amount
of the revenues deposited in the Fund for each fiscal year.
For any other coastal State the allocable share of such
revenues shall not be less than 0.25 percent of such
revenues.
``(B) Recomputation.--Where one or more coastal States'
allocable shares, as computed under paragraph (1), are
increased by any amount under this paragraph, the allocable
share for all other coastal States shall be recomputed and
reduced by the same amount so that not more than 100 percent
of the amount deposited in the fund is allocated to all
coastal States. The reduction shall be divided pro rata among
such other coastal States.
``(3) Adjustment for producing states.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Nonproducing state.--The term `nonproducing State'
means a State other than a producing State.
``(ii) Producing state.--The term `producing State' means a
State off the coast of which any leased tract or tract in
State water produced oil, condensate, or natural gas during
fiscal year 1998 that, during that fiscal year, was
transported by pipeline to a processing facility in the
State.
``(iii) Tract in state water.--The term `tract in State
water' means a tract on land beneath navigable water
described in section 2(a)(2) of the Submerged Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1301(a)(2)).
``(B) Adjustment.--For any fiscal year, if the application
of paragraphs (1) and (2) would result in an allocable share
for any nonproducing State that is greater than the allocable
share for any producing State--
``(i) the amount of the allocable share for each such
producing State shall be increased to the amount of the
highest allocable share for any such nonproducing State; and
``(ii) the amount of the allocable shares for States and
other than States receiving increases under paragraph (2)
shall be reduced in the amount of the increase under clause
(i) in the proportion that the allocable share for each such
other State after application of paragraphs (1) and (2) bears
to the total amount allocated to all States under paragraphs
(1) and (2).
``(d) Payments to States and Political Subdivisions.--Each
coastal State's allocable share shall be divided between the
State and political subdivisions in that State as follows:
``(1) 40 percent of each State's allocable share, as
determined under subsection (c), shall be paid to the State;
``(2) 40 percent of each State's allocable share, as
determined under subsection (c), shall be paid to the
eligible political subdivisions in such State, with the funds
to be allocated among the eligible political subdivisions
using the following weighted formula:
``(A) 50 percent of an eligible political subdivision's
allocable share shall be based on the ratio of that eligible
political subdivision's acreage within the State's coastal
zone, as defined in an approved State coastal management
program (as defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1451)), to the entire acreage within the coastal
zone in such State; Provided, however, That if the State in
which the eligible political subdivision is located does not
have an approved coastal management program, then the
allocable share shall be based on the ratio of that eligible
political subdivision's shoreline miles to the total
shoreline miles in that coastal State.
``(B) 25 percent of an eligible political subdivision's
allocable share shall be based on the ratio of such eligible
political subdivision's coastal population to the coastal
population of all eligible political subdivisions in that
State.
``(C) 25 percent of an eligible political subdivision's
allocable share shall be based on
[[Page S416]]
ratios that are inversely proportional to the distance
between the nearest point on the seaward boundary of each
such eligible political subdivision and the geographic center
of each leased tract or portion of the leased tract (to the
nearest whole mile), as determined by the Secretary.
``(3) 20 percent of each State's allocable share, as
determined under subsection (c), shall be allocated to
political subdivisions in the coastal State that do not
qualify as eligible political subdivisions but which are
determined by the Governor or the Secretary to have impacts
from Outer Continental Shelf related activities and which
have an approved plan under this subsection.
``(4) Project submission.--Prior to the receipt of funds
pursuant to this subsection for any fiscal year, a political
subdivision must submit to the Governor of the State in which
it is located a plan setting forth the projects and
activities for which the political subdivision proposes to
expend such funds. Such plan shall state the amounts proposed
to be expended for each project or activity during the
upcoming fiscal year.
``(5) Project approval.--(A) Prior to the payment of funds
pursuant to this subsection to any political subdivision for
any fiscal year, the Governor must approve the plan submitted
by the political subdivision pursuant to this subsection and
notify the Secretary of such approval. State approval of any
such plan shall be consistent with all applicable State and
Federal law. In the event the Governor disapproves any such
plan, the funds that would otherwise be paid to the political
subdivision shall be placed in escrow by the Secretary
pending modification and approval of such plan, at which time
such funds together with interest thereon shall be paid to
the political subdivision.
``(B) A political subdivision that fails to receive
approval from the Governor for a plan may appeal to the
Secretary and the Secretary may approve or disapprove such
plan based on the criteria set forth in section 704;
Provided, however, That the Secretary shall have no authority
to consider an appeal of a political subdivision if the
Governor of the State has certified in writing to the
Secretary that the State has adopted a State program that by
its express terms addresses the allocation of revenues to
political subdivisions.
``(e) Time of Payment.--(1) Payments to coastal States and
political subdivisions under this section shall be made not
later than December 31 of each year from revenues received
and interest earned thereon during the immediately preceding
fiscal year. Payment shall not commence before the date 12
months following the date of enactment of this Act.
``(2) Any amount in the Fund not paid to coastal States and
political subdivisions under this section in any fiscal year
shall be disposed of according to the law otherwise
applicable to revenues from leases on the Outer Continental
Shelf.
``SEC. 704. USES OF FUNDS.
``(a) Authorized Uses of Funds.--Funds received pursuant to
this Act may be used by the coastal States and political
subdivisions for
``(1) air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife,
wetlands, outdoor recreation programs, or other coastal
resources, including shoreline protection and coastal
restoration;
``(2) other activities of such State or political
subdivision, contemplated by the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1451 et seq.), the provisions of
subtitle B of title IV of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (104
Stat. 523), or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.);
``(3) planning assistance and administrative costs of
complying with the provisions of this subtitle;
``(4) uses related to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act;
``(5) mitigating impacts of Outer Continental Shelf
activities, including onshore infrastructure and public
service needs; and
``(6) deposit in a state or political subdivision
administered trust fund dedicated to uses consistent with
this section.
``(b) Compliance With Applicable Laws.--All projects and
activities paid for by the moneys received from the Fund
shall comply with the state Coastal Zone Management Plan and
all applicable Federal, state and local environmental laws
and regulations.''
``SEC. 705. STATE PLANS: CERTIFICATION; ANNUAL REPORT;
REFUNDS.
``(a) State Plans.--Within one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Governor of every state eligible
to receive moneys from the Fund shall develop a state plan
for the use of such moneys and shall certify the plan to the
Secretary. The plan shall be developed with public
participation and shall include the plan for the use of such
funds by every political subdivision of the state eligible to
receive moneys from the Fund. The Governor shall certify to
the Secretary that the plan was developed with public
participation and in accordance with all applicable state
laws. The Governor shall amend the plan, as necessary, with
public participation, but not less then every five years.
``(b) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the end
of the fiscal year, any political subdivision receiving
moneys from the Fund must certify to the Governor--
``(1) the amount of such funds expended by the political
subdivision during the previous fiscal year;
``(2) the amounts expended on each project or activity;
``(3) a general description of how the funds were expended;
and
``(4) the status of each project or activity, including a
certification that the project or activity is consistent with
the state plan development under paragraph (a).
``(c) Report.--On June 15 of each year, the Governor of
each State receiving moneys from the Fund shall account for
all moneys so received for the previous fiscal year in a
written report to the Secretary and the Congress. This report
shall include a description of all projects and activities
receiving funds under this Act, including all information
required under subsection (a).
``(d) Refunds.--In those instances where through judicial
decision, administrative review, arbitration, or other means
there are royalty refunds owed to entities generating
revenues under this Act, 27 percent of such refunds shall be
paid from amounts available in the Fund.''
TITLE II--LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM
SECTION. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Land and Water
Conservation Fund Reform Act of 1998''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
``(1) The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
embodied a visionary concept--that a portion of the proceeds
from Outer Continental Shelf mineral leading revenues and the
depletion of a nonrenewable natural resource should result in
a legacy of public places accessible for public recreation
and benefit from resources belonging to all people, of all
generations, and the enhancement of the most precious and
most renewable natural resource of any nation, healthy and
active citizens.
(2) The States and local governments were to occupy a
pivotal role in accomplishing the purposes of the Land Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and the Act originally provided
an equitable portion of funds to the States, and through
them, to local governments.
(3) However, because of competition for limited Federal
moneys and the need for an annual appropriation, this
original intention has been abandoned and, in recent years,
the States have not received an equitable proportion of
funds.
(4) Nonetheless, with population growth and urban sprawl,
the demand for recreation and conservation areas, at the
State and local level, including urban localities, remains a
high priority for our citizens.
(5) In addition to the demand at the State and local level,
there has been an increasing unmet need for Federal moneys to
be made available for Federal purposes, with lands identified
as important for Federal acquisition not being acquired for
several years due to insufficient funds.
(6) A new vision is called for--a vision that encompasses a
multilevel; national network of parks, recreation and
conservation areas that reaches across the country to touch
all communities. National parks are not enough; the federal
government alone cannot accomplish this. A national vision,
backed by realistic national funding support, to stimulate
State, local and private sector, as well as Federal efforts,
is the only way to effectively address our ongoing outdoor
recreation and conservation needs.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide a
secure source of funds available for Federal purposes
authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 and to revitalize and complement State, local and
private commitments envisioned in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 by providing grants for
State, local and urban recreation and conservation needs.
SEC. 203. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND AMENDMENTS.
(a) Revenues.--Section 2(c)(1) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(1))
is amended as follows:
(1) By inserting ``(A)'' after ``(c)(1)''.
(2) By striking ``there are authorized'' and all that
follows and inserting ``from 16 percent of the revenues, as
that term is defined in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
of 1999, shall be deposited in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in the Treasury and shall be available,
without further appropriation, to carry out this Act for each
fiscal year thereafter through September 30, 2015.''
(3) By adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) In those instances where through judicial decision,
administrative review, arbitration, or other means there are
royalty refunds owed to entities generating revenues
available for purposes of this Act, 16 percent of such
refunds shall be paid from amounts available under this
subsection.''.
(b) Authorization.--Section 2(c)(2) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(2))
is amended by striking ``equivalent amounts provided in
clause (1)'' and inserting ``$900,000,000''.
(c) Appropriation.--Section 3 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-6) is
amended by striking ``Moneys'' and inserting ``Except as
provided under section 460l-5(c)(1), moneys''.
(d) Allocation of Funds.--Section 5 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-7) is
amended as follows:
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' at the beginning:
(2) by striking ``Those appropriations from the fund'' and
all that follows; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
[[Page S417]]
``(b) Moneys credited to the fund under section 2(c)(1) of
this Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(1)) for obligation or
expenditure may be obligated or expended only as follows--
``(1) 45 percent shall be available for Federal purposes.
Notwithstanding section 7 of this Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
9), 25 percent of such moneys shall be made available to the
Secretary of Agriculture for the acquisition of lands,
waters, or interests in land or water within the exterior
boundaries of areas of the National Forest System or any
other land management unit established by an Act of Congress
and managed by the Secretary of Agriculture and 75 percent of
such moneys shall be available to the Secretary of the
Interior for the acquisition of lands, waters, or interests
in land or water within the exterior boundaries of areas of
the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, or
other land management unit established by an Act of Congress;
Provided, that at least two-thirds of the moneys available
under this paragraph for Federal purposes shall be spent east
of the 100th meridian; Provided further, no moneys available
under this paragraph for Federal purposes shall be used for
condemnation of any interest of property.
``(2) 45 percent shall be available for financial
assistance to the States under section 6 of this Act (16
U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8) distributed according to the following
allocation formula;
``(A) 60 percent shall be apportioned equally among the
several States;
``(B) 20 percent shall be apportioned on the basis of the
ratio which the population of each State bears to the total
population of the United States;
``(C) 20 percent shall be apportioned on the basis of the
urban population in each State (as defined by Metropolitan
Statistical Areas).
``(3) 10 percent shall be available to local governments
through the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (16
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2501-2514) of the Department of the
Interior.''.
``An amount, not to exceed 2 percent, of the total of such
moneys covered to the fund under section 2(c)(1) of this Act
(16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-5(c)(1)) in each fiscal year as the
Secretary of the Interior may estimate to be necessary for
expenses in the administration and execution of this
subsection shall be deducted for that purpose, and such
amount is authorized to be made available therefor until the
expiration of the next succeeding fiscal year. Within 60 days
after the close of such fiscal year, the Secretary shall
apportion any portion thereof as remains unexpended, if any,
on the same basis and in the same manner as is provided under
paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).
(e) Rehabilitation.--Subsection 6(a) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(a)) is
amended by deleting ``(3) development.'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``(3) development, including the facility
rehabilitation.''
(f) Tribes and Alaska Native Village Corporations.--
Subsection 6(b)(5) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(b)(5)) is amended as
follows:
(1) By inserting ``(A)'' after ``(5)''.
(2) By adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (1), all federally
recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Village
Corporations (as defined in section 3(j) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(j)) shall be treated
collectively as 1 State, and shall receive shares of the
apportionment under paragraph (1) in accordance with a
competitive grant program established by the Secretary by
rule. Such rule shall ensure that in each fiscal year no
single tribe or Village Corporation receives more than 10
percent of the total amount made available to all tribes and
Village Corporations pursuant to the apportionment under
paragraph (1). Funds received by an Indian tribe or Village
Corporation under this subparagraph may be expended only for
the purposes specified in paragraphs (1) and (3) of
subsection (b).''
``(g) Local Allocation.--Subsection 6(b) of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
8(b)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Absent some compelling and annually documented reason
to the contrary acceptable to the Secretary, each State
(other than an area treated as a State under paragraph (5))
shall make available as grants to local governments at least
50 percent of the annual State apportionment, or an
equivalent amount made available from other sources.''
``(h) Match.--Subsection 6(c) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(c)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Matching Requirements.--Payments to any State shall
cover not more than 50 percent of the cost of outdoor
recreation and conservation planning, acquisition or
development projects that are undertaken by the State.''
``(i) State Action Agenda.--Subsection 6(d) of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-
8(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) State Action Agenda Required.--Each State may define
its own priorities and criteria for selection of outdoor
recreation and conservation acquisition and development
projects eligible for grants under this Act so long as it
provides for public involvement in this process and publishes
an accurate and current State Action Agenda for Community
Recreation and Conservation indicating the needs it has
identified and the priorities and criteria it has
established. In order to assess its needs and establish its
overall priorities, each State, in partnership with its local
governments and Federal agencies, and in consultation with
its citizens, shall develop a State Action Agenda for
Community Recreation and Conservation, within five years of
enactment, that meets the following requirements:
``(1) The agenda must be strategic, originating in broad-
based and long-term needs, but focused on actions that can be
funded over the next 4 years.
``(2) The agenda must be updated at least once every 4
years and certified by the Governor that the State Action
Agenda for Community Recreation and Conservation conclusions
and proposed actions have been considered in an active public
involvement process.
``State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and
Conservation shall take into account all providers of
recreation and conservation lands within each State,
including Federal, regional and local government resources
and shall be correlated whenever possible with other State,
regional, and local plans for parks, recreation, open space
and wetlands conservation.
``Each State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and
Conservation shall specifically address wetlands within that
State as important outdoor recreation and conservation
resources. Each State Action Agenda for Community Recreation
and Conservation shall incorporate a wetlands priority plan
developed in consultation with the State agency with
responsibility for fish and wildlife resources which is
consistent with that national wetlands priority conservation
plan developed under section 301 of the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act.
``Recovery action programs developed by urban localities
under section 1007 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
Act of 1978 shall be used by a State as one guide to the
conclusions, priorities and action schedules contained in the
State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and
Conservation. Each State shall assure that any requirements
for local outdoor recreation and conservation planning that
are promulgated as conditions for grants minimize redundancy
of local efforts by allowing, wherever possible, use of the
findings, priorities, and implementation schedules of
recovery action programs to meet such requirements.''
``(j) Comprehensive State Plans developed by any State
under section 6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(d)) before the enactment
of this Act shall remain in effect in that State until or
State Action Agenda for Community Recreation and Conservation
has been adopted pursuant to the amendment made by this
subsection, but no later than 5 years after the enactment of
this Act.
``(k) State Plans.--Subsection 6(e) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(e)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``State comprehensive plan'' at the end of
the first paragraph and inserting ``State Action Agenda for
Community Recreation and Conservation'';
(2) by striking ``State comprehensive plan'' in paragraph
(1) and inserting ``State Action Agenda for Community
Recreation and Conservation''; and
(3) by striking ``but not including incidental costs
related to acquisition'' at the end of paragraph (1).
(l) Conversion.--Paragraph 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-8(f)(3))
is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting:
``With the exception of those properties that are no longer
viable as an outdoor recreation and conservation facility due
to changes in demographics or must be abandoned because of
environmental contamination which endanger public health and
safety, the Secretary shall approve such conversion only if
the State demonstrates no prudent or feasible alternative
exists. Any conversion must satisfy any conditions the
Secretary deemed necessary to assure the substitution of
other recreation and conservation properties of at least
equal fair market value, or reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and which are in accord with the existing State
Action Agenda for Community Recreation and Conservation:
Provided, That wetland areas and interests therein as
identified in the wetlands provisions of the action agenda
and proposed to be acquired as suitable replacement property
within that same State that is otherwise acceptable to the
Secretary shall be considered to be of reasonably equivalent
usefulness with the property proposed for conversion.''
(m) Cost Limitations.--Section 7 of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460l-9) is
amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(D) Maximum federal cost per project.--No expenditure
shall be made to acquire any Federal land the cost of which
exceeds $5,000,000 unless the funds for such acquisition have
been specifically allocated to the acquisition in the report
accompanying the legislation appropriating funds for the
Federal agency concerned and such allocation has been
approved by resolution adopted by the Committee on Resources
of the United States House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United
States Senate.''
SEC. 204. URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY ACT OF 1978
AMENDMENTS.
(a) Grants.--Section 1004 of the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2503) is amended by
redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections
(f), (g),
[[Page S418]]
and (h) respectively, and by inserting the following after
subsection (c):
``(d) `development grants' means matching capital grants to
local units of government to cover costs of development and
construction on existing or new neighborhood recreation
sites, including indoor and outdoor recreation facilities,
support facilities, and landscaping, but excluding routine
maintenance and upkeep activities;'';
``(e) `acquisition grants' means matching capital grants to
local units of government to cover the direct and incidental
costs of purchasing new parkland to be permanently dedicated
and made accessible for public recreation use;''.
(b) Eligibility.--Subsection 1005(a) of the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2504) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Eligibility of general purpose local governments to
compete for assistance under this title shall be based upon
need as determined by the Secretary. Generally, the list of
eligible government shall include the following:
``(1) All central cities of Metropolitan, Primary or
Consolidated Statistical Areas as currently defined by the
census.
``(2) All political subdivisions included in Metropolitan,
Primary or Consolidated Statistical Areas as currently
defined by the census.
``(3) Any other city or town within a Metropolitan Area
with a total population of 50,000 or more in the census of
1970, 1980 or 1990.
``(4) Any other county, parish or township with a total
population of 250,000 or more in the census of 1970, 1980 or
1990.''
(c) Matching Grants.--Subsection 1006(a) of the Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2505(a)) is
amended by striking all through paragraph (3) and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 1006. (a) The Secretary is authorized to provide 70
percent matching grants for rehabilitation, innovation,
development or acquisition purposes to eligible general
purpose local governments upon his approval of applications
therefor by the chief executives of such governments.
``(1) At the discretion of such applicants, and if
consistent with an approved application, rehabilitation,
innovation, development or acquisition grants may be
transferred in whole or in part to independent special
purpose local governments, private nonprofit agencies or
county or regional park authorities; except that, such
grantees shall provide assurance to the Secretary that they
will maintain public recreation opportunities at assisted
areas and facilities owned or managed by them in accordance
with section 1010 of this Act.
``(2) Payments may be made only for those rehabilitation,
innovation, development, or acquisition projects which have
been approved by the Secretary. Such payments may be
made from time to time in keeping with the rate of
progress toward completion of a project, on a reimbursable
basis.''.
(d) Coordination.--Section 1008 of the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2507) is amended by
striking the last sentence and inserting the following: ``The
Secretary and general purpose local governments are
encouraged to coordinate preparation of recovery action
programs required by this title with State Action Agendas for
Community Recreation and Conservation required by section 6
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,
including the allowance of flexibility in local preparation
of recovery action programs so that they may be used to meet
State or local qualifications for local receipt of Land and
Water Conservation Fund grants or State grants for similar
purposes or for other recreation or conservation purposes.
The Secretary shall also encourage States to consider the
findings, priorities, strategies and schedules included in
the recovery action programs of their urban localities in
preparation and updating of the State Action Agendas for
Community Recreation and Conservation, in accordance with the
public coordination and citizen consultation requirements of
subsection 6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
of 1965.''
(e) Conversion.--Section 1010 of the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 2509) is amended by
striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``No
property acquired or improved or developed under this title
shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to
other than public recreation uses. The Secretary shall
approve such conversion only if the grantee demonstrates no
prudent or feasible alternative exists (with the exception of
those properties that are no longer a viable recreation
facility due to changes in demographics or must be abandoned
because of environmental contamination which endanger public
health and safety). Any conversion must satisfy any
conditions the Secretary deems necessary to assure the
substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal
fair market value, or reasonably equivalent usefulness and
location and which are in accord with the current recreation
recovery action program.''
(f) Repeal.--Section 1014 of the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act (16 U.S.C. 2513) is repealed.
TITLE III--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Act of 1998''.
SEC. 302. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds and declares that--
(1) a diverse array of species of fish and wildlife is of
significant value to the Nation for many reasons: aesthetic,
ecological, educational, cultural, recreational, economic,
and scientific;
(2) it should be the objective of the United States to
retain for present and future generations the opportunity to
observe, understand, and appreciate a wide variety of
wildlife;
(3) millions of citizens participate in outdoor recreation
through hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, all of
which have significant value to the citizens who engage in
these activities;
(4) providing sufficient and properly maintained wildlife
associated recreational opportunities is important to
enhancing public appreciation of a diversity of wildlife and
the habitats upon which they depend;
(5) lands and waters which contain species classified
neither as game nor identified as endangered or threatened
also can provide opportunities for wildlife associated
recreation and education such as hunting and fishing
permitted by applicable State or Federal law;
(6) hunters and anglers have for more than 60 years
willingly paid user fees in the form of Federal excise taxes
on hunting and fishing equipment to support wildlife
diversity and abundance, through enactment of the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Restoration Act (commonly referred to as the
Pittman-Robertson Act) and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration (commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson/
Wallop-Breaux Act);
(7) State programs, adequately funded to conserve a broader
array of wildlife in an individual State and conducted in
coordination with Federal State, tribal, and private
landowners and interested organizations, would continue to
serve as a vital link in a nationwide effort to restore game
and nongame wildlife, and the essential elements of such
programs should include conservation measures which manage
for a diverse variety of populations of wildlife; and
(8) it is proper for Congress to bolster and extend this
highly successful program to aid game and nongame wildlife in
supporting the health and diversity of habitat, as well as
providing funds for conservation education.
SEC. 303. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are--
(1) to extend financial and technical assistance to the
States under the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act for
the benefit of a diverse array of wildlife and associated
habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished, to
fulfill unmet needs of wildlife within the States while
recognizing the mandate of the States to conserve all
wildlife;
(2) to assure sound conservation policies through the
development, revision and implementation of wildlife
associated recreation and wildlife associated education and
wildlife conservation law enforcement;
(3) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to create
partnerships between the Federal Government, other State
agencies, wildlife conservation organizations, and outdoor
recreation and conservation interests through cooperative
planning and implementation of this title; and
(4) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to
provide for public involvement in the process of development
and implementation of a wildlife conservation and restoration
program.
SEC. 304. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Reference to Law.--In this title, the term ``Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act'' means the Act of September
2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), commonly referred to as the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or the Pittman-
Robertson Act.
(b) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.--Section
2 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
669a) is amended by inserting after ``shall be construed'' in
the first place it appears the following: ``to include the
wildlife conservation and restoration program and''.
(c) State Agencies.--Section 2 of the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended by
inserting ``or State fish and wildlife department'' after
``State fish and game department''.
(d) Conservation.--Section 2 is amended by striking the
period at the end thereof, substituting a semicolon, and
adding the following: ``the term `conservation' shall be
construed to mean the use of methods and procedures necessary
or desirable to sustain healthy populations of wildlife
including all activities associated with scientific resources
management such as research, census, monitoring of
populations, acquisition, improvement and management of
habitat, live trapping and transplantation, wildlife damage
management, and periodic or total protection of a species or
population as well as the taking of individuals within
wildlife stock or population if permitted by applicable State
and Federal law; the term `wildlife conservation and
restoration program' shall be construed to mean a program
developed by a State fish and wildlife department that the
Secretary determines meets the criteria in section 6(d), the
projects that constitute such a program, which may be
implemented in whole or part through grants and contracts by
a State to other State, Federal, or local agencies wildlife
conservation organizations and outdoor recreation and
conservation education entities from funds apportioned under
this title, and maintenance of such projects; the term
`wildlife' shall be construed to mean any species of wild,
free-
[[Page S419]]
ranging fauna including fish, and also fauna in captive
breeding programs the object of which is to reintroduce
individuals of a depleted indigenous species into previously
occupied range; the term `wildlife-associated recreation'
shall be construed to mean projects intended to meet the
demand for outdoor activities associated with wildlife
including, but not limited to, hunting and fishing, such
projects as construction or restoration of wildlife viewing
areas, observation towers, blinds, platforms, land and water
trails, water access, trailheads, and access for such
projects; and the term `wildlife conservation education'
shall be construed to mean projects, including public
outreach, intended to foster responsible natural resource
stewardship.''.
(e) 7 Percent.--Subsection 3(a) of the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)) is amended in
the first sentence by--
(1) inserting ``(1)'' after ``(beginning with the fiscal
year 1975)''; and
(2) inserting after ``Internal Revenue Code of 1954'' the
following: ``, and (2) from 7 percent of the revenues, as
that term is defined in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
of 1999,''.
SEC. 305. SUBACCOUNTS AND REFUNDS.
Section 3 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsections:
``(c) A subaccount shall be established in the Federal aid
to wildlife restoration fund in the Treasury to be known as
the `wildlife conservation and restoration account' and the
credits to such account shall be equal to the 7 percent of
revenues referred to in subsection (a)(2). Amounts in such
account shall be invested by the Secretary of the Treasury as
set forth in subsection (b) and shall be made available
without further appropriation, together with interest, for
apportionment at the beginning of fiscal year 2000 and each
fiscal year thereafter to carry out State wildlife
conservation and restoration programs.
``(d) Funds covered into the wildlife conservation and
restoration account shall supplement, but not replace,
existing funds available to the States from the sport fish
restoration and wildlife restoration accounts and shall be
used for the development, revision, and implementation of
wildlife conservation and restoration programs and should be
used to address the unmet needs for a diverse array of
wildlife and associated habitats, including species that are
not hunted or fished, for wildlife conservation, wildlife
conservation education, and wildlife-associated recreation
projects: Provided, That such funds may be used for new
programs and projects as well as to enhance existing programs
and projects.
``(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this Act,
with respect to the wildlife conservation and restoration
account so much of the appropriation apportioned to any State
for any fiscal year as remains unexpended at the close
thereof is authorized to be made available for expenditure in
that State until the close of the fourth succeeding fiscal
year. Any amount apportioned to any State under this
subsection that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of
the period during which it is available for expenditure on
any project is authorized to be reapportioned to all States
during the succeeding fiscal year.
``(f) In those instances where through judicial decision,
administrative review, arbitration, or other means there are
royalty refunds owed to entities generating revenues
available for purposes of this Act, 7 percent of such refunds
shall be paid from amounts available under subsection
(a)(2).''.
SEC. 306. ALLOCATION OF SUBACCOUNT RECEIPTS.
Section 4 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended by adding the following new
subsection:
``(c)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), an amount, not to
exceed 2 percent, of the revenues covered into the wildlife
conservation and restoration account in each fiscal year as
the Secretary of the Interior may estimate to be necessary
for expenses in the administration and execution of programs
carried out under the wildlife conservation and restoration
account shall be deducted for that purpose, and such amount
is authorized to be made available therefor until the
expiration of the next succeeding fiscal year. Within 60 days
after the close of such fiscal year, the Secretary of the
Interior shall apportion any portion thereof as remains
unexpended, if any, on the same basis and in the same manner
as is provided under paragraphs (2) and (3).
``(2) The Secretary of the Interior, after making the
deduction under paragraph (1), shall make the following
apportionment from the amount remaining in the wildlife
conservation and restoration account:
``(A) to the District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not more than \1/2\ of 1
percent thereof; and
``(B) to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum
equal to not more than \1/6\ of 1 percent thereof.
``(3) The Secretary of the Interior, after making the
deduction under paragraph (1) and the apportionment under
paragraph (2), shall apportion the remaining amount in the
wildlife conservation and restoration account for each year
among the States in the following manner:
``(A) \1/3\ of which is based on the ratio to which the
land area of such State bears to the total land area of all
such States; and
``(B) \2/3\ of which is based on the ratio to which the
population of such State bears to the total population of all
such States.
``The amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be
adjusted equitably so that no such State shall be apportioned
a sum which is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount
available for apportionment under this paragraph for any
fiscal year or more than 5 percent of such amount.''.
``(d) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Programs.--Any
State, through its fish and wildlife department, may apply to
the Secretary for approval of a wildlife conservation and
restoration program or for funds to develop a program, which
shall--
``(1) contain provision for vesting in the fish and
wildlife department of overall responsibility and
accountability for development and implementation of the
program; and
``(2) contain provision for development and implementation
of--
``(A) wildlife conservation projects which expand and
support existing wildlife programs to meet the needs of a
diverse array of wildlife species,
``(B) wildlife associated recreation programs, and
``(C) wildlife conservation education projects.
If the Secretary of the Interior finds that an application
for such program contains the elements specified in
paragraphs (1) and (2), the Secretary shall approve such
application and set aside from the apportionment to the State
made pursuant to section 4(c) an amount that shall not exceed
90 percent of the estimated cost of developing and
implementing segments of the program for the first 5 fiscal
years following enactment of this subsection and not to
exceed 75 percent thereafter. Not more than 10 percent of the
amounts apportioned to each State from the subaccount for the
State's wildlife conservation and restoration program may be
used for law enforcement. Following approval, the Secretary
may make payments on a project that is a segment of the
State's wildlife conservation and restoration program as the
project progresses but such payments, including previous
payments on the project, if any, shall not be more than the
United States pro rata share of such project. The Secretary,
under such regulations as he may prescribe, may advance funds
representing the United States pro rata share of a project
that is a segment of a wildlife conservation and restoration
program, including funds to develop such program. For
purposes of this subsection, the term `State' shall include
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(b) FACA.--Coordination with State fish and wildlife
department personnel or with personnel of other State
agencies pursuant to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Act or the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act shall
not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.). Except for the preceding sentence, the
provisions of this title relate solely to wildlife
conservation and restoration programs as defined in this
title and shall not be construed to affect the provisions of
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act relating to
wildlife restoration projects or the provisions of the
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act relating to fish
restoration and management projects.
SEC. 307. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC RELATIONS.
The third sentence of subsection (a) of section 8 of the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof:
``, except that funds available from this subaccount for a
State wildlife conservation and restoration program may be
used for law enforcement and public relations''.
SEC. 308. PROHIBITION AGAINST DIVERSION.
No designated State agency shall be eligible to receive
matching funds under this Act if sources of revenue available
to it on January 1, 1998, for conservation of wildlife are
diverted for any purpose other than the administration of the
designated State agency, it being the intention of Congress
that funds available to States under this Act be added to
revenues from existing State sources and not serve as a
substitute for revenues from such sources. Such revenues
shall include interest, dividends, or other income earned on
the foregoing.
Mr. MURKOWKSI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with a bipartisan
group of Senators, to introduce the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
of 1999.
This important piece of legislation remedies a tremendous inequity in
the distribution of revenues generated by offshore oil and gas
production by directing that a portion of those moneys be allocated to
coastal States and communities who shoulder the responsibility for
energy development activity off their coastlines. It also provides a
secure funding source for state recreation and wildlife conservation
programs.
By reinvesting revenues from offshore oil and gas production into a
variety of important conservation, recreation and environmental
programs,
[[Page S420]]
this bill will rededicate the Federal government to a partnership with
state and local governments to meet the demands of all Americans for
outdoor experiences. In addition, it reaffirms the original premise of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund that a portion of the revenues
obtained by the Federal government from the development of our natural
resources should be reinvested into the outdoor recreation and natural
resource estate of the Nation.
This bill is the start of a process. It is a bipartisan bill. And,
like any bipartisan bill reflects choices and compromises. It contains
provisions which need to be examined in detail as the legislative
process moves forward. I also anticipate a series of amendments from
both sides of the aisle to the bill. I know there are amendments I
intend to offer to make this bill a better bill for my constituents.
That is what the legislative process is all about. As Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I promise to devote
the time necessary to flesh these issues out and to give all parties
which have interest in this bill an opportunity to be heard. This bill
warrants nothing less.
Title 1 of the bill, which provides for coastal impact assistance, is
similar to legislation I have introduced in prior Congresses and is an
issue I have worked on for my entire Senate career.
Title 1 is based on a Minerals Management Service advisory committee
report. It directs that 27 percent of the revenues generated from oil
and natural gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf--or OCS--be
returned to coastal States and communities that share the burdens of
exploration and production off their coastlines. Offshore oil and gas
production generates $3 to $4 billion in revenues annually for the U.S.
Treasury. Yet, unlike mineral receipts from onshore Federal lands, OCS
oil and gas revenues are not directly returned to the States in which
production occurs.
This legislation remedies this disparity. States and communities that
bear the responsibilities for offshore oil and gas production will
finally share in its benefits. This legislation would, for the first
time, share revenues generated by OCS oil and gas activities with
counties, parishes and boroughs--the local governmental entities most
directly affected--and State governments.
The bill also acknowledges that all coastal States, including those
States bordering the Great Lakes, have unique needs and directs that a
portion of OCS revenues be shared with these States, even if no OCS
production occurs off their coasts. Coastal States and communities can
use OCS Impact Assistance funds on everything from environmental
programs, to coastal and marine conservation efforts, to new
infrastructure requirements.
In Alaska, Boroughs could use OCS funds to participate in the
environmental planning process required by Federal laws before OCS
development occurs. Other rural coastal communities in Alaska could use
the money for sanitation improvements. While still others, like
Unalakleet, may use the money to construct sea walls and breakwaters or
beach rehabilitation--efforts which will combat the impacts of coastal
erosion. Further, as the Federal OCS program expands in Alaska, this
legislation will mean even more revenues to the State, boroughs and
local communities.
This is a true investment in the future. This is money that will be
used, day-in and day-out, to improve the quality of life of coastal
State residents--money which come from oil and gas production.
As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know all
too well that offshore oil and gas production is a lightning rod of
environmental groups who will go to great lengths to disparage an
activity that is vital to the long-term energy and economic security of
this country. These groups will likely say that this bill creates
incentives for offshore oil and gas production because a factor in the
distribution formula is a State's proximity to OCS production.
Let us remember, this is an impact assistance bill--revenue sharing,
if you will. States only will have impacts if they have production. The
States with production, obviously, have greater needs and are most
deserving of a large share of OCS revenues.
Mr. President, let me also remind everyone, that OCS production only
occurs off the coasts of 6 States--yet the bill shares OCS revenues
with 34 States. There are 28 coastal States that will get a share of
OCS revenues which have no OCS production. In fact, in all areas except
the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska there is a moratorium prohibiting any new
OCS production.
It is the long-term best interest of this country to support
responsible and sustainable development of nonrenewable resources. We
now import more than 50 percent of our domestic petroleum requirements
and the Department of Energy's Information Administration predicts, in
ten years, America will be at least 64 percent dependent on foreign
oil. OCS development will play an important role in offsetting even
greater dependence on foreign energy.
The OCS accounts for 24 percent of this Nation's natural gas
production and 14 percent of its oil production. We need to ensure that
the OCS continues to meet our future domestic energy needs.
I firmly believe that the Federal government needs to do all it can
to pursue and encourage further technological advances in OCS
exploration and production. These technological achievements have and
will continue to result in new OCS production having an unparalleled
record of excellence on environmental and safety issues. Additional
technological advances with appropriate incentives will further improve
new resource recovery and therefore increase revenues to the Treasury
for the benefit of all Americans who enjoy programs funded by OCS
money.
I will do all I can to ensure a healthy OCS program, including new
OCS development in the Arctic. A number of challenges face new
developments in this area--I am confident that we can work through them
all. History has shown us that in the Arctic, and in other OCS areas,
development and the environmental protection are compatible.
This bill also takes a portion of the revenues received by the
Federal government from OCS development and invests it in conservation
and wildlife programs. Thus, Titles 2 and 3 of the bill share OCS
revenues with ALL States for these purposes.
Title 2 of this bill provides a secure source of funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund. The LWCF was established over three
decades ago to provide Federal money for State and Federal land
acquisition and help meet Americans recreation needs.
Over thirty years ago, Congress had the foresight to recognize the
ever growing need of the American public for parks and recreation
facilities with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act. That landmark piece of legislation was premised on the belief that
revenues earned from the depletion of a nonrenewable resource need to
be reinvested in a renewable resource for the benefit of future
generations. This rationale is as valid today as it was in the mid-
1960s.
To accomplish this goal, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
directs that revenues earned from offshore oil and gas production
should be spent on the acquisition of Federal recreation lands by the
land management agencies. The Act also creates a state-side matching
grant program.
The state-side matching grant program provides 50-50 matching grants
to States and local communities for the acquisition and construction of
park and recreation facilities. The state-side program has a truly
unique legacy in the history of American conservation by providing the
States with a leadership role in the provision of recreation
opportunities. Through the 1995 Fiscal Year, over 3.2 billion in
Federal dollars have been leveraged to fund over 37 thousand state and
local park and recreation projects.
Yet, despite these successes, the President had not requested any
money for the state-side program for the last four years. This is a
program supported by this Nation's mayors, Governors, and the
recreation community. The state-side matching grant should not have to
justify annually its existence with Congressional appropriators.
The same can be said of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
program established by Congress in 1978. UPAR provides Federal funds to
distressed urban areas to rehabilitate and construct recreation
facilities.
Together, these programs strived to create a national system of parks
that
[[Page S421]]
would, day-in and day-out, meet the recreation and open-space demands
of the American public. Title 2 recognizes the value of the state-side
LWCF matching grant program and the UPAR program by providing them with
the stable source of funding they have been lacking.
I also want to mention the money this bill provides for Federal land
acquisition. To many westerners, including myself, the Federal
government already owns too much land. In my state of Alaska, the four
Federal land management agencies alone manage more than 60 percent of
all the acreage in the State.
Nonetheless, the demand for Federal land acquisition dollars is
significant. The four Federal land management agencies have identified
more than 45 million acres of privately owned lands lying within the
boundaries of Federal land management units, including national parks,
national forests, and national wildlife refuges. Many of these
inholders, who want to sell, have been waiting for decades to receive
compensation from the Federal government for their property. In many
instances these landowners must suffer with restrictions on access to
and use of their lands while they wait endlessly for the funds to
compensate them for their land.
In recognition of these competing propositions regarding Federal
ownership, the bill tries to reach a balance. It provides money for
Federal land acquisition. However, limitations are placed on its
expenditure. First, Federal land acquisition money available under this
bill only could be used to purchase lands within the boundaries of
conservation areas established by an Act of Congress. Second, such
lands only could be purchased from willing sellers. That is, the
Federal land acquisition money available under this bill could not be
used to condemn any property. The use of eminent domain is explicitly
foreclosed. Third, three-quarters of the money must be spent on land
acquisition east of the 100th meridian (east of Texas). These
provisions are more restrictive than the current law regarding the use
of LWCF moneys for Federal land acquisitions.
I know that there are many who are not happy with this compromise. I
cannot say I am happy totally with it. I do not think it provides
adequate protections for the roles and responsibilities of the
authorizing and appropriations committees. I can pledge that this will
be an issue subject to discussions on the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. Under our Constitutional system of government, Congress has
the plenary authority over Federal lands and appropriations. I believe
that the historic role of Congress is setting the priorities for land
acquisition should be preserved. Certainly, the President should set
forth his preferences, as he does now, but in the final analysis the
Congress should approved any expenditure.
Title 3 of this bill provides funding for State fish and wildlife
conservation programs. In Alaska, with its unparalleled natural beauty,
fishing and hunting are two of the most popular forms of outdoor
recreation. The bill directs that a portion of OCS revenues should go
to the State for wildlife purposes.
The money would be distributed through the Pittman-Robertson program
administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This money
could be used for both game and non-game wildlife. With the inclusion
of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for state fish and game
programs would nearly double.
This is a no-tax alternative to the ``Teaming with Wildlife''
proposal. States will be able to use these moneys to increase fish and
wildlife populations and improve fish and wildlife habitat. States also
could use the money for wildlife education programs.
The bill creates a new subaccount, under Pittman-Robertson, called
the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration account. The money in this
account, from OCS revenues, will provide the funding needed to move the
conservation community beyond the debate over game versus non-game
funding. States will have the flexibility on deciding how to spend
these funds to meet the conservation demands of all their residents.
I am proud of this proposal which will be a win-win for the oil and
gas industry, the States, environmental and conservation groups, and
all Americans.
I know it will be a win-win for Alaskans. Alaska is projected to
receive more than $130 million annually from this proposal. In Fiscal
Year 2000, Alaska would receive approximately $110 million in OCS
Impact Assistance. Of this total, the State would receive $44 million
as would coastal communities within 200 miles of an OCS lease including
the North Slope Borough, Barrow, and Kaktovik. Other coastal
communities, not near an OCS lease, like Valdez and Homer, would
receive $22 million. These funds could be used for infrastructure,
including sanitation improvements and safe roads, coastal erosion
projects, and environmental protection programs. Title 2 and 3 of the
bill provide an additional $21 million for state and local park,
recreation, and wildlife conservation programs.
These funds are sorely needed to meet the needs of the communities in
Alaska and the skyrocketing public demand for wildlife and outdoor
recreation programs and facilities within the State. Given this demand,
I have received letters of support from throughout Alaska, including
the cities of Barrow, Cordova, Soldotna, Haines, Sitka, Kotzebue and
the Kodiak Island Burrough.
This bill is far from perfect but it is a step to ensuring not only
that Coastal States have money to address the effects of OCS-activities
but that all States have funds necessary to provide outdoor recreation
and conservation resources for all of us to enjoy.
As we begin the 106th Congress, I can pledge, as Chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, that the enactment of this bill
will be one of my highest priorities this year. I intend to hold a
series of hearings on the bill to examine, in detail, its provisions.
In closing, I encourage not only the members of the Senate but also all
Americans to support this important and exciting piece of conservation
legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues, Senators,
Murkowski and Landrieu in introducing the bipartisan ``Conservation and
Re-Investment Act of 1999''. The Conservation and Re-Investment Act
will serve to provide dedicated funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, wildlife enhancement programs and urban parks
development by redirecting a portions of the royalty revenues derived
from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. In addition, this
bill will redirect a portion of Outer Continental Shelf royalties
directly back to coastal states which have been impacted by Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas production in order to assist those
states in restoring and preserving air quality, water quality,
wetlands, estuaries and other coastal resources and environments
impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production.
This bill will allow coastal states to create trust funds, the
revenues of which can be used in perpetuity for such purposes as
environmental protection, conservation, water quality and public land
purchases. Recognizing the boom and bust nature of oil and gas
production, Alabama long ago created a protected trust fund from the
oil and gas royalties it receives from development off its' coast. The
revenues derived from the investment this fund have been used by the
state to fund popular wildlife conservation programs and the state's
``Forever Wild'' program. These programs have permitted the state to
make land purchases to create and expand Alabama's park system and to
help create additional outdoor recreation opportunities for its
citizens. It is my hope that this bill will create the conduit for
other states and the federal government to follow the example set by my
home state of Alabama. While the revenues derived from this fund will
be limited to the goals of the Conservation and Re-Investment Act, a
prudent coastal state must consider this option to guard against the
boom and bust nature of the oil and gas business.
Mr. President, this bill will go a long way towards protecting the
environment and increasing conservation in coastal states and the
entire nation by creating a dedicated funding mechanism to fulfill
these goals. We, along with future generations, will benefit greatly
from this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues
[[Page S422]]
to craft a bill which can continue to enjoy bi-partisan support and be
passed into law.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my
colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Murkowski and Sessions, in introducing
the Reinvestment and Environmental Restoration Act.
Mr. President, since the inception of the oil and gas program on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), States and coastal communities have
sought a greater share of the benefits from development. And why
shouldn't they? These communities provide the infrastructure, public
services, manpower and support industries necessary to sustain this
development.
Currently, the majority of OCS revenues are funneled into the Federal
Treasury where they are used to pay for various Federal programs and to
reduce the deficit. While funding programs and reducing the deficit is
certainly important, I believe that some percentage of the revenues
should be reinvested in the affected region.
Our bill does just that. The Reinvestment and Environmental
Restoration Act diverts one-half of the OCS revenues from the Federal
Treasury to coastal States and communities for a multitude of programs:
air and water quality monitoring, wetlands protection, coastal
restoration and shoreline protection, land acquisition, infrastructure,
public service needs, State park and recreation programs and wildlife
conservation.
This bill allows States and communities to use these funds. These
States will effectively use the funds for local needs. In Pascagoula,
for example, authorities might choose to restore and secure the
shoreline where years of sea traffic have taken their toll. Further
north in Vancleave, they may choose instead to refurbish the roads and
bridges that carry the heavy machinery coming and going from the coast.
This bill provides a framework within which these localities can make
the right decisions for their citizens and their environment.
Mr. President, I have been working on this issue for many, many
years. As a ``coast dweller myself,'' I know the impact that the oil
and gas industry can have on communities and the importance of
reinvestment in these areas. This is not to say that the industry
mistreats the States; on the contrary, they work very hard to comply
with stringent environmental regulations and to take care of the
community as best they can. The OCS Policy Committee said in 1993 that,
despite the oil industry's best efforts, ``OCS development still can
affect community infrastructure, social services and the environment in
ways that cause concerns among residents of the coastal States and
communities.''
I know that there is no way to totally eliminate this impact on
coastal communities. I also know that, while the benefits of a healthy
OCS program are felt nationally, the infrastructure, environmental and
social costs are felt locally. Our bill would put money back into the
communities that need it most.
It would also put money back into the environmental resources of the
area. Exploration for non-renewable resources and stewardship of
coastal resources are not mutually exclusive, but must be carefully
balanced for both to be sustained. It is important that wetlands,
fisheries and water resources are taken into consideration. Affordable
adequate protection is possible.
In addition to supporting up the States and coastal communities, our
bill also provides funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF). More than 30 years ago, Congress set up this fund to address
the American public's desire for more parks and recreational
facilities. This bill makes the program self-sufficient, providing a
secure funding source from the OCS revenues. This is an investment in
our future--our land, our natural resources and our recreational
enjoyment.
Mr. President, our bill makes yet another investment with these OCS
revenues--an investment in fish and wildlife programs. With the
inclusion of OCS revenues, the amount of money available for State
programs would nearly double. This is money that can be used to
increase fish and wildlife populations and habitats. It could even be
used for wildlife education programs.
Mr. President, this bill was carefully crafted to strike a balance
between the needs and interests of the oil and gas industry, the
States, and the environmental and conservation groups. It's a good
package that will benefit all Americans, not just those who live and
work in coastal areas. It will benefit hunters and anglers. It will
benefit bird watchers and campers. It will benefit all Americans who
take solace in the fact that the oil industry is taking care of the
communities that support it.
I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues and look forward to
advancing this important legislation in the 106th Congress.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Thompson, Mr.
Levin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Wellstone,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Robb, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Kerrey, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Graham, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Chafee):
S. 26. A bill entitled the ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
1999''; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
bipartisan campaign reform act of 1999
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is
manifestly corrupt. So we are back. And here we will return until
America's citizens regain dominion over their government. It is my
great pleasure to join Sen. John McCain to once again introduce a
bipartisan campaign finance reform bill in the United States Senate.
This is the third Congress in which we have taken up this fight
together. I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain for
his tireless devotion to this issue and his continued willingness to
defy the leadership of his party to press it. It will take great effort
to achieve consensus and pass this legislation. But I truly do believe
that we can make a breakthrough this year, and the reintroduction of
the McCain-Feingold bill is the first step toward making that happen.
Mr. President, our democracy is sick. The corrupting influence of big
money is taking a daily toll on our work here in the Congress and on
the confidence of the American people in our ability to do that work
fairly and in their interests. The future of our country is truly at
stake in this fight for reform, and that is why, despite the setbacks
we have suffered in the last two Congress, despite our inability in the
last two Congresses to overcome filibusters by a minority of this body,
we are back on the floor today. On the first day that bills can be
introduced in the United States Senate, I am here to serve notice that
reform is at the top of the list of things that we must do in this
Congress. And I commit to the American people, and to my constituents
in Wisconsin who reelected me to do precisely this job, that I will
fight for reform throughout this year and the next year, if need be,
until we win.
Let me take a moment, Mr. President, to review what the McCain-
Feingold bill tries to accomplish. First and foremost, we ban soft
money--the unlimited contributions that corporate, labor, and very
wealthy individual donors can now give to the political parties. We
must bring back some sanity to the campaign finance system by making
the parties and donors live once again within the rules that the
Congress passed back in the 1970's after the Watergate era. Perhaps
some of those rules need to be updated, but throwing the rules out is
not an option. The potential for corruption of our legislative process
is too great. I will return to the issue of prohibiting soft money in a
moment, because it is central to the goals of our bill.
Mr. President, this bill also includes the amendment dealing with
abuses of ``issue advocacy'' proposed by Senator Snowe of Maine and
Senator Jeffords of Vermont and adopted by the Senate last year during
debate on our bill. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment is a balanced approach
to the ``phony issue ad'' problem that prohibits corporations and
unions from purchasing television and radio advertisements within the
last 2 months of a campaign if those ads refer to a clearly identified
candidate. It is designed to prevent
[[Page S423]]
corporate and union treasury money, which has been banned from federal
elections since early in this century, from making its way back into
the elections in the form of advertisements that pretend to be about
issues, but instead are about elections.
Advocacy groups, on the other hand, are permitted to purchase what
the bill calls ``electioneering communications,'' as long as they
disclose their expenditures and the major donors to the effort and take
steps to prevent the use of corporate and union treasury money for the
ads. Mr. President, we worked long and hard to perfect this amendment
last year, to make sure that it is constitutional, and that it will be
effective in combating what has become a very serious subterfuge
engaged in by entities that plainly want to influence elections but
don't want to abide by the election laws. It is a crucial piece of the
campaign finance reform puzzle, and we are proud to have the support of
Senators Snowe and Jeffords for our effort and to include their
proposal in our bill.
The McCain-Feingold bill also takes a further step in addressing the
spending of unions in elections by codifying the so-called Beck
decision. Under our bill, non-union members who are required to pay
agency fees to unions under their state laws will be able to demand an
accounting of the use of their fees, and to prevent those fees from
being spent for electoral purposes. This provision does not go as far
as some of our colleagues might like, but it is a fair and balanced
provision that recognizes the need to tread lightly on this issue to
maintain bipartisan support for the bill.
The bill also contains important provisions designed to improve
enforcement and disclosure under our campaign finance laws. It requires
electronic filing and posting of campaign finance information on the
Internet to make sure that the public can quickly and easily determine
who the major contributors are to candidates and parties. It doubles
the penalties for ``knowing and willful'' violations of Federal
election laws. It provides for more timely disclosure of independent
expenditures. It requires campaigns to collect all required contributor
information before depositing checks. And it permits the FEC to conduct
random audits at the end of a campaign to ensure compliance with the
Federal election laws.
Our bill also requires political advertisements to carry a disclaimer
identifying who is responsible for the content of the campaign ad; and
it bars Members of Congress from sending out taxpayer-financed franked
mass mailings during the calendar year of their election.
It also addresses two important areas where we have learned in the
past few years that the law is simply not clear enough or strong
enough. Our bill makes it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit
campaign contributions on Federal property, including the White House
and the congressional office buildings. And it makes it clear that
contributions from foreign governments and foreign nationals are
prohibited in Federal, State and local elections, including donations
of soft money.
Mr. President, this fight is a fight for the soul and the survival of
our American democracy. This democracy cannot survive without the
confidence of the people in the integrity of the legislative and the
electoral process. The prevalence--no--the dominance--of money in our
system of elections and our legislature will in the end cause them to
crumble. If we don't take steps to clean up this system it ultimately
will consume us along with our finest American ideals.
We are now engaged in an historic impeachment trial, in which we are
asked to determine as jurors whether the President has committed ``high
crimes and misdemeanors'' and should be removed from office. The
American people are divided on this question.
But the American people do think it's a crime that the tobacco
companies can use money to block a bill to curtail teen smoking. They
do think it's a crime that insurance companies can use money to block
desperately needed health care reform. They do think it's a crime that
telecommunication companies use money to force a bill through Congress
that's supposed to increase competition and decrease prices, but leads
to cable rates that keep on rising and rising. And they do think it's a
crime that corporations and unions are able to give unlimited soft
money contributions to the political parties to advance their narrow
special interests.
They think it's a crime. But here in Washington it is business as
usual--until we manage to pass meaningful campaign finance reform.
Let me be clear Mr. President, I'm not suggesting that any individual
Member of Congress is corrupt. I don't know that any Member of this
body has ever traded a vote for a contribution. But while Members are
not corrupt, the system is riddled with corruption. It is only human to
want to help those who have helped you get elected or reelected, to
agree to the meeting, to take the phone call, to allow the opportunity
to be persuaded by those who have given money. It is true of the
parties, and it is true of the Members, even those who seek always to
cast their votes on the merits. The result is that people who don't
have money don't get heard. And in the end, those who get heard get
their way.
Mr. President, as you know, I won a very hard fought campaign last
year in which soft money and issue ads and campaign spending were much
discussed issues. I learned a lot from that campaign, and my experience
has made me even more certain that the system we now live under must be
changed and can be changed.
As we once again take up this charge, I can tell you how enjoyable
and rewarding it can be to run a campaign where endless fundraising is
not part of your daily routine. And how it is possible to run a decent
campaign without getting down in this soft money swamp.
Mr. President, we don't need to point fingers at one another, we just
have to rise above politics and do the right thing by the American
people. We must clean up our own house, Mr. President. We cannot
continue to ignore the corruption in our midst, the cancer that is
eating the heart out of the great American compact of trust and faith
between the people and their elected representatives.
We know that unlimited soft money contributions make a mockery of our
election laws and threaten the fairness of the legislative process. We
know that phony issue ads paid for with unlimited corporate and union
funds undermine the ability of citizens to understand who is
bankrolling the candidates and why. We can find bipartisan solutions to
these problems that respect all legitimate First Amendment rights if we
are willing to put partisan political advantage aside and sit down and
work it out.
Senator McCain and I are ready--we have been ready ever since we
introduced our bill--to make changes to our bill that will bring new
supporters on board and get us past the 60 vote threshold that the
Senate rules have placed in our way, so long as we stay true to the
goal of a cleaner, fairer, system in which money will no longer
dominate.
We will all be proud of the results if we can do that Mr. President.
And the American people will be proud of us. So I look forward to
working with Senator McCain and will all my colleagues who want to give
the American people a campaign finance system that will protect and
nurture our democracy as we enter the 21st century.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 26
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE
Sec. 101. Soft money of political parties.
Sec. 102. Increased contribution limits for State committees of
political parties and aggregate contribution limit for
individuals.
Sec. 103. Reporting requirements.
[[Page S424]]
TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES
Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications
Sec. 201. Disclosure of electioneering communications.
Sec. 202. Coordinated communications as contributions.
Sec. 203. Prohibition of corporate and labor disbursements for
electioneering communications.
Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures
Sec. 211. Definition of independent expenditure.
Sec. 212. Civil penalty.
Sec. 213. Reporting requirements for certain independent expenditures.
Sec. 214. Independent versus coordinated expenditures by party.
Sec. 215. Coordination with candidates.
TITLE III--DISCLOSURE
Sec. 301. Filing of reports using computers and facsimile machines;
filing by Senate candidates with Commission.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of deposit of contributions with incomplete
contributor information.
Sec. 303. Audits.
Sec. 304. Reporting requirements for contributions of $50 or more.
Sec. 305. Use of candidates' names.
Sec. 306. Prohibition of false representation to solicit contributions.
Sec. 307. Soft money of persons other than political parties.
Sec. 308. Campaign advertising.
TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION
Sec. 401. Voluntary personal funds expenditure limit.
Sec. 402. Political party committee coordinated expenditures.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Codification of Beck decision.
Sec. 502. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes.
Sec. 503. Limit on congressional use of the franking privilege.
Sec. 504. Prohibition of fundraising on Federal property.
Sec. 505. Penalties for knowing and willful violations.
Sec. 506. Strengthening foreign money ban.
Sec. 507. Prohibition of contributions by minors.
Sec. 508. Expedited procedures.
Sec. 509. Initiation of enforcement proceeding.
TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS
Sec. 601. Severability.
Sec. 602. Review of constitutional issues.
Sec. 603. Effective date.
Sec. 604. Regulations.
TITLE I--REDUCTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE
SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 323. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
``(a) National Committees.--
``(1) In general.--A national committee of a political
party (including a national congressional campaign committee
of a political party) and any officers or agents of such
party committees, shall not solicit, receive, or direct to
another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of
funds, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the
limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this
Act.
``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to an
entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed,
maintained, or controlled by a national committee of a
political party (including a national congressional campaign
committee of a political party), or an entity acting on
behalf of a national committee, and an officer or agent
acting on behalf of any such committee or entity.
``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
``(1) In general.--An amount that is expended or disbursed
by a State, district, or local committee of a political party
(including an entity that is directly or indirectly
established, financed, maintained, or controlled by a State,
district, or local committee of a political party and an
officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or
entity) for Federal election activity shall be made from
funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting
requirements of this Act.
``(2) Federal election activity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `Federal election activity'
means--
``(i) voter registration activity during the period that
begins on the date that is 120 days before the date a
regularly scheduled Federal election is held and ends on the
date of the election;
``(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or
generic campaign activity conducted in connection with an
election in which a candidate appears on the ballot
(regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office
also appears on the ballot); and
``(iii) a communication that refers to a clearly identified
candidate (regardless of whether a candidate for State or
local office is also mentioned or identified) and is made for
the purpose of influencing a Federal election (regardless of
whether the communication is express advocacy).
``(B) Excluded activity.--The term `Federal election
activity' does not include an amount expended or disbursed by
a State, district, or local committee of a political party
for--
``(i) campaign activity conducted solely on behalf of a
clearly identified candidate for State or local office, if
the campaign activity is not a Federal election activity
described in subparagraph (A);
``(ii) a contribution to a candidate for State or local
office, if the contribution is not designated or used to pay
for a Federal election activity described in subparagraph
(A);
``(iii) the costs of a State, district, or local political
convention;
``(iv) the costs of grassroots campaign materials,
including buttons, bumper stickers, and yard signs, that name
or depict only a candidate for State or local office;
``(v) the non-Federal share of a State, district, or local
party committee's administrative and overhead expenses (but
not including the compensation in any month of an individual
who spends more than 20 percent of the individual's time on
Federal election activity) as determined by a regulation
promulgated by the Commission to determine the non-Federal
share of a State, district, or local party committee's
administrative and overhead expenses; and
``(vi) the cost of constructing or purchasing an office
facility or equipment for a State, district or local
committee.
``(c) Fundraising Costs.--An amount spent by a national,
State, district, or local committee of a political party, by
an entity that is established, financed, maintained, or
controlled by a national, State, district, or local committee
of a political party, or by an agent or officer of any such
committee or entity, to raise funds that are used, in whole
or in part, to pay the costs of a Federal election activity
shall be made from funds subject to the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
``(d) Tax-exempt Organizations.--A national, State,
district, or local committee of a political party (including
a national congressional campaign committee of a political
party), an entity that is directly or indirectly established,
financed, maintained, or controlled by any such national,
State, district, or local committee or its agent, and an
officer or agent acting on behalf of any such party committee
or entity shall not solicit any funds for, or make or direct
any donations to, an organization that is described in
section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code (or
has submitted an application to the Secretary of the Treasury
for determination of tax-exemption under such section).
``(e) Candidates.--
``(1) In general.--A candidate, individual holding Federal
office, or agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal
office shall not solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend
funds in connection with an election for Federal office,
including funds for any Federal election activity, unless the
funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and
reporting requirements of this Act.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) State law.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the
solicitation or receipt of funds by an individual who is a
candidate for a State or local office in connection with such
election for State or local office if the solicitation or
receipt of funds is permitted under State law for any
activity other than a Federal election activity.
``(B) Fundraising events.--Paragraph (1) does not apply in
the case of a candidate who attends, speaks, or is a featured
guest at a fundraising event sponsored by a State, district,
or local committee of a political party.''.
SEC. 102. INCREASED CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATE COMMITTEES
OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND AGGREGATE CONTRIBUTION
LIMIT FOR INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Contribution Limit for State Committees of Political
Parties.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by inserting ``(other than a committee described in
subparagraph (D))'' after ``committee''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to a political committee established and maintained
by a State committee of a political party in any calendar
year that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000''.
(b) Aggregate Contribution Limit for Individual.--Section
315(a)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``$25,000'' and
inserting ``$30,000''.
SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Reporting Requirements.--Section 304 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by
section 213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Political Committees.--
``(1) National and congressional political committees.--The
national committee of a political party, any national
congressional campaign committee of a political party, and
any subordinate committee of either, shall report all
receipts and disbursements during the reporting period.
``(2) Other political committees to which section 323
applies.--A political committee (not described in paragraph
(1)) to which section 323(b)(1) applies shall report all
receipts
[[Page S425]]
and disbursements made for activities described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B)(v) of section 323(b)(2).
``(3) Itemization.--If a political committee has receipts
or disbursements to which this subsection applies from any
person aggregating in excess of $200 for any calendar year,
the political committee shall separately itemize its
reporting for such person in the same manner as required in
paragraphs (3)(A), (5), and (6) of subsection (b).
``(4) Reporting periods.--Reports required to be filed
under this subsection shall be filed for the same time
periods required for political committees under subsection
(a).''.
(b) Repeal of Building Fund Exception to the Definition of
Contribution.--Section 301(8)(B) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (viii); and
(2) by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as clauses
(viii) through (xiii), respectively.
TITLE II--INDEPENDENT AND COORDINATED EXPENDITURES
Subtitle A--Electioneering Communications
SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 434) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Additional Statements on Electioneering
Communications.--
``(1) Statement required.--Every person who makes a
disbursement for electioneering communications in an
aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar
year shall, within 24 hours of each disclosure date, file
with the Commission a statement containing the information
described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Contents of statement.--Each statement required to be
filed under this subsection shall be made under penalty of
perjury and shall contain the following information:
``(A) The identification of the person making the
disbursement, of any entity sharing or exercising direction
or control over the activities of such person, and of the
custodian of the books and accounts of the person making the
disbursement.
``(B) The State of incorporation and the principal place of
business of the person making the disbursement.
``(C) The amount of each disbursement during the period
covered by the statement and the identification of the person
to whom the disbursement was made.
``(D) The elections to which the electioneering
communications pertain and the names (if known) of the
candidates identified or to be identified.
``(E) If the disbursements were paid out of a segregated
account to which only individuals could contribute, the names
and addresses of all contributors who contributed an
aggregate amount of $500 or more to that account during the
period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar
year and ending on the disclosure date.
``(F) If the disbursements were paid out of funds not
described in subparagraph (E), the names and addresses of all
contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of $500 or
more to the organization or any related entity during the
period beginning on the first day of the preceding calendar
year and ending on the disclosure date.
``(G) Whether or not any electioneering communication is
made in coordination, cooperation, consultation, or concert
with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or
any authorized committee, any political party or committee,
or any agent of the candidate, political party, or committee
and if so, the identification of any candidate, party,
committee, or agent involved.
``(3) Electioneering communication.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `electioneering communication'
means any broadcast from a television or radio broadcast
station which--
``(i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office;
``(ii) is made (or scheduled to be made) within--
``(I) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election
for such Federal office; or
``(II) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or
a convention or caucus of a political party that has
authority to nominate a candidate, for such Federal office;
and
``(iii) is broadcast from a television or radio broadcast
station whose audience includes the electorate for such
election, convention, or caucus.
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include--
``(i) communications appearing in a news story, commentary,
or editorial distributed through the facilities of any
broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or
controlled by any political party, political committee, or
candidate; or
``(ii) communications which constitute expenditures or
independent expenditures under this Act.
``(4) Disclosure date.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `disclosure date' means--
``(A) the first date during any calendar year by which a
person has made disbursements for electioneering
communications aggregating in excess of $10,000; and
``(B) any other date during such calendar year by which a
person has made disbursements for electioneering
communications aggregating in excess of $10,000 since the
most recent disclosure date for such calendar year.
``(5) Contracts to disburse.--For purposes of this
subsection, a person shall be treated as having made a
disbursement if the person has contracted to make the
disbursement.
``(6) Coordination with other requirements.--Any
requirement to report under this subsection shall be in
addition to any other reporting requirement under this Act.''
SEC. 202. COORDINATED COMMUNICATIONS AS CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 315(a)(7)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(B)) is amended by inserting
after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) if--
``(I) any person makes, or contracts to make, any payment
for any electioneering communication (within the meaning of
section 304(d)(3)); and
``(II) such payment is coordinated with a candidate or an
authorized committee of such candidate, a Federal, State, or
local political party or committee thereof, or an agent or
official of any such candidate, party, or committee;
such payment or contracting shall be treated as a
contribution to such candidate and as an expenditure by such
candidate; and''.
SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS
FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering
communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.
(b) Applicable Electioneering Communication.--Section 316
of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For
purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering
communication' means an electioneering communication (within
the meaning of section 304(d)(3)) which is made by--
``(A) any entity to which subsection (a) applies other than
a section 501(c)(4) organization; or
``(B) a section 501(c)(4) organization from amounts derived
from the conduct of a trade or business or from an entity
described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Special operating rules.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the following rules shall apply:
``(A) An electioneering communication shall be treated as
made by an entity described in paragraph (1)(A) if--
``(i) the entity described in paragraph (1)(A) directly or
indirectly disburses any amount for any of the costs of the
communication; or
``(ii) any amount is disbursed for the communication by a
corporation or organization or a State or local political
party or committee thereof that receives anything of value
from the entity described in paragraph (1)(A), except that
this clause shall not apply to any communication the costs of
which are defrayed entirely out of a segregated account to
which only individuals can contribute.
``(B) A section 501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts
from business activities or from any entity described in
paragraph (1)(A) shall be considered to have paid for any
communication out of such amounts unless such organization
paid for the communication out of a segregated account to
which only individuals can contribute.
``(3) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' means--
``(i) an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under
section 501(a) of such Code; or
``(ii) an organization which has submitted an application
to the Internal Revenue Service for determination of its
status as an organization described in clause (i); and
``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a
disbursement if the person has contracted to make the
disbursement.
``(4) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize an
organization exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from carrying out any activity
which is prohibited under such Code.''
Subtitle B--Independent and Coordinated Expenditures
SEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE.
Section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C.
431) is amended by striking paragraph (17) and inserting the
following:
``(17) Independent expenditure.--The term `independent
expenditure' means an expenditure by a person--
``(A) expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
clearly identified candidate; and
``(B) that is not provided in coordination with a candidate
or a candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a
candidate or a candidate's agent.''
SEC. 212. CIVIL PENALTY.
Section 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 437g) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (4)(A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``clause (ii)'' and
inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S426]]
``(iii) If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote
of 4 of its members that there is probable cause to believe
that a person has made a knowing and willful violation of
section 304(c), the Commission shall not enter into a
conciliation agreement under this paragraph and may institute
a civil action for relief under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
(B) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ``(except an action
instituted in connection with a knowing and willful violation
of section 304(c))'' after ``subparagraph (A)''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Any person'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), any
person''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) In the case of a knowing and willful violation of
section 304(c) that involves the reporting of an independent
expenditure, the violation shall not be subject to this
subsection.''.
SEC. 213. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES.
Section 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section 201) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the undesignated
matter after subparagraph (C); and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Time for Reporting Certain Expenditures.--
``(1) Expenditures aggregating $1,000.--
``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political
committee) that makes or contracts to make independent
expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the 20th day,
but more than 24 hours, before the date of an election shall
file a report describing the expenditures within 24 hours
after that amount of independent expenditures has been made.
``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report
under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional
report within 24 hours after each time the person makes or
contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an
additional $1,000 with respect to the same election as that
to which the initial report relates.
``(2) Expenditures aggregating $10,000.--
``(A) Initial report.--A person (including a political
committee) that makes or contracts to make independent
expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more at any time up to
and including the 20th day before the date of an election
shall file a report describing the expenditures within 48
hours after that amount of independent expenditures has been
made.
``(B) Additional reports.--After a person files a report
under subparagraph (A), the person shall file an additional
report within 48 hours after each time the person makes or
contracts to make independent expenditures aggregating an
additional $10,000 with respect to the same election as that
to which the initial report relates.
``(3) Place of filing; contents.--A report under this
subsection--
``(A) shall be filed with the Commission; and
``(B) shall contain the information required by subsection
(b)(6)(B)(iii), including the name of each candidate whom an
expenditure is intended to support or oppose.''.
SEC. 214. INDEPENDENT VERSUS COORDINATED EXPENDITURES BY
PARTY.
Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2
U.S.C. 441a(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting
``, (3), and (4)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Independent versus coordinated expenditures by
party.--
``(A) In general.--On or after the date on which a
political party nominates a candidate, a committee of the
political party shall not make both expenditures under this
subsection and independent expenditures (as defined in
section 301(17)) with respect to the candidate during the
election cycle.
``(B) Certification.--Before making a coordinated
expenditure under this subsection with respect to a
candidate, a committee of a political party shall file with
the Commission a certification, signed by the treasurer of
the committee, that the committee, on or after the date
described in subparagraph (A), has not and shall not make any
independent expenditure with respect to the candidate during
the same election cycle.
``(C) Application.--For purposes of this paragraph, all
political committees established and maintained by a national
political party (including all congressional campaign
committees) and all political committees established and
maintained by a State political party (including any
subordinate committee of a State committee) shall be
considered to be a single political committee.
``(D) Transfers.--A committee of a political party that
submits a certification under subparagraph (B) with respect
to a candidate shall not, during an election cycle, transfer
any funds to, assign authority to make coordinated
expenditures under this subsection to, or receive a transfer
of funds from, a committee of the political party that has
made or intends to make an independent expenditure with
respect to the candidate.''.
SEC. 215. COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES.
(a) Definition of Coordination With Candidates.--
(1) Section 301(8).--Section 301(8) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) coordinated activity (as defined in subparagraph
(C)).''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) `Coordinated activity' means anything of value
provided by a person in coordination with a candidate, an
agent of the candidate, or the political party of the
candidate or its agent for the purpose of influencing a
Federal election (regardless of whether the value being
provided is a communication that is express advocacy) in
which such candidate seeks nomination or election to Federal
office, and includes any of the following:
``(i) A payment made by a person in cooperation,
consultation, or concert with, at the request or suggestion
of, or pursuant to any general or particular understanding
with a candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, the
political party of the candidate, or an agent acting on
behalf of a candidate, authorized committee, or the political
party of the candidate.
``(ii) A payment made by a person for the production,
dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in
part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form
of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's
authorized committee, or an agent of a candidate or
authorized committee (not including a communication described
in paragraph (9)(B)(i) or a communication that expressly
advocates the candidate's defeat).
``(iii) A payment made by a person based on information
about a candidate's plans, projects, or needs provided to the
person making the payment by the candidate or the candidate's
agent who provides the information with the intent that the
payment be made.
``(iv) A payment made by a person if, in the same election
cycle in which the payment is made, the person making the
payment is serving or has served as a member, employee,
fundraiser, or agent of the candidate's authorized committee
in an executive or policymaking position.
``(v) A payment made by a person if the person making the
payment has served in any formal policy making or advisory
position with the candidate's campaign or has participated in
formal strategic or formal policymaking discussions (other
than any discussion treated as a lobbying contact under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in the case of a candidate
holding Federal office or as a similar lobbying activity in
the case of a candidate holding State or other elective
office) with the candidate's campaign relating to the
candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or election,
to Federal office, in the same election cycle as the election
cycle in which the payment is made.
``(vi) A payment made by a person if, in the same election
cycle, the person making the payment retains the professional
services of any person that has provided or is providing
campaign-related services in the same election cycle to a
candidate (including services provided through a political
committee of the candidate's political party) in connection
with the candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or
election, to Federal office, including services relating to
the candidate's decision to seek Federal office, and the
person retained is retained to work on activities relating to
that candidate's campaign.
``(vii) A payment made by a person who has directly
participated in fundraising activities with the candidate or
in the solicitation or receipt of contributions on behalf of
the candidate.
``(viii) A payment made by a person who has communicated
with the candidate or an agent of the candidate (including a
communication through a political committee of the
candidate's political party) after the declaration of
candidacy (including a pollster, media consultant, vendor,
advisor, or staff member acting on behalf of the candidate),
about advertising message, allocation of resources,
fundraising, or other campaign matters related to the
candidate's campaign, including campaign operations,
staffing, tactics, or strategy.
``(ix) The provision of in-kind professional services or
polling data (including services or data provided through a
political committee of the candidate's political party) to
the candidate or candidate's agent.
``(x) A payment made by a person who has engaged in a
coordinated activity with a candidate described in clauses
(i) through (ix) for a communication that clearly refers to
the candidate or the candidate's opponent and is for the
purpose of influencing that candidates's election (regardless
of whether the communication is express advocacy).
``(D) For purposes of subparagraph (C), the term
`professional services' means polling, media advice,
fundraising, campaign research or direct mail (except for
mailhouse services solely for the distribution of voter
guides as defined in section 431(20)(B)) services in support
of a candidate's pursuit of nomination for election, or
election, to Federal office.
``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (C), all political
committees established and maintained by a national political
party (including all congressional campaign committees) and
all political committees established and maintained by a
State political party (including any subordinate committee of
a State committee) shall be considered to be a single
political committee.''.
(2) Section 315(a)(7).--Section 315(a)(7) (2 U.S.C.
441a(a)(7)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
[[Page S427]]
``(B) a coordinated activity, as described in section
301(8)(C), shall be considered to be a contribution to the
candidate, and in the case of a limitation on expenditures,
shall be treated as an expenditure by the candidate.
(b) Meaning of Contribution or Expenditure for the Purposes
of Section 316.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)) is amended by
striking ``shall include'' and inserting ``includes a
contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in
section 301, and also includes''.
TITLE III--DISCLOSURE
SEC. 301. FILING OF REPORTS USING COMPUTERS AND FACSIMILE
MACHINES; FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH
COMMISSION.
(a) Use of Computer and Facsimile Machine.--Section 302(a)
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
434(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and inserting
the following:
``(11)(A) The Commission shall promulgate a regulation
under which a person required to file a designation,
statement, or report under this Act--
``(i) is required to maintain and file a designation,
statement, or report for any calendar year in electronic form
accessible by computers if the person has, or has reason to
expect to have, aggregate contributions or expenditures in
excess of a threshold amount determined by the Commission;
and
``(ii) may maintain and file a designation, statement, or
report in electronic form or an alternative form, including
the use of a facsimile machine, if not required to do so
under the regulation promulgated under clause (i).
``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement,
report, or notification that is filed electronically with the
Commission accessible to the public on the Internet not later
than 24 hours after the designation, statement, report, or
notification is received by the Commission.
``(C) In promulgating a regulation under this paragraph,
the Commission shall provide methods (other than requiring a
signature on the document being filed) for verifying
designations, statements, and reports covered by the
regulation. Any document verified under any of the methods
shall be treated for all purposes (including penalties for
perjury) in the same manner as a document verified by
signature.''.
(b) Senate Candidates File With Commission.--Title III of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 302, by striking subsection (g) and
inserting the following:
``(g) Filing With the Commission.--All designations,
statements, and reports required to be filed under this Act
shall be filed with the Commission.''; and
(2) in section 304--
(A) in subsection (a)(6)(A), by striking ``the Secretary
or''; and
(B) in the matter following subsection (c)(2), by striking
``the Secretary or''.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF DEPOSIT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WITH
INCOMPLETE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION.
Section 302 of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Deposit of Contributions.--The treasurer of a
candidate's authorized committee shall not deposit, except in
an escrow account, or otherwise negotiate a contribution from
a person who makes an aggregate amount of contributions in
excess of $200 during a calendar year unless the treasurer
verifies that the information required by this section with
respect to the contributor is complete.''.
SEC. 303. AUDITS.
(a) Random Audits.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1) In general.--'' before ``The
Commission''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Random audits.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Commission may conduct random audits and investigations to
ensure voluntary compliance with this Act. The selection of
any candidate for a random audit or investigation shall be
based on criteria adopted by a vote of at least 4 members of
the Commission.
``(B) Limitation.--The Commission shall not conduct an
audit or investigation of a candidate's authorized committee
under subparagraph (A) until the candidate is no longer a
candidate for the office sought by the candidate in an
election cycle.
``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph does not apply to an
authorized committee of a candidate for President or Vice
President subject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
(b) Extension of Period During Which Campaign Audits May Be
Begun.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking ``6 months''
and inserting ``12 months''.
SEC. 304. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $50 OR
MORE.
Section 304(b)(3)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
at 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)(A) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$50''; and
(2) by striking the semicolon and inserting ``, except that
in the case of a person who makes contributions aggregating
at least $50 but not more than $200 during the calendar year,
the identification need include only the name and address of
the person;''.
SEC. 305. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.
Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and
inserting the following:
``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall
include the name of the candidate who authorized the
committee under paragraph (1).
``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized
committee shall not--
``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name; or
``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local
party committee, use the name of any candidate in any
activity on behalf of the committee in such a context as to
suggest that the committee is an authorized committee of the
candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has been
authorized by the candidate.''.
SEC. 306. PROHIBITION OF FALSE REPRESENTATION TO SOLICIT
CONTRIBUTIONS.
Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``Sec. 322.'' the following: ``(a)
In General.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Solicitation of Contributions.--No person shall
solicit contributions by falsely representing himself or
herself as a candidate or as a representative of a candidate,
a political committee, or a political party.''.
SEC. 307. SOFT MONEY OF PERSONS OTHER THAN POLITICAL PARTIES.
(a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434) (as amended by section
103(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Disbursements of Persons Other Than Political
Parties.--
``(1) In general.--A person, other than a political
committee of a political party or a person described in
section 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that
makes an aggregate amount of disbursements in excess of
$50,000 during a calendar year for activities described in
paragraph (2) shall file a statement with the Commission--
``(A) on a monthly basis as described in subsection
(a)(4)(B); or
``(B) in the case of disbursements that are made within 20
days of an election, within 24 hours after the disbursements
are made.
``(2) Activity.--An activity is described in this paragraph
if it is--
``(A) Federal election activity;
``(B) an activity described in section 316(b)(2)(A) that
expresses support for or opposition to a candidate for
Federal office or a political party; or
``(C) an activity described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of
section 316(b)(2).
``(3) Applicability.--This subsection does not apply to--
``(A) a candidate or a candidate's authorized committees;
or
``(B) an independent expenditure.
``(4) Contents.--A statement under this section shall
contain such information about the disbursements made during
the reporting period as the Commission shall prescribe,
including--
``(A) the aggregate amount of disbursements made;
``(B) the name and address of the person or entity to whom
a disbursement is made in an aggregate amount in excess of
$200;
``(C) the date made, amount, and purpose of the
disbursement; and
``(D) if applicable, whether the disbursement was in
support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or a political
party, and the name of the candidate or the political
party.''.
(b) Definition of Generic Campaign Activity.--Section 301
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Generic campaign activity.--The term `generic
campaign activity' means an activity that promotes a
political party and does not promote a candidate or non-
Federal candidate.''.
SEC. 308. CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING.
Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``Whenever a
political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of
financing any communication through any broadcasting station,
newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing,
or any other type of general public political advertising, or
whenever'';
(ii) by striking ``an expenditure'' and inserting ``a
disbursement''; and
(iii) by striking ``direct''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and permanent street
address'' after ``name''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Any printed communication described in subsection (a)
shall--
``(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by
the recipient of the communication;
``(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the
other contents of the communication; and
``(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast
between the background and the printed statement.
``(d)(1) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described
in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall include, in
addition to the requirements of that paragraph, an audio
statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and
states that the candidate has approved the communication.
[[Page S428]]
``(2) If a broadcast or cablecast communication described
in paragraph (1) is broadcast or cablecast by means of
television, the communication shall include, in addition to
the audio statement under paragraph (1), a written statement
that--
``(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly
readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast
between the background and the printed statement, for a
period of at least 4 seconds; and
``(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic
or similar image of the candidate.
``(e) Any broadcast or cablecast communication described in
paragraph (3) of subsection (a) shall include, in addition to
the requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken
manner, the following statement: `________________ is
responsible for the content of this advertisement.' (with the
blank to be filled in with the name of the political
committee or other person paying for the communication and
the name of any connected organization of the payor). If
broadcast or cablecast by means of television, the statement
shall also appear in a clearly readable manner with a
reasonable degree of color contrast between the background
and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4
seconds.''.
TITLE IV--PERSONAL WEALTH OPTION
SEC. 401. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 101) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 324. VOLUNTARY PERSONAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE LIMIT.
``(a) Eligible Senate Candidate.--
``(1) Primary election.--
``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for the office of Senator
is an eligible Senate candidate with respect to a primary
election if the candidate files with the Commission a
declaration that the candidate and the candidate's authorized
committees will not exceed the personal funds expenditure
limit.
``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A)
shall be filed not later than the date on which the candidate
files with the appropriate State officer as a candidate for
the primary election.
``(2) General election.--
``(A) Declaration.--A candidate for the office of Senator
is an eligible Senate candidate with respect to a general
election if the candidate files with the Commission--
``(i) a declaration under penalty of perjury, with
supporting documentation as required by the Commission, that
the candidate and the candidate's authorized committees did
not exceed the personal funds expenditure limit in connection
with the primary election; and
``(ii) a declaration that the candidate and the candidate's
authorized committees will not exceed the personal funds
expenditure limit in connection with the general election.
``(B) Time to file.--The declaration under subparagraph (A)
shall be filed not later than 7 days after the earlier of--
``(i) the date on which the candidate qualifies for the
general election ballot under State law; or
``(ii) if under State law, a primary or run-off election to
qualify for the general election ballot occurs after
September 1, the date on which the candidate wins the primary
or runoff election.
``(b) Personal Funds Expenditure Limit.--
``(1) In general.--The aggregate amount of expenditures
that may be made in connection with an election by an
eligible Senate candidate or the candidate's authorized
committees from the sources described in paragraph (2) shall
not exceed $50,000.
``(2) Sources.--A source is described in this paragraph if
the source is--
``(A) personal funds of the candidate and members of the
candidate's immediate family; or
``(B) proceeds of indebtedness incurred by the candidate or
a member of the candidate's immediate family.
``(c) Certification by the Commission.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall determine whether a
candidate has met the requirements of this section and, based
on the determination, issue a certification stating whether
the candidate is an eligible Senate candidate.
``(2) Time for certification.--Not later than 7 business
days after a candidate files a declaration under paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a), the Commission shall certify
whether the candidate is an eligible Senate candidate.
``(3) Revocation.--The Commission shall revoke a
certification under paragraph (1), based on information
submitted in such form and manner as the Commission may
require or on information that comes to the Commission by
other means, if the Commission determines that a candidate
violates the personal funds expenditure limit.
``(4) Determinations by Commission.--A determination made
by the Commission under this subsection shall be final,
except to the extent that the determination is subject to
examination and audit by the Commission and to judicial
review.
``(d) Penalty.--If the Commission revokes the certification
of an eligible Senate candidate--
``(1) the Commission shall notify the candidate of the
revocation; and
``(2) the candidate and a candidate's authorized committees
shall pay to the Commission an amount equal to the amount of
expenditures made by a national committee of a political
party or a State committee of a political party in connection
with the general election campaign of the candidate under
section 315(d).''.
SEC. 402. POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE COORDINATED EXPENDITURES.
Section 315(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) (as amended by section 214) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(5) This subsection does not apply to expenditures made
in connection with the general election campaign of a
candidate for the Senate who is not an eligible Senate
candidate (as described in section 324(a)).''.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. CODIFICATION OF BECK DECISION.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
158) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Nonunion Member Payments to Labor Organization.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be an unfair labor practice for
any labor organization which receives a payment from an
employee pursuant to an agreement that requires employees who
are not members of the organization to make payments to such
organization in lieu of organization dues or fees not to
establish and implement the objection procedure described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Objection procedure.--The objection procedure
required under paragraph (1) shall meet the following
requirements:
``(A) The labor organization shall annually provide to
employees who are covered by such agreement but are not
members of the organization--
``(i) reasonable personal notice of the objection
procedure, the employees eligible to invoke the procedure,
and the time, place, and manner for filing an objection; and
``(ii) reasonable opportunity to file an objection to
paying for organization expenditures supporting political
activities unrelated to collective bargaining, including but
not limited to the opportunity to file such objection by
mail.
``(B) If an employee who is not a member of the labor
organization files an objection under the procedure in
subparagraph (A), such organization shall--
``(i) reduce the payments in lieu of organization dues or
fees by such employee by an amount which reasonably reflects
the ratio that the organization's expenditures supporting
political activities unrelated to collective bargaining bears
to such organization's total expenditures; and
``(ii) provide such employee with a reasonable explanation
of the organization's calculation of such reduction,
including calculating the amount of organization expenditures
supporting political activities unrelated to collective
bargaining.
``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
`expenditures supporting political activities unrelated to
collective bargaining' means expenditures in connection with
a Federal, State, or local election or in connection with
efforts to influence legislation unrelated to collective
bargaining.''.
SEC. 502. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended by striking section 313 and
inserting the following:
``SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
``(a) Permitted Uses.--A contribution accepted by a
candidate, and any other amount received by an individual as
support for activities of the individual as a holder of
Federal office, may be used by the candidate or individual--
``(1) for expenditures in connection with the campaign for
Federal office of the candidate or individual;
``(2) for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in
connection with duties of the individual as a holder of
Federal office;
``(3) for contributions to an organization described in
section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
``(4) for transfers to a national, State, or local
committee of a political party.
``(b) Prohibited Use.--
``(1) In general.--A contribution or amount described in
subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to
personal use.
``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a
contribution or amount shall be considered to be converted to
personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill
any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would
exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or
individual's duties as a holder of Federal officeholder,
including--
``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
``(B) a clothing purchase;
``(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
``(D) a country club membership;
``(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
``(F) a household food item;
``(G) a tuition payment;
``(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or
other form of entertainment not associated with an election
campaign; and
``(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or
recreational facility.''.
[[Page S429]]
SEC. 503. LIMIT ON CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE FRANKING
PRIVILEGE.
Section 3210(a)(6) of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) A Member of Congress shall not mail any mass mailing
as franked mail during a year in which there will be an
election for the seat held by the Member during the period
between January 1 of that year and the date of the general
election for that Office, unless the Member has made a public
announcement that the Member will not be a candidate for
reelection to that year or for election to any other Federal
office.''.
SEC. 504. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.
Section 607 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of
value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election
from a person who is located in a room or building occupied
in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee
of the United States. An individual who is an officer or
employee of the Federal Government, including the President,
Vice President, and Members of Congress, shall not solicit a
donation of money or other thing of value in connection with
a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or
building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an
officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
``(2) Penalty.--A person who violates this section shall be
fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned more than 3 years, or
both.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``or Executive Office
of the President'' after ``Congress'' .
SEC. 505. PENALTIES FOR KNOWING AND WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.
(a) Increased Penalties.--Section 309(a) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A), and (6)(B), by striking
``$5,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
(2) in paragraphs (5)(B) and (6)(C), by striking ``$10,000
or an amount equal to 200 percent'' and inserting ``$20,000
or an amount equal to 300 percent''.
(b) Equitable Remedies.--Section 309(a)(5)(A) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5))
is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting
``, and may include equitable remedies or penalties,
including disgorgement of funds to the Treasury or community
service requirements (including requirements to participate
in public education programs).''.
(c) Automatic Penalty for Late Filing.--Section 309(a) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a))
is amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Penalty for late filing.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Mandatory monetary penalties.--The Commission shall
establish a schedule of mandatory monetary penalties that
shall be imposed by the Commission for failure to meet a time
requirement for filing under section 304.
``(ii) Required filing.--In addition to imposing a penalty,
the Commission may require a report that has not been filed
within the time requirements of section 304 to be filed by a
specific date.
``(iii) Procedure.--A penalty or filing requirement imposed
under this paragraph shall not be subject to paragraph (1),
(2), (3), (4), (5), or (12).
``(B) Filing an exception.--
``(i) Time to file.--A political committee shall have 30
days after the imposition of a penalty or filing requirement
by the Commission under this paragraph in which to file an
exception with the Commission.
``(ii) Time for commission to rule.--Within 30 days after
receiving an exception, the Commission shall make a
determination that is a final agency action subject to
exclusive review by the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit under section 706 of title
5, United States Code, upon petition filed in that court by
the political committee or treasurer that is the subject of
the agency action, if the petition is filed within 30 days
after the date of the Commission action for which review is
sought.'';
(2) in paragraph (5)(D)--
(A) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``In any case in which a penalty or filing requirement
imposed on a political committee or treasurer under paragraph
(13) has not been satisfied, the Commission may institute a
civil action for enforcement under paragraph (6)(A).''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end of the last
sentence the following: ``or has failed to pay a penalty or
meet a filing requirement imposed under paragraph (13)''; and
(3) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)(A)''
and inserting ``paragraph (4)(A) or (13)''.
SEC. 506. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN.
Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 441e) is amended--
(1) by striking the heading and inserting the following:
``contributions and donations by foreign nationals''; and
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
``(A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to
promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in
connection with a Federal, State, or local election; or
``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a
political party; or
``(2) for a person to solicit, accept, or receive such
contribution or donation from a foreign national.''.
SEC. 507. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
U.S.C. 431 et seq.) (as amended by section 401) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 326. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.
An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make
a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation
to a committee of a political party.''.
SEC. 508. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Section 309(a) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) (as amended by
section 505(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(14)(A) If the complaint in a proceeding was filed within
60 days preceding the date of a general election, the
Commission may take action described in this subparagraph.
``(B) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts
alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the
Commission, that there is clear and convincing evidence that
a violation of this Act has occurred, is occurring, or is
about to occur, the Commission may order expedited
proceedings, shortening the time periods for proceedings
under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as necessary to allow
the matter to be resolved in sufficient time before the
election to avoid harm or prejudice to the interests of the
parties.
``(C) If the Commission determines, on the basis of facts
alleged in the complaint and other facts available to the
Commission, that the complaint is clearly without merit, the
Commission may--
``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time
periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and
(4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in
sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or
prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is
insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election,
summarily dismiss the complaint.''.
(b) Referral to Attorney General.--Section 309(a)(5) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5))
is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) The Commission may at any time, by an affirmative
vote of at least 4 of its members, refer a possible violation
of this Act or chapter 95 or 96 of title 26, United States
Code, to the Attorney General of the United States, without
regard to any limitation set forth in this section.''.
SEC. 509. INITIATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.
Section 309(a)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``reason to
believe that'' and inserting ``reason to investigate
whether''.
TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; REGULATIONS
SEC. 601. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act,
or the application of a provision or amendment to any person
or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions and amendment to any person
or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
SEC. 602. REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the
United States from any final judgment, decree, or order
issued by any court ruling on the constitutionality of any
provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act.
SEC. 603. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the
amendments made by this Act take effect on the date that is
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act or January 1,
2000, whichever occurs first.
SEC. 604. REGULATIONS.
The Federal Election Commission shall prescribe any
regulations required to carry out this Act and the amendments
made by this Act not later than 270 days after the effective
date of this Act.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
S. 27. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 to extend and clarify the pay-as-you-go
requirements regarding the Social Security trust funds; to the
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to
report or be discharged.
[[Page S430]]
THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND PROTECTION ACT OF 1999
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), in offering the Social
Security Trust Fund Protection Act of 1999, legislation extending our
current PAYGO budget rules, and clarifying that Congress may not use
so-called budget surpluses to pay for tax cuts or new spending when
those surpluses are really Social Security Trust Fund balances.
Mr. President, as I noted last year when I first offered this
measure, it gives me particular pleasure to join with Senator Hollings
in introducing this bill.
Both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a leading
voice for fiscal prudence.
While popular in theory, fiscal prudence is often less attractive in
practice, but Senator Hollings has taken tough positions, even when
those positions may not have been politically attractive.
That is the true measure of commitment to honest and prudent
budgeting, and I am proud to join him in this effort today.
Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today ensures that the
PAYGO rule will continue to require that any new entitlement spending
or tax cuts be fully paid for.
Our bill clarifies current PAYGO procedures to remove any doubt that
tax cuts or increased spending must continue to be offset.
It extends the PAYGO rule, which currently covers legislation enacted
through 2002, until we are no longer using Social Security to mask the
deficit.
Under our bill, Congress could not use a so-called surplus until it
is real, namely when the budget runs a surplus without using Social
Security Trust Funds.
Mr. President, we have entered an era of transition with regard to
the Federal budget.
For decades, Congress and the White House ran up huge deficits,
producing a mounting national debt.
Over the past few years, we have worked to bring down those deficits.
Those efforts have been successful, in large part, and we are now
witnessing something Congress has not seen in 30 years--actually
achieving balance in the so-called unified budget.
But, Mr. President, while achieving a balanced unified budget is a
significant and encouraging accomplishment, it is not a final victory.
We still have a way to go.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, some do want to declare a final
victory, and use any projected unified budget surpluses for increased
spending or tax cuts.
But as many have noted on this floor, projected surpluses based on a
so-called unified budget are not real.
In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on-
budget deficits, masked by Social Security revenues.
The distinction is absolutely fundamental.
As I have noted before, the very word ``surplus'' connotes some extra
amount or bonus in addition to the funds we need to meet our expenses
and obligations.
One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in
excess of what is needed or required.''
Mr. President, the projected unified budget surplus is not ``more
than or in excess of what is needed or required.''
Those funds are needed.
They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in
anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries.
Mr. President, let me just note that the problem of using Social
Security trust fund balances to mask the real budget deficit is not a
partisan issue.
Both political parties have used this accounting gimmick--here in
Congress and in the White House.
But it must stop, and this legislation can help us stop it.
Mr. President, budget rules cannot by themselves reduce the deficit,
but they can protect what has been achieved and guard against further
abuse.
The PAYGO rule governing entitlements and taxes, along with the
discretionary spending caps, have kept Congress disciplined and on
track.
Mr. President, earlier I said we are in an era of budget transition.
With some hard work this year, we can leave the years of unified
budget deficits behind us.
And with some more work, we can move toward real budget balances
without using Social Security revenues.
Mr. President, that must be our highest priority.
If Congress does not begin to rid itself of its addiction to Social
Security trust fund balances, we will put the benefits of future
retirees at serious risk.
Fortunately, Mr. President, we are within reach of the goal of
balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust funds.
If we stay the course, and continue the tough, sometimes unpopular
work of reducing the deficit, we can give this Nation an honest budget,
one that is truly balanced.
And the time to act is now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 27
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 ``Social Security Trust Fund
Protection Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO
REQUIREMENT.
(a) Extension.--
(1) In general.--Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking
``enacted before October 1, 2002,'' both places it appears.
(2) Points of order.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by
striking the last sentence.
(b) Modification.--
(1) Definition.--Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(20) The term `budget increase' means, for purposes of
section 252, an increase in direct spending outlays or a
decrease in receipts relative to the baseline, and the term
`budget decrease' means, for purposes of section 252, a
decrease in direct spending outlays or an increase in
receipts relative to the baseline.''.
(2) Purpose.--Section 252(a) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(A) by striking ``increases the deficit'' and inserting
``results in a net budget increase''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``except
to the extent that the total budget surplus exceeds the
social security surplus''.
(3) Timing.--Section 252(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(A) in its side heading by inserting ``and amount'' after
``Timing''; and
(B) by striking ``net deficit increase'' and inserting
``net budget increase'' and by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``The requirement of the preceding
sentence shall apply for any fiscal year only to the extent
that the surplus, if any, before the sequestration required
by this section in the total budget (which, notwithstanding
section 710 of the Social Security Act, includes both on-
budget and off-budget Government accounts) is less than the
combined surplus for that year in the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund.''.
(4) Calculating.--Section 252(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
(A) in its side heading by striking ``deficit increase''
and inserting ``net budget increase'';
(B) by striking ``deficit increase or decrease'' the first
place it appears and inserting ``any net budget increase'';
and
(C) by striking ``any net deficit increase or decrease in
the current year resulting from''.
(5) Eliminating.--The side heading of section 252(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended by striking ``Deficit Increase'' and inserting ``Net
Budget Increase''.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 28. A bill to authorize an interpretive center and related visitor
facilities within the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
four corners monument interpretive center act
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to the introduce the Four
Corners Monument Interpretive Center Act. The Four Corners is the only
location in our nation where the boundaries of four states meet at one
point.
Each year more than a quarter of a million visitors from around the
world
[[Page S431]]
brave heat and discomfort to visit the Four Corners. This legislation
will provide basic amenities to these travelers and provide an
important economic opportunity for the Indian Nations who share the
Four Corners area.
The Four Corners area is unique for reasons other than the makeup of
its political boundaries. This location was home to some of the
earliest Americans, the Anasazi people. Little known about this ancient
people, but the Four Corners area contains many of the clues left
behind to help us learn about their society. This heritage has created
an area of rich historical, archeological, and cultural significance as
well as natural beauty.
In more recent history, in 1949, the Governors of Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Utah met at the Four Corners Monument for a historic
meeting. Each Governor sat in his state's corner and ate a picnic lunch
together. The governors pledged to meet every so often to reaffirm
their commitment to working together for the good of the four states
and for the Four Corners region. This year marks the 50th anniversary
of that historic meeting. I think we should reaffirm their commitment
to cooperation by establishing this center that will promote
opportunity in this region.
This legislation is important for the Navajo Nation and the Mountain
Utes who share control of the existing Four Corners Monument. And, we
must be clear what we mean by ``monument.'' In contrast to the 1.7
million acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument recently
declared by President Clinton, the ``monument'' that marks the spot at
Four Corners is a simple concrete disk containing the four states'
seals.
Native Americans have set up small open air stalls around the
monument to exhibit and sell their native crafts. But, there is no
electricity, no running water, no permanent restroom facilities, and no
phone service in the area.
The interpretive center provided by this legislation would not only
assist these Native Americans economically, but it would provide a
valuable resource to visitors who would like to learn more about the
culture, history, and environment of the Four Corners region.
Mr. President, I wish to emphasize that this bill reflects the
initiative of the local tribes and elected officials. This is not a
federal imposition, but federal support of sustainable economic
development in an area that is in desperate need of it. The Four
Corners Heritage Council, which is comprised of tribal leaders, local
government and private sectors leaders, has been instrumental in
developing this bill.
Not only will the interpretive center benefit the local tribes, but
it will help to create more interest among tourists of other
attractions and sites in the entire Four Corners region. Within a 100
mile radius of the monument there are multiple sites and parks for the
enjoyment of tourists, such as Zion National Park, Arches National
Park, the Grand Canyon, Rainbow Bridge, Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, and
much, much, more. Because of its central location, the center would act
as a staging ground for the entire Colorado Plateau.
That this proposal reflects the needs of so many in the area, is
reflected by the strong support among all the region's tribal and local
governments, and the San Juan Forum, which represents federal state and
local interests in the four states. The Albuquerque Tribune
editorialized last year that ``the project merits New Mexico's strong
support.'' The state of Arizona has already set aside $250,000 for
their share of the project. In addition, the Arizona Department of
Transportation has produced draft plans for the new center and for the
road changes that would be required. The other states have also shown
interest as well, which is important as they will be required to match
the $2 million authorized by this bill for the project.
Mr. President, this bill represents cooperation of federal, state,
local, and tribal governments in an effort to reaffirm our ties to our
past while building for our future. I urge my colleagues to give this
proposal their full support.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this
important legislation being introduced today by my friend from Utah,
Senator Hatch. The bill authorizes the construction of a much needed
interpretive visitor center at the Four Corners Monument. An identical
bill passed the Senate unanimously last September.
As I am sure all Senators know, the Four Corners is the only place in
America where the boundaries of four states meet in one spot. The
monument is located on the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Reservations and
currently operated as a Tribal Park.
Nearly a quarter of a million people visit this unique site every
year. However, currently there are no facilities for tourists at the
park and nothing that explains the very special features of the Four
Corners region. This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to
contribute $2 million toward the construction of an interpretive center
and basic facilities for visitors.
Mr. President, the Four Corners Monument is more than a geographic
curiosity. It also serves as a focal point for some of the most
beautiful landscape and significant cultural attractions in our
country. An interpretive center will help visitors appreciate the many
special features of the region. For example, within a short distance of
the monument are the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado; the Red
Rock and Natural Bridges areas of Utah; and in Arizona, Monument Valley
and Canyon de Chelly. The beautiful San Juan River, one of the top
trout streams in the Southwest, flows through Colorado, New Mexico, and
Utah.
In my state of New Mexico, both the legendary mountain known as
Shiprock and the Chaco Canyon Culture National Historical Park are a
short distance from the Four Corners.
Mr. President, Shiprock is one of the best known and most beautiful
landmarks in New Mexico. The giant volcanic monolith rises nearly 2000
feet straight up from the surrounding plain. Ancient legend tells us
the mountain was created when a giant bird settled to earth and turned
to stone. In the Navajo language, the mountain is named Tse' bi t' ai
or the Winged Rock. Early Anglo settlers saw the mountain's soaring
spires and thought they resembled the sails of a huge ship, so they
named it Shiprock.
The Four Corners is also the site of Chaco Canyon. Chaco was an
important Anasazi cultural center from about 900 through 1130 A.D. Pre-
Columbian civilization in the Southwest reached its greatest
development there. The massive stone ruins, containing hundreds of
rooms, attest to Chaco's cultural importance. As many as 7,000 people
may have lived at Chaco at one time. Some of the structures are thought
to house ancient astronomical observatories to mark the passage of the
seasons. The discovery of jewelry from Mexico and California and a vast
network of roads is evidence of the advanced trading carried on at
Chaco. Perhaps, the most spectacular accomplishment at Chaco was in
architecture. Pueblo Bonito, the largest structure, contains more than
800 rooms and 32 kivas. Some parts are more than five stories high. The
masonry work is truly exquisite. Stones were so finely worked and
fitted together that no mortar was needed. Remarkably, all this was
accomplished without metal tools or the wheel.
Mr. President, 1999 marks the centennial year of the first monument
at the Four Corners. An interpretive center is urgently needed today to
showcase the history, culture, and scenery of this very special place.
New facilities at the monument will attract visitors and help stimulate
economic development throughout the region.
The legislation the Senate passed last year had wide-spread support
from state, tribal, and local interests.
Mr. President, I hope the Senate will again take prompt action on
this bill. I also urge the House to move forward this year to pass this
important legislation. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with
Senator Hatch, and I thank him for his efforts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 7, 1998, editorial
from the Albuquerque Tribune be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Albuquerque Tribune, May 7, 1998]
Four Corners Visitors Center--And Beyond
When scheming to promote tourism, four heads are better
than one.
New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and Colorado have an opportunity
to create the proposed $4 million Four Corners visitors
center. The project merits New Mexico's strong support.
[[Page S432]]
The Tribune has liked the idea of forging a four-state
regional alliance for tourism ever since former Interior
Secretary Stewart Udall proposed his ``America's Scenic
Circle'' plan on these pages June 18. He argued that New
Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and the Indian tribes in
those states should reach out to the international tourism
market by joining forces. The cultural and natural
attractions in these states, taken individually, have great
appeal, he said--but nothing like they would if touted
together in respectful and tastefully designed packages.
The Trib revisited the idea of regional tourism alliances
again in the Insight & Opinion section April 30. There, state
and Albuquerque tourism officials explained how such
alliances could boost the effect of New Mexico's tourism-
marketing dollars.
The Four Corners visitors center would become a strong
footing for a four-state alliance.
It would be built at the Four Corners Monument Tribal Park,
where the four states meet. The exact site and design are
undetermined, and the Navajo and Ute tribes would have a say
in the development. We hope the design physically binds the
four states together. There is no visitors center at Four
Corners now.
The center was proposed by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch last week
in a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Half of the $4
million cost would be paid with federal tax dollars. The
remainder would be split among the four states--giving each a
deep stake in the project.
The purpose of the center is to clearly interpret, showcase
and promote the special features of the region, from Shiprock
and Chaco Canyon in New Mexico to Mesa Verde in Colorado to
Red Rock in Utah to Monument Valley in Arizona. Every state
and tribe involved would benefit.
The bill does not say so, but the center also could become
the focus for continuing, broader relationships along the
lines that Udall proposed. It commits the four states to
working with one another at least in the Four Corners area;
it's not a quantum leap from that to ``America's Scenic
Circle.''
Let's use our four heads and support this move.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 29. A bill to amend section 1086 of title 10, United States Code,
to provide for payment under CHAMPUS of certain health care expenses
incurred by certain members and former members of the uniformed
services and their dependents to the extent that such expenses are not
payments under medicare, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
THE CAMPUS AMENDMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I feel that it is imperative that our
nation continue its firm commitment to those individuals and their
families who have served in the Armed Forces and made us the great
nation we are today. As this population ages, there is a need for a
wider range of health services, some of which are simply not available
under Medicare. These individuals made a commitment to their nation,
trusting that when they needed help the nation would honor that
commitment. The bill I am introducing today would ensure the highest
possible quality of care for these dedicated citizens and their
families by authorizing payment under CHAMPUS of certain health care
expenses to the extent such expenses are not payable under Medicare.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 29
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF MEDICARE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION
OF CHAMPUS COVERAGE FOR CARE COVERED BY ANOTHER
HEALTH CARE PLAN.
(a) Amendment and Reorganization of Exceptions.--Subsection
(d) of section 1086 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(d)(1) Section 1079(j) of this title shall apply to a
plan contracted for under this section except as follows:
``(A) Subject to paragraph (2), a benefit may be paid under
such plan in the case of a person referred to in subsection
(c) for items and services for which payment is made under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
``(B) No person eligible for health benefits under this
section may be denied benefits under this section with
respect to care or treatment for any service-connected
disability which is compensable under chapter 11 of title 38
solely on the basis that such person is entitled to care or
treatment for such disability in facilities of the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
``(2) If a person described in paragraph (1)(A) receives
medical or dental care for which payment may be made under
both title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq.) and a plan contracted for under subsection (a), the
amount payable for that care under the plan may not exceed
the difference between--
``(A) the sum of any deductibles, coinsurance, and balance
billing charges that would be imposed on the person if
payment for that care were made solely under that title; and
``(B) the sum of any deductibles, coinsurance, and balance
billing charges that would be imposed on the person if
payment for that care were made solely under the plan.
``(3) A plan contracted for under this section shall not be
considered a group health plan or large group health plan for
the purposes of paragraph (2) or (3) of section 1862(b) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)).
``(4) A person who, by reason of the application of
paragraph (1), receives a benefit for items or services under
a plan contracted for under this section shall provide the
Secretary of Defense with any information relating to amounts
charged and paid for the items and services that, after
consulting with the other administering Secretaries, the
Secretary requires. A certification of such person regarding
such amounts may be accepted for the purposes of determining
the benefit payable under this section.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (g); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).
SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 1713(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``section 1086(d)(1) of title 10 or''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect with
respect to health care items or services provided on and
after the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 31. A bill to amend title 1, United States Code, to clarify the
effect an application of legislation; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
to clarify the application and effect of legislation
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
clarify the application and effect of legislation which the Congress
enacts.
My act is simple and straightforward. It provides that unless future
legislation expressly states otherwise, new enactments shall be applied
prospectively and shall not create private rights of action. This will
significantly reduce unnecessary litigation and court costs, and will
benefit both the public and our judicial system.
The purpose of this legislation is to tackle a persistent problem
that is easy to prevent. When Congress enacts a bill, the legislation
often does not indicate whether it is to be applied retroactively or
whether it creates private rights of action. The failure of the
Congress to address these issues in each piece of legislation results
in unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. This uncertainty leads to
lawsuits, thereby contributing to the high cost of litigation and the
congestion of our courts.
In the absence of clear action by the Congress on its intent
regarding these critical threshold questions, the outcome is left up to
the courts. Whether a law applies to conduct that occurred before the
effective date of the Act and whether a private person has been granted
the right to sue on their own behalf in civil court under an Act can be
critical or even dispositive of a case. Even if the issue is only one
aspect of a case and it is raised early in a lawsuit, a decision that
the lawsuit can proceed generally cannot be appealed until the end of
the case. If the appellate court eventually rules that one of these
issues should have prevented the trial, the litigants have been put to
substantial burden and unnecessary expenses which could have been
avoided.
Currently, courts attempt to determine the intent of the Congress in
deciding the effect and application of legislation in this regard.
Thus, courts look first and foremost to the statutory language. If a
statute expressly provides that it is retroactive or creates a private
cause of action, that dictate is followed. Further, courts apply a
presumption that legislation is not retroactive. This is an entirely
appropriate, longstanding rule because, absent mistake or an emergency,
fundamental fairness generally dictates that conduct should be assessed
under the rules that existed at the time the conduct took place. There
is a similar presumption that the Congress did not intend to create
rights beyond those that it expressly includes in its legislation.
If the intent of Congress is not clear from the statute, courts
generally look
[[Page S433]]
to legislative history, statutory structure, and possible other sources
of Congressional intent. This is where the unnecessary complexity and
confusion is created. Sources other than statutory language are to
varying degrees less reliable in predicting Congressional intent.
They are much more difficult to interpret and may even be
contradictory. The more sources for the courts to analyze and the more
vague the standard for review, the more likely courts will reach
different results. Under current practice, trial courts around the
country reach conflicting and inconsistent results on these issues, as
do appellate courts when the issues are appealed.
The problem of whether legislation is retroactive was dramatically
illustrated after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. District
courts and courts of appeal all over the country were required to
resolve whether the 1991 Act should be applied retroactively, and the
issue ultimately was considered by the Supreme Court. However, by the
time the Court resolved the issue in 1994, well over 100 lower courts
had ruled on this question and, although most had not found
retroactivity, their decisions were inconsistent. Countless litigants
across the country expended substantial resources debating this
threshold procedural issue.
All this litigation arose from a statute that contained no language
providing that it be retroactive. To conclude that the provision of the
statute in issue in the case was not to be applied retroactively, the
majority opinion of the Court took 39 pages in the United States
Reporter to explain why. It undertook a detailed analysis that
demonstrates the unnecessary complexity of the current standard. It is
no wonder that some Supreme Court justices argued in this case that a
court should look only to whether the language of the statute expressly
provides for retroactivity. That is what I propose. If my law has been
in effect, the litigation would have been averted, while the outcome
would have been exactly the same as the Supreme Court decided.
Under my bill, newly enacted laws are not to be applied retroactively
and do not create a private right of action, unless the legislation
expressly provides otherwise. It is important to note that my bill does
not in any way restrict the Congress on these important issues. The
Congress may override this presumption or create new private rights of
action.
One United States District Judge in my State informs me that he
spends at least 10 percent of his time on these issues. It is clear
that this legislation would save litigants and our judicial system
millions of dollars by avoiding a great deal of uncertainty and
litigation.
Mr. President, if we are truly concerned about relieving the backlog
of cases in our courts and reducing the costs of litigation, we should
help our judicial system to focus its limited time and resources on
resolving the merits of disputes, rather than deciding these
preliminary matters. We hear numerous complaints about overworked
judges and crowded dockets. This is a simple and straightforward way to
do something about it. The Congress can help reduce the Federal
caseload and help simplify the law. We should act on this important
reform promptly.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 31
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION OF STATUTES AND THE CREATION OF
PRIVATE CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8. Rules for determining the retroactive effect of
legislation and the creation of private claims and causes
of action
``(a) Unless a provision included in the Act expressly
specifies otherwise, any Act of Congress enacted after the
effective date of this section shall--
``(1) be prospective in application only; and
``(2) not create a private claim or cause of action.
``(b) In applying subsection (a)(1), a court shall
determine the relevant retroactivity event in an Act of
Congress (if such event is not specified in such Act) for
purposes of determining if the Act--
``(1) is prospective in application only; or
``(2) affects conduct that occurred before the effective
date of the Act.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 7 the
following:
``8. Rules for determining the retroactive effect of legislation and
the creation of private claims and causes of action.''.
______
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 32. A bill to eliminate a requirement for a unanimous verdict in
criminal trials in Federal courts; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
legislation to allow federal criminal conviction on a 10-2 jury vote
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
allow juries to convict criminals on a 10-2 jury vote rather than a
unanimous vote.
It is my belief that this change to the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure will bring about increased efficiency and finality in our
Nation's Federal court system while maintaining the integrity of the
pursuit of justice.
This legislation is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling
concerning unanimity injury verdicts, specifically in Apodaca v. Oregon
[406 U.S. 404 (1972)]. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial does not require that the
jury's vote be unanimous. The Supreme Court affirmed an Oregon law that
permitted what I am proposing--a 10-2 conviction in criminal
prosecutions.
Mr. President, clearly there is no constitutional mandate for the
current requirement under the Federal Rules of a jury verdict by a
unanimous vote. The origins of the unanimity rule are not easy to
trace, although it may date back to the latter half of the 14th
century. One theory proffered is that defendants had few other rules to
ensure a fair trial and a unanimous jury vote for conviction
compensated for other inadequacies at trial. Of course, today the
entire trial process is heavily tilted towards the accused with many,
many safeguards in place to ensure that the defendant receives a fair
trial.
Its interesting that a unanimity requirement was considered by our
Founding Fathers as part of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution,
but it was rejected. The proposed language for the Sixth Amendment, as
introduced by James Madison in the House of Representatives, provided
for trial by jury as well as a ``requisite of unanimity for
conviction.'' The language eventually adopted by the Congress and the
States in the Sixth Amendment provides ``the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury,'' but does not specify any
requirement on conviction. This was a wise decision.
It is clear that ``trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to
the American scheme of justice,'' as the Supreme Court has stated.
Juries are representative of the community and their solemn duty is to
hear the evidence, deliberate, and decide the case after careful review
of the facts and the law. As the Supreme Court has noted, a jury can
responsibly perform this function if allowed to decide the case by a
margin that is less than unanimous.
This change for jury verdicts in the Federal courts will reduce the
likelihood of a single juror corrupting an otherwise thoughtful and
reasonable deliberation of the evidence. It is not easy to adequately
screen a juror for potential bias before they are selected to serve on
a jury. This cannot be done with absolute certainty. We should work to
prevent one such juror from having the power to prevent justice from
being served.
One juror should not have the power to allow a criminal to go free in
the face of considerable opposition from his peers on the jury. Even if
a defendant is tried again after one or two jurors hold out against
conviction, a new trial is very costly and time-consuming. Most
importantly, a new trial substantially delays justice for the victims
and society.
It is important to note that this new rule could also work to the
advantage of someone on trial. Currently, if there is a hung jury, a
prosecutor has the
[[Page S434]]
power to retry a defendant. This is true even if only one juror
believed the defendant was guilty. Under this new rule, if at least ten
jurors concluded that the defendant was not guilty, he would be
acquitted and could not be forced to endure a new trial. This rule has
the potential to benefit either side as it brings finality to a
criminal case.
In other words, there are cases where a requirement of unanimity
produced a hung jury where, had there been a nonunanimous allowance,
the jury would have voted to convict or acquit. Yet, in either
instance, the defendant is accorded his constitutional right of a
judgment by his peers. It is my firm belief that this legislation will
not undermine the pillars of justice or result in the conviction of
innocent persons.
Moreover, I believe the American people will strongly support this
reform to allow a 10-2 decision. This is one way the Congress can help
fight crime and promote criminal justice.
Mr. President, I hope the Congress will support this important
proposal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its
entirety in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 32
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF RULE 31 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Rule 31(a) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure is amended by striking ``unanimous'' and
inserting ``by five-sixths of the jury''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to cases pending or commenced on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Helms)
S. 33. A bill to amend title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to
exclude prisoners from the requirements of that title and section; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
the state and local prison relief act
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
address an undue burden that has arisen out of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The purpose of the ADA was to give disabled Americans the opportunity
to fully participate in society and contribute to it. This was a worthy
goal. But even legislation with the best of intentions often has
unintended consequences. I submit that one of those is the application
of the ADA to state and local prisoners throughout America.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections v. Yeskey [118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998)] that the ADA applied to
every state prison and local jail in this country. To no avail, the
Attorneys General of most states, as well as numerous state and local
organizations, had joined with Pennsylvania in court filings to oppose
the ADA applying to prisoners.
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the circuit courts were split on
the issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, my home circuit, had
forcefully concluded that the ADA, as well as its predecessor and
companion law, the Rehabilitation Act, did not apply to state
prisoners. The decision focused on federalism concerns and the fact
that the Congress did not make clear that it intended to involve itself
to this degree in an activity traditionally reserved to the States.
However, the Supreme Court did not agree, holding that the language
of the Act is broad enough to clearly cover state prisons. It is not an
issue on the Federal level because the Federal Bureau of Prisons
voluntarily complies with the Act. The Supreme Court did not say
whether applying the ADA to state prisons exceeded the Congress' powers
under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, but we should
not wait on the outcome of this argument to act. Although it was
rational for the Supreme Court to read the broad language of the ADA
the way it did, it is far from clear that we in the Congress considered
the application of this sweeping new social legislation in the prison
environment.
The Seventh Circuit has recognized that the ``failure to exclude
prisoners may well have been an oversight.'' The findings and purpose
of the law seem to support this. The introductory language of the ADA
states, ``The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with
disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency'' to allow ``people
with disabilities . . . to compete on an equal basis and to pursue
those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous.''
Of course, a prison is not a free society, as the findings and purpose
of the Act envisioned. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In short, as
the Ninth Circuit explained, ``The Act was not designed to deal
specifically with the prison environment; it was intended for general
societal application.''
In any event, now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it is time for
the Congress to confront this issue. The Congress should act now to
exempt state and local prisons from the ADA. That is why I am
introducing the State and Local Prison Relief Act, as I did soon after
the Supreme Court decided the Yeskey case last year.
The State and Local Prison Relief Act would exempt prisons from the
requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for prisoners. More
specifically, it exempts any services, accommodations, programs,
activities or treatment of any kind regarding prisoners that may
otherwise be required by the Acts. Through this language, which I have
slightly revised since introducing the bill last year, I wish to make
entirely clear that the bill is not intended to exempt prisons from
having to accommodate disabled legal counsel, visitors, or others who
are not inmates. Also, the fact that the bill applies to Title II of
the ADA should make clear that it is not intended to exempt prison
hiring practices for non-inmate employees. The bill is intended only to
apply to prisoners.
I firmly believe that if we do not act, the ADA will have broad
adverse implications for the management of penal institutions.
Prisoners will file an endless number of lawsuits demanding special
privileges, which will involve Federal judges in the intricate details
of running our state and local prisons.
Mr. President, we should continuously remind ourselves that the
Constitution created a Federal government of limited, enumerated
powers. Those powers not delegated to the Federal government were
reserved to the states or the people. As James Madison wrote in
Federalist No. 45, ``the powers delegated to the Federal government are
few and definite. . . . [The powers] which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite.'' The Federal government
should avoid intrusion into matters traditionally reserved for the
states. We must respect this delicate balance of power. Unfortunately,
federalism is more often spoken about than respected.
Although the entire ADA raises federalism concerns, the problem is
especially acute in the prison context. There are few powers more
traditionally reserved for the states than crime. The criminal laws
have always been the province of the states, and the vast majority of
prisoners have always been housed in state prisons. The First Congress
enacted a law asking the states to house Federal prisoners in their
jails for fifty cents per month. The first Federal prison was not built
until over 100 years later, and only three existed before 1925.
Even today, as the size and scope of the Federal government has grown
immensely, only about 6% of prisoners are housed in Federal
institutions. Managing that other 94% is a core state function. As the
Supreme Court has stated, ``Maintenance of penal institutions is an
essential part of one of government's primary functions--the
preservation of societal order through enforcement of the criminal law.
It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger
interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws,
regulations, and procedures.''
The primary function of prisons is to house criminals. Safety and
security are the overriding concerns of prison administration. The
rules and regulations, the daily schedules, the living and working
arrangements--these all revolve around protecting prison employees,
inmates, and the public. But the goal of the ADA is to take away any
barrier to anyone with any disability. Accommodating inmates in the
[[Page S435]]
manner required by the ADA will interfere with the ability of prison
administrators to keep safety and security their overriding concern.
For example, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that a prisoner
who disobeyed a direct order could not be punished because of the ADA.
The judge said it was okay for a prisoner to return to his cell after
he was told not to by a guard, saying the prisoner was justified in
refusing to comply because he was doing so to relieve stress built up
due to his Tourette's Syndrome.
The practical effect of the ADA will be that prison officials will
have to grant special privileges to certain inmates and to excuse
others from complying with generally-applicable prison rules. For
example, a federal judge ordered an Iowa prison to install cable TV in
a disabled inmate's cell because the man had difficulty going to the
common areas to watch TV. After much public protest, the ruling was
eventually reversed.
The ADA presents a perfect opportunity for prisoners to try to beat
the system, and use the courts to do it. There are over 1.7 million
inmates in state prisons and local jails, and the numbers are rising
every year. Indeed, the total prison population has grown about 6.5%
per year since 1990. Prisons have a substantially greater percentage of
persons with disabilities that are covered by the ADA than the general
population, including AIDS, mental retardation, psychological
disorders, learning disabilities, drug addiction, and alcoholism.
Further, administrators control every aspect of prisoners' lives, such
as assigning educational opportunities, recreation, and jobs in prison
industries. Combine these facts, and the possibilities for lawsuits are
endless.
For example, in most state prison systems, inmates are classified and
assigned based in part on their disabilities. This helps administrators
meet the disabled inmates' needs in a cost-effective manner. However,
under the ADA, prisoners probably will be able to claim that they must
be assigned to a prison without regard to their disability. Were it not
for their disability, they may have been assigned to the prison closest
to their home, and in that case, every prison would have to be able to
accommodate every disability. That could mean every prison having, for
example, mental health treatment centers, services for hearing-impaired
inmates, and dialysis treatment. The cost is potentially enormous.
A related expense is attorney's fees. The ADA has incentives to
encourage private litigants to vindicate their rights in court. Any
plaintiff, including an inmate, who is only partially successful can
get generous attorney's fees and monetary damages, possibly including
even punitive damages. In an ongoing ADA class action lawsuit in
California, the state has paid the prisoners' attorneys over $2
million, with hourly fees as high as $300.
Applying the ADA to prisons is the latest unfunded Federal mandate
that we are imposing on the states.
Adequate funding is hard for prisons to achieve, especially in state
and local communities where all government funds are scarce. The public
is angry about how much money must be spent to house prisoners. Even
with prison populations rising, the people do not want more of their
money spent on prisoners. Often, there is simply not enough money to
make the changes in challenged programs to accommodate the disabled. If
prison administrators do not have the money to change a program, they
will probably have to eliminate it. Thus, accommodation could mean the
elimination of worthwhile educational, recreational, and rehabilitative
programs, making all inmates worse off.
Apart from money, accommodation may mean modifying the program in
such a way as to take away its beneficial purpose. A good example is
the Supreme Court's Yeskey case itself. Yeskey was declared medically
ineligible to participate in a boot camp program because he had high
blood pressure. So, he sued under the ADA. The boot camp required
rigorous physical activity, such as work projects. If the program has
to be changed to accommodate his physical abilities, it may not meet
its basic goals, and the authorities may eliminate it. Thus, the result
could be that everyone loses the benefit of an otherwise effective
correctional tool.
Another impact of the ADA may be to make an already volatile prison
environment even more difficult to control. Many inmates are very
sensitive to the privileges and benefits that others get in a world
where privileges are relatively few. Some have irrational suspicions
and phobias. An inmate who is not disabled may be angry if he believes
a disabled prisoner is getting special treatment, without rationally
accepting that the law require it, and could take out his anger on
others around him, including the disabled prisoner.
We must keep in mind that it is judges who will be making these
policy decisions. To apply the Act and determine what phrases like
``qualified individual with a disability'' mean, judges must involve
themselves in intricate, fact-intensive issues. Essentially, the ADA
requires judges to micromanage prisons. Judges are not qualified to
second-guess prison administrators and make these complex, difficult
decisions. Prisons cannot be run by judicial decree.
In applying Constitutional rights to prisoners, the Supreme Court has
tried to get away from micromanagement and has viewed prisoner claims
deferentially in favor of the expertise of prison officials. It has
stated that we will not ``substitute our judgment on difficult and
sensitive matters of institutional administration for the
determinations of those charged with the formidable task of running a
prison. This approach ensures the ability of corrections officials to
anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the
intractable problems of prison administration, and avoids unnecessary
intrusion of the judiciary into problems particularly ill suited to
resolution by decree.''
Take for example a case from the Fourth Circuit, my home circuit,
from 1995. The Court explained that a morbidly obese inmate presented
corrections officials ``with a lengthy and ever-increasing list of
modifications which he insisted were necessary to accommodate his obese
condition. Thus, he demanded a larger cell, a cell closer to support
facilities, handrails to assist him in using the toilet, wider
entrances to his cell and the showers, non-skid matting in the lobby
area, and alternative outdoor recreational activities to accommodate
his inability to stand or walk for long periods.'' It is not workable
for judges to resolve all of these questions.
It is noteworthy that a primary purpose of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act was to stop judges from micromanaging prisons and to reduce
the burdens of prison litigation. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court recognized last year, the PLRA is having some success. However,
this most recent Supreme Court decision will hamper that progress.
Moreover, the ADA delegated to Federal agencies the authority to
create regulations to implement the law. In response, the Federal
bureaucracy has created extremely specific and detailed mandates.
Regarding facilities, they dictate everything from the number of water
fountains to the flash rates of visual alarms. State and local
correctional authorities must fall in line behind these regulations. In
yet another way, we have the Justice Department exercising regulatory
oversight over our state and local communities.
Prisons are fundamentally different from other places in society.
Prisoners are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges of law-
abiding citizens, but they often get them. They have cable television.
They have access to better gyms and libraries than most Americans. The
list goes on.
The public is tired of special privileges for prisoners. Applying the
ADA to prisons is a giant step in the wrong direction. Prisoners will
abuse the ADA to get privilege they were previously denied, and the
reason will be the overreaching hand of the Federal government. We
should not let this happen.
Mr. President, the National Government has gone full circle. We have
gone from asking the states to house Federal prisoners to dictating to
the states how they must house their own prisoners. There must be some
end to the powers of the Federal government, and to the privileges it
grants the inmates of this Nation. I propose that we start by passing
this important legislation.
[[Page S436]]
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 33
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF PRISONERS.
(a) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.--Section
201(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12131(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The term shall not include a prisoner in a
prison, as such terms are defined in section 3626(g) of title
18, United States Code, with respect to services, programs,
activities, and treatment (including accommodations) relating
to the prison.''.
(b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--Paragraph (20) of section
7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as redesignated in
section 402(a)(1) of the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) Prison programs and activities; exclusion of
prisoners.--For purposes of section 504, the term `individual
with a disability' shall not include a prisoner in a prison,
as such terms are defined in section 3626(g) of title 18,
United States Code, with respect to programs and activities
(including accommodations) relating to the prison.''.
______
By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 34. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the
remedial jurisdiction of inferior Federal courts; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
the judicial taxation prohibition act
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
prohibit Federal judges from imposing a tax increase as a judicial
remedy.
It has always been my firm belief that Federal judges exceed the
boundaries of their limited jurisdiction under the Constitution when
they order new taxes or order increases in existing tax rates.
The Founding Fathers clearly understood that taxation was a role for
the legislative branch and not the judicial branch. Article I of the
Constitution lists the legislative powers, one of which is that ``the
Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.'' Article III
establishes the judicial powers, and the power to tax is nowhere
contained in Article III.
The Federalist Papers are also clear in this regard. In Federalist
No. 48, James Madison explained that ``the legislative branch alone has
access to the pockets of the people.'' In Federalist No. 78, Alexander
Hamilton stated, ``The judiciary . . . has no influence over . . . the
purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the
society, and can take no active resolution whatever.''
In 1990, in the case of Missouri v. Jenkins, five members of the
Supreme Court stated in dicta that although a Federal judge could not
directly raise taxes, he could order the local government to raise
taxes. There is no difference between a judge raising taxes and a judge
ordering a legislative official to raise taxes. I am hopeful that, if
the issue were directly before the Court today, a majority of the
current membership of the Court would reject that dicta and hold that
Federal judges do not have the power to order that taxes be raised.
However, in the event the Court does not correct this error, I am
introducing the Judicial Taxation Prohibition Act, which would prohibit
judges from raising taxes. I have introduced it in every Congress since
the Supreme Court's misguided decision was issued, and I intend to do
so until it is corrected. This legislation is essential to affirm the
separation of powers.
There is a simple reason why this distinction between the branches of
government is so important and must remain clear. The legislative
branch is responsible to the people through the democratic process.
However, the judicial branch is composed of individuals who are not
elected and have life tenure. By design, the members of the judicial
branch do not depend on the popular will for their offices. They are
not accountable to the people. They simply have no business setting the
rate of taxes the people must pay. For a judge to order that taxes be
increased amounts to taxation without representation. It is entirely
contrary to the understanding of the Founding Fathers.
The phrase ``taxation without representation'' recalls an important
time in America history that is worth repeating in some detail. The
Constitution can best be understood by referencing the era in which it
was adopted.
Not since Great Britain's ministry of George Grenville in 1765 have
the American people faced the assault of taxation without
representation as now authorized in the Jenkins decision. As part of
his imperial reforms to tighten British control in the colonies,
Grenville pushed the Stamp Act through the Parliament in 1765. This Act
required excise duties to be paid by the colonists in the form of
revenue stamps affixed to a variety of legal documents. This action
came at a time when the colonies were in an uproar over the Sugar Act
of 1764 which levied duties on certain imports such as sugar, indigo,
coffee, linens.
The ensuing firestorm of debate in America centered on the power of
Britain to tax the colonies. James Otis, a young Boston attorney,
echoed the opinion of most colonists stating that the Parliament did
not have power to tax the colonies because Americans had no
representation in that body. Mr. Otis had been attributed in 1761 with
the statement that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.''
In October 1765, delegates from nine states were sent to New York as
part of the Stamp Act Congress to protest the new law. It was during
this time that John Adams wrote in opposition to the Stamp Act, ``We
have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle . . .
that no freeman shall be subject to any tax to which he has not given
his own consent, in person or by proxy.'' A number of resolutions were
adopted by the Stamp Act Congress protesting the acts of Parliament.
One resolution stated, ``It is inseparably essential to the freedom of
a people . . . that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own
consent, given personally or by their representatives.'' The
resolutions concluded that the Stamp Act had a ``manifest tendency to
subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.''
Opposition to the Stamp Act was vehement throughout the colonies.
While Grenville's successor was determined to repeal the law, the
social, economic and political climate in the colonies brought on the
American Revolution. The principles expressed during the earlier crisis
against taxation without representation became firmly imbedded in our
Federal Constitution of 1787.
I recognize that some say this legislation is unconstitutional. They
argue that the Congress does not have the authority under Article III
to limit and regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal courts.
This argument has no basis in the Constitution or common sense.
Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution provides jurisdiction to
the lower Federal courts as the ``Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish.'' There is no mandate in the Constitution to confer
equity jurisdiction to the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the
flexibility under Article III to ``ordain and establish'' the lower
Federal courts as it deems appropriate. This basic premise has been
upheld by the Supreme Court in a number of cases including Lawcourt v.
Phillips, Lauf v. E.G. Skinner and Co., Kline v. Burke Construction
Co., and Sheldon v. Sill.
In other words, the Congress was expressly granted the authority to
establish lower Federal courts, which it did. What the Congress has
been given the power to do, it can certainly decide to stop doing. By
passing this bill, the Congress would simply be limiting the
jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts in a small area.
It is also important to note that this legislation would not restrict
the power of the Federal courts to remedy Constitutional wrongs.
Clearly, the Court has the power to order a remedy for a Constitutional
violation that may include expenditures of money by Federal, State, or
local governments. This bill simply requires that if the Court orders
that money be spent, it is for the legislative body to decide how to
comply with that order. The legislative body may choose to raise taxes,
but it also may choose to cut spending or sell assets. That choice of
how to come up
[[Page S437]]
with the money should always be for the legislature to decide. I
believe it is clear under Article III that the Congress has the
authority to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal Courts
in this fashion.
Mr. President, the dispositive issue presented by the Jenkins
decision is whether the American people want, as a matter of national
policy, to be exposed to taxation without their consent by an
independent and insulated judiciary. I most assuredly believe they do
not.
Mr. President, how long will it be before a Federal judge orders tax
increases to build new highways or prisons? I do not believe the
Founding Fathers had this type of activisim in mind when they
established the judicial branch of government.
Judicial activism is a matter of great concern to me and has been for
many years. I have always felt that Federal judges must strictly adhere
to the principle that it is their role to interpret the law and not
make the law. This simply principle is fundamental to our system of
government.
The American people deserve a response to the Jenkins decision. We
must provide protection against the imposition of taxes by an
unelected, unaccountable judiciary. We must not permit this blatant
violation of the separation of powers. We have a duty to right this
wrong.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 34
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 ``Judicial Taxation
Prohibition Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) a variety of effective and appropriate judicial
remedies are available for the full redress of legal and
constitutional violations under existing law, and that the
imposition or increase of taxes by courts is neither
necessary nor appropriate for the full and effective exercise
of Federal court jurisdiction;
(2) the imposition or increase of taxes by judicial order
constitutes an unauthorized and inappropriate exercise of the
judicial power under the Constitution of the United States
and is incompatible with traditional principles of law and
government of the United States and the basic principle of
the United States that taxation without representation is
tyranny;
(3) Federal courts exceed the proper boundaries of their
limited jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution of
the United States, and impermissibly intrude on the
legislative function in a democratic system of government,
when they issue orders requiring the imposition of new taxes
or the increase of existing taxes; and
(4) Congress retains the authority under article III,
sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the United States to
limit and regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal
courts that Congress has seen fit to establish, and such
authority includes the power to limit the remedial authority
of inferior Federal courts.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.
(a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1341 the
following:
``Sec. 1341A. Prohibition of judicial imposition or increase
of taxes
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
inferior court established by Congress shall have
jurisdiction to issue any remedy, order, injunction, writ,
judgment, or other judicial decree requiring the Federal
Government or any State or local government to impose any new
tax or to increase any existing tax or tax rate.
``(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit inferior
Federal courts from ordering duly authorized remedies,
otherwise within the jurisdiction of those courts, that may
require expenditures by a Federal, State, or local government
in any case in which those expenditures are necessary to
effectuate those remedies.
``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `tax'
includes--
``(1) personal income taxes;
``(2) real and personal property taxes;
``(3) sales and transfer taxes;
``(4) estate and gift taxes;
``(5) excise taxes;
``(6) user taxes;
``(7) corporate and business income taxes; and
``(8) licensing fees or taxes.''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter
85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1341 the following:
``1341A. Prohibition of judicial imposition or increase of taxes.''.
SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to
cases pending or commenced in a Federal court on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Graham):
S. 35. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
deduction for the long-term care insurance costs of all individuals who
are not eligible to participate in employer-subsidized long-term care
health plans; to the Committee on Finance.
______
S. 36. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance may
be obtained by Federal employees and annuitants; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
the american worker long-term care affordability act of 1999
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills that
are an important first step in helping Americans prepare for their
long-term care needs. The Long Term Care Affordability and Availability
Act and the American Worker Long Term Care Affordability Act. I am
pleased to have my colleague Senator Graham of Florida join me as a
cosponsor of these two bills.
Longer and healthier lives are a blessing and a testament to the
progress and advances made by our society. However, all Americans must
be alert and prepare for long-term care needs. The role of private
long-term care insurance is critical in meeting this challenge.
The financial challenges of health care in retirement are not new.
Indeed, too many family caregivers can tell stories about financial
devastation that was brought about by the serious long-term care needs
of a family member. Because increasing numbers of Americans are likely
to need long term care services, it is especially important to
encourage planning today.
Most families are not financially prepared when a loved one needs
long-term care. When faced with nursing home costs that can run more
than $40,000 a year, families often turn to Medicaid for help. In fact,
Medicaid pays for nearly 2 of every 3 nursing home residents at a cost
of more than $30 billion each year for nursing home costs. With the
impending retirement of the Baby Boomers, it is imperative that
Congress takes steps now to encourage all Americans to plan ahead for
potential long-term care needs.
The Long Term Care and Affordability and Availability Act will allow
Americans who do not currently have access to employer subsidized long-
term care plans to deduct the amount of such a plan from their taxable
income. This bill will encourage planning and personal responsibility
while helping to make long-term care insurance more affordable for
middle class taxpayers.
The American Worker Long-Term Care Affordability Act will establish a
program under which long-term care insurance may be obtained by current
and former employees of the federal government. This legislation will
make long-term care insurance affordable to the Federal community by
using the purchasing power of the federal government to assure quality,
competition and choice.
These measures will encourage Americans to be pro-active and prepare
for their own long term care needs by making insurance more widely
available and affordable. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the texts of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 35
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 ``Long-Term Care Affordability
and Availability Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR LONG-TERM CARE HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS
FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
EMPLOYER-SUBSIDIZED LONG-TERM CARE HEALTH
PLANS.
(a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of
[[Page S438]]
1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions) is amended
by redesignating section 222 as section 223 and by inserting
after section 221 the following new section:
``SEC. 222. QUALIFIED LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE COSTS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the amount
of the eligible long-term care premiums (as defined in
section 213(d)(10)) paid during the taxable year for coverage
of the taxpayer and the spouse and dependents of the
taxpayer.
``(b) Limitation Based on Other Coverage.--Subsection (a)
shall not apply to any taxpayer for any calendar month for
which the taxpayer is eligible to participate in any
subsidized long-term care plan maintained by any employer of
the taxpayer or of the spouse of the taxpayer. For purposes
of the preceding sentence, the term `subsidized long-term
care plan' means a subsidized health plan which includes
primarily coverage for qualified long-term care services (as
defined in section 7702B(c)) or is a qualified long-term care
insurance contract (as defined in section 7702B(b)).
``(c) Special Rules.--
``(1) Coordination with medical deduction.--Any amount paid
by a taxpayer for insurance to which subsection (a) applies
shall not be taken into account in computing the amount
allowable to the taxpayer as a deduction under section
213(a).
``(2) Deduction not allowed for self-employment tax
purposes.--The deduction allowable by reason of this section
shall not be taken into account in determining an
individual's net earnings from self-employment (within the
meaning of section 1402(a)) for purposes of chapter 2.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (C) of section 162(l)(2) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(C) Long-term care premiums.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this subsection for premiums on any qualified
long-term care insurance contract (as defined in section
7702B(b)).''
(2) Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code is amended by
inserting after paragraph (17) the following new paragraph:
``(18) Long-term care insurance costs of certain
individuals.--The deduction allowed by section 222.''
(3) The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item
and inserting the following new items:
``Sec. 222. Qualified long-term care insurance costs.
``Sec. 223. Cross reference.''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1998.
____
S. 36
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 ``The American Worker Long-
Term Care Affordability Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Subpart G of part III of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE
``Sec.
``9001. Definitions.
``9002. Availability of insurance.
``9003. Participating carriers.
``9004. Administrative functions.
``9005. Coordination with State laws.
``9006. Commercial items.
``Sec. 9001. Definitions
``In this chapter:
``(1) The term `employee' has the meaning given such term
by section 8901, but does not include an individual employed
by the government of the District of Columbia.
``(2) The term `annuitant'--
``(A) means--
``(i) a former employee who, based on the service of that
individual, receives an annuity under subchapter III of
chapter 83, chapter 84, or another retirement system for
employees of the Government (disregarding title XVIII of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) and any
retirement system established for employees described in
section 2105(c)); and
``(ii) any individual who receives an annuity under any
retirement system referred to in clause (i) (disregarding
those described parenthetically) as the surviving spouse of
an employee (including an amount under section 8442(b)(1)(A),
whether or not an annuity under section 8442(b)(1)(B) is also
payable) or of a former employee under clause (i); and
``(B) does not include a former employee of a Government
corporation excluded by regulation of the Office of Personnel
Management or the spouse of such a former employee.
``(3) The term `eligible relative', as used with respect to
an employee or annuitant, means each of the following:
``(A) The spouse of the employee or annuitant.
``(B) The father or mother of the employee or annuitant, or
an ancestor of either.
``(C) A stepfather or stepmother of the employee or
annuitant.
``(D) The father-in-law or mother-in-law of the employee or
annuitant.
``(E) A son or daughter of the employee or annuitant who is
at least 18 years of age.
``(F) A stepson or stepdaughter of the employee or
annuitant who is at least 18 years of age.
``(4) The term `Government' means the Government of the
United States, including an agency or instrumentality
thereof.
``(5) The term `group long-term care insurance' means group
long-term care insurance purchased by the Office of Personnel
Management under this chapter.
``(6) The term `individual long-term care insurance' means
any long-term care insurance offered under this chapter which
is not group long-term care insurance.
``(7) A carrier shall be considered to be a `qualified
carrier', with respect to a State, if it is licensed to issue
group or individual long-term care insurance (as the case may
be) under the laws of such State.
``(8) The term `qualified long-term care insurance
contract' has the meaning given such term by section 7702B of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(9) The term `State' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and any other territory or possession of the United States.
``Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance
``(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall establish
and administer a program through which employees and
annuitants may obtain group or individual long-term care
insurance for themselves, a spouse, or, to the extent
permitted under the terms of the contract of insurance
involved, any other eligible relative.
``(b) Long-term care insurance may not be offered under
this chapter unless--
``(1) the only insurance protection provided is coverage
under qualified long-term care insurance contracts; and
``(2) the insurance contract under which such coverage is
provided is issued by a qualified carrier.
``(c) In addition to the requirements otherwise applicable
under section 9001(8), in order to be considered a qualified
long-term care insurance contract for purposes of this
chapter, a contract shall be fully insured, whether through
reinsurance with other companies or otherwise.
``(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be considered to
require that long-term care insurance coverage be made
available in the case of any individual who would be
immediately benefit eligible.
``Sec. 9003. Participating carriers
``(a) Before the beginning of each year, the Office of
Personnel Management shall--
``(1) identify each carrier through whom any long-term care
insurance may be obtained under this chapter during such
year; and
``(2) prepare a list of the carriers identified under
paragraph (1), and a summary description of the insurance
obtainable under this chapter from each.
``(b) In order to carry out its responsibilities under
subsection (a), the Office shall annually specify the
timetable (including any application deadlines) and other
procedures that shall be followed by carriers seeking to be
allowed to offer long-term care insurance under this chapter
during the following year.
``(c) Before the beginning of each year, the Office shall
in a timely manner--
``(1) publish in the Federal Register the list (and summary
description) prepared under subsection (a) for such year; and
``(2) make available to each individual eligible to obtain
long-term care insurance under this chapter such information,
in a form acceptable to the Office after consultation with
the carrier, as may be necessary to enable the individual to
exercise an informed choice among the various options
available under this chapter.
``(d)(1) The Office shall arrange to have the appropriate
individual or individuals receive--
``(A) a copy of any policy of insurance obtained under this
chapter; or
``(B) in the case of group long-term care insurance, a
certificate setting forth the benefits to which an individual
is entitled, to whom the benefits are payable, and the
procedures for obtaining benefits, and summarizing the
provisions of the policy principally affecting the individual
or individuals involved.
``(2) Any certificate issued under paragraph (1)(B) shall
be issued instead of the certificate which the insurance
company would otherwise be required to issue.
``Sec. 9004. Administrative functions
``(a) Except as provided in section 9003, the sole
functions of the Office of Personnel Management under this
chapter shall be as follows:
``(1) To provide reasonable opportunity (consisting of not
less than one continuous 30-day period each year) for
eligible employees and annuitants to obtain long-term care
insurance coverage under this chapter.
``(2) To provide for a means by which the cost of any long-
term care insurance coverage obtained under this chapter may
be paid for through withholdings from the pay or annuity of
the employee or annuitant involved.
``(3) To contract for a qualified long-term care insurance
contract (in the case of group
[[Page S439]]
long-term care insurance) with each qualified carrier that
offers such insurance, if such carrier submits a timely
application under section 9003(b) and complies with such
other procedural rules as the Office may prescribe.
``(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be considered to permit
or require the Office to--
``(1) prevent from being offered under this chapter any
individual long-term care insurance under a qualified
contract; or
``(2) prescribe or negotiate over the benefits to be
offered, or any of the terms or conditions under which any
such benefits shall be offered, under this chapter.
``Sec. 9005. Coordination with State laws
``(a) The provisions of any contract under this chapter for
group long-term care insurance may include provisions to
supersede and preempt any provisions of State or local law
described in subsection (b), or any regulation issued
thereunder.
``(b) This subsection applies to any provision of law which
in effect carries out the same policy as section 5 of the
long-term care insurance model Act, promulgated by the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (as adopted
as of September 1997).
``Sec. 9006. Commercial items
``For purposes of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.), a long-term care insurance
contract under this chapter shall be considered a commercial
item, as defined in section 4(12) of such Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for part
III of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end of subpart G the following:
``90. Long-Term Care Insurance..................................9001''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Office of Personnel Management shall take all necessary
actions to ensure that long-term care insurance coverage
under chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code, (as added by
this Act) may be obtained in time to take effect beginning on
the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on
or after January 1, 2000.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in
introducing legislation that will allow the Federal Government to be a
role model in helping Americans prepare for retirement security.
The issue is long term care insurance.
Several key facts highlights the importance of long term care
insurance.
It is estimated that the majority of women and one-third of men who
reach the age of 60 will need nursing home care before the end of life.
Many of the baby boom generation first face this issue when they deal
with their aging parents' needs.
Long term care is one of the most important retirement security
issues facing us today. According to a 1997 survey sponsored by the
National Council on the Aging, more Americans (69 percent) were worried
about how to pay for long term care than were worried about how they
would pay for their retirement (56 percent). This level of concern was
true for all age groups and income levels among those surveyed.
Their concerns are well-founded. In 1995 the average cost of nursing
home care in the United States was $37,000 per year. In some urban
areas of the country, that cost can reach $70,000 per year.
Medicare provides short-term care coverage, but the average nursing
home stay is two and one-half years. In fact, Medicare pays for only
five percent of national nursing home costs.
Not all long term care occurs in nursing homes--85 percent of nursing
home care is nonskilled care. Again, Medicare does not cover non-
skilled care, so all of these costs must be covered by the patient and
his or her family members.
Medicaid will provide nursing home and some nonskilled care coverage,
but an individual must be extremely low income, or become low income,
to qualify for Medicaid. This program currently pays for over half of
nursing home expenses in the United States. But who wants to see their
lifetime savings, and their children's inheritance, wiped out to pay
for the cost of a catastrophic long term illness?
The end of life is not a pleasant subject for any family to discuss.
But the emotional decisions involved are made easier by planning ahead
and investing in long term care insurance. That kind of forethought
provides needed options at a very vulnerable time.
Although many companies are considering offering this insurance to
their employees, as of 1996 only 13.2 percent of long-term care plans
were employer-sponsored.
Today, Senator Grassley and I are moving the Federal Government into
a leadership role by creating a model long term care insurance program
for Federal employees. We hope that our legislation will inspire
private companies to increase the long term care options available to
their employees.
Under our plan, private companies will have the opportunity to
compete to provide long term care insurance to Federal employees. This
does not mean a high cost to taxpayers; premiums will be fully paid by
federal employees. However, by pooling the numbers of workers in the
Federal Government, our plan will encourage reduced group rates.
Only plans qualified under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 may offer this insurance to Federal workers
through our legislation. Beyond that, we will let the marketplace
determine the cost and services of plans available for purchase.
Flexibility is important in this relatively young industry as
insurance companies are still in the process of determining how to most
effectively provide this product. Competition among the various
carriers, group discounts and volume of sales will keep these premiums
affordable.
Eleven million Americans, including Federal employees and retirees,
their spouses, parents, and in-laws would be eligible for long term
care insurance under our proposal. This bill is just a first step, but
an important one.
I ask for your support as we continue to improve retirement security
for all Americans.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY:
S. 37. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
repeal the restriction on payment for certain hospital discharges to
post-acute care imposed by section 4407 of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997; to the Committee on Finance.
hospital transfer penalty repeal act of 1999
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Hospital
Transfer Penalty Repeal Act of 1999. This legislation would repeal the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA)'s hospital transfer penalty. This law
punishes hospitals that make use of the full continuum of care and
discourages them from moving patients to the most appropriate levels of
post-acute care. I ask my colleagues to spend a few minutes learning
about this issue, because I believe that if they do, they will come to
see the need for repeal.
The current hospital prospective payment system is based on the
average length of stay for a given diagnosis. In some cases, patients
stay in the hospital longer than the average and in other cases their
stay is shorter. Historically, a hospital has been reimbursed based
upon an average length of stay regardless of whether the patient
remained in the hospital a day less than the average or a day more than
the average.
Under the Balanced Budget Act transfer provision, however, this is no
longer the case. If a patient in one of ten specified diagnosis-related
groups (DRGs) is released earlier than the national average length of
stay for that DRG, the hospital does not receive its full prospective
payment. Instead, it receives only a smaller per-diem payment.
This policy penalizes facilities that transfer patients from the
hospital to a more appropriate level of care earlier than the average
length of stay. It encourages hospitals to ignore the clinical needs of
patients and keep them in the most expensive care setting for a longer
period of time. In short, it offers an incentive for hospitals to
provide an unnecessary level of care, for an unnecessary length of
time.
The transfer policy is particularly hard on hospitals in low-cost
states like Iowa. Because Iowa's hospitals practice efficient medicine,
they have average lengths of stay well below the national average.
These hospitals will be hit especially hard. This kind of perverse
incentive is part of the problem with Medicare, not part of the
solution.
In addition to the irrational incentives this policy creates,
administering it is simply maddening for providers. As a knowledgeable
Iowa constituent, Joe LeValley of North Iowa Mercy Health System, has
pointed out, the law creates conflicting incentives that make clinical
management of patients a baffling experience. Medicare now expects
physicians to move patients to the most cost-effective level of care as
quickly as possible--unless those patients have a condition in one of
these
[[Page S440]]
ten DRG's, in which case Medicare wants the physician to keep them in
the hospital. Is it any wonder that physicians and hospital
administrators are frustrated with Medicare?
In fact, isn't it physicians, not hospital administrators, who should
be making decisions about patient care settings? If we think that
doctors should be determining the appropriate location for a patient,
it seems absurd to force the hospital into that role. But the transfer
penalty does exactly that.
In addition, the law holds hospitals accountable for the actions of
patients that are no longer under their care. In some cases, patients
are not admitted to post-acute care directly from the hospital, and the
hospital may not know that the patient is receiving such care, let
alone steer the patient to it. The law thus sets hospitals up for
accusations of fraud due to events that are beyond their control.
I understand that there are valid grounds for concern about hospitals
moving patients to lower levels of care sooner than is clinically
appropriate, simply in order to game the reimbursement system. That is
unacceptable conduct, and we do need to attack it. I am open to
discussions on possible alternatives to outright repeal of the transfer
penalty, if these bad apples are the ones targeted. But we need to make
sure we don't punish all hospitals--especially the most efficient--for
the sins of a few.
This transfer penalty is a serious roadblock to the provision of
appropriate and efficient care. Its repeal will help ensure that
logical coordinated care remains a primary goal of the Medicare
program.
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. 37
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR
CERTAIN HOSPITAL DISCHARGES TO POST-ACUTE CARE.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)), as amended by section 4407 of
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I)(ii), by striking ``not taking in
account the effect of subparagraph (J),'', and
(2) by striking subparagraph (J).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. Hutchison:)
S. 38. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out
the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period; to the Committee on
Finance.
ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RATE REDUCTION ACT OF 1999
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that I feel is
of vital importance to farmers and family business owners, the Estate
and Gift Tax Rate Reduction Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined by
my colleagues Senators Mack and Hutchison.
This bill is based on legislation I introduced last year, S. 2318.
Unfortunately, the 105th Congress adjourned before we could debate and
pass this bill. Since then, I have heard from numerous Coloradans and
national organizations and am fully aware that the problems the bill
would correct still exist.
Estate and gift taxes remain a burden of American families,
particularly those who pursue the American dream of owning their own
business. This is because family-owned businesses and farms are hit
with the highest tax rate when they are handed down to descendants--
often immediately following the death of a loved one. These taxes, and
the financial burdens and difficulties they create come at the worst
possible time. Making a terrible situation worse is the fact that the
rate of this estate tax is crushing, reaching as high as 55 percent for
the highest bracket. That's higher than even the highest income tax
rate bracket of 39 percent. Furthermore, the tax is due as soon as the
business is turned over to the heir, allowing no time for financial
planning or the setting aside of money to pay the tax bills. Estate and
gift taxes right now are one of the leading reasons why the number of
family-owned farms and businesses are declining; the burden of this tax
is just too much.
This tax sends the troubling message that families should either sell
the business while they are still alive, in order to spare their
descendants this huge tax after their passing, or run-down the value of
the business, so that it won't make it into their higher tax brackets.
Whichever the case may be, it hardly seems to encourage private
investment and initiative, which have always been such a strong part of
our American heritage.
That is why I again introduce this bill. It will gradually eliminate
this tax by phasing it out--reducing the amount of the tax 5% each
year, beginning with the highest rate bracket 55%, until the tax rate
reaches zero. Several states have already adopted similar plans, and I
believe we ought to follow their example. We need to change the message
we are sending to farmers and family business owners. Leading
organizations agree, and have endorsed this legislation. In fact, over
100 organizations, like the National Federation of Independent Business
and the Farm Bureau, have joined together to form the Family Business
Estate Tax Coalition, which strongly endorses the bill.
Mr. President, this tax should be eliminated across the board, and I
ask my colleagues' help in working to achieve that goal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters from the American Farm Bureau Federation and Family Business
Estate Tax Coalition be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 38
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 ``Estate and Gift Tax Rate
Reduction Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds and declares that--
(1) estate and gift tax rates, which reach as high as 55
percent of a decedent's taxable estate, are in most cases
substantially in excess of the tax rates imposed on the same
amount of regular income and capital gains income; and
(2) a reduction in estate and gift tax rates to a level
more comparable with the rates of tax imposed on regular
income and capital gains income will make the estate and gift
tax less confiscatory and mitigate its negative impacts on
American families and businesses.
SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.
(a) Repeal of Estate and Gift Taxes.--Subtitle B of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to estate and gift
taxes) is repealed effective with respect to estates of
decedents dying, and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.
(b) Phaseout of Tax.--Subsection (c) of section 2001 of
such Code (relating to imposition and rate of tax) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Phaseout of tax.--In the case of estates of decedents
dying, and gifts made, during any calendar year after 1999
and before 2010--
``(A) In general.--The tentative tax under this subsection
shall be determined by using a table prescribed by the
Secretary (in lieu of using the table contained in paragraph
(1)) which is the same as such table; except that--
``(i) each of the rates of tax shall be reduced (but not
below zero) by the number of percentage points determined
under subparagraph (B), and
``(ii) the amounts setting forth the tax shall be adjusted
to the extent necessary to reflect the adjustments under
clause (i).
``(B) Percentage points of reduction.--
The number of
``For calendar year: percentage points is:
2000...........................................................5 ....
2001..........................................................10 ....
2002..........................................................15 ....
2003..........................................................20 ....
2004..........................................................25 ....
2005..........................................................30 ....
2006..........................................................35 ....
2007..........................................................40 ....
2008..........................................................45 ....
2009..........................................................50.....
``(C) Coordination with paragraph (2).--Paragraph (2) shall
be applied by reducing the 55 percent percentage contained
therein by the number of percentage points determined for
such calendar year under subparagraph (B).
``(D) Coordination with credit for state death taxes.--
Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (A) shall apply to
the table contained in section 2011(b) except that the number
of percentage points referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) shall
be determined under the following table:
The number of
``For calendar year: percentage points is:
2000......................................................1\1/2\ ....
2001...........................................................3 ....
[[Page S441]]
2002......................................................4\1/2\ ....
2003...........................................................6 ....
2004......................................................7\1/2\ ....
2005...........................................................9 ....
2006.....................................................10\1/2\ ....
2007..........................................................12 ....
2008.....................................................13\1/2\ ....
2009........................................................15.''....
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and gifts made,
after December 31, 1999.
____
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, July 23, 1998.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: Family farm businesses are the
mainstay of a food and fiber industry that provides more than
21 million people with jobs and allows Americans to spend
less than 10 percent of their incomes on food.
Estate taxes threaten family farms and ranches and the
contributions they make to rural communities because farm
heirs often have to sell business assets to borrow money to
pay death taxes that reach as high as 55 percent. This can
destroy the financial health of the enterprise and put
farmers and ranchers out of business.
Changes in estate tax laws are needed to foster the
transfer of farms and ranches from one generation to the
next. Farm Bureau believes that estate taxes should be
repealed and supports your legislation. S. 2318, that reduces
estate tax rates by 5 percent a year until the tax is
eliminated.
Thank you for introducing S. 2318.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Newpher,
Executive Director, Washington Office.
____
Family Business Estate
Tax Coalition
May 14, 1998.
Hon. Bill Archer,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Archer: On behalf of the more than 6
million members represented by the 100-plus organizations of
the Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, we are writing to
urge you to support the estate tax rate reduction and ten
year phaseout legislation introduced by Representatives
Jennifer Dunn and John Tanner.
Death tax relief, which is pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-
family, and pro-economy, is of the utmost importance. What
has become clear to economists and policy makers is that the
social and economic costs of the estate tax far exceed the
revenue it produces for the government.
We applaud Representatives Dunn and Tanner for their
straightforward, fair, and financially responsible approach
to eliminating an incredibly onerous tax. Join them in
recognizing that death should not be a taxable event.
Sincerely,
The Family Business
Estate Tax Coalition.
the family business estate tax coalition
Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Alliance for Affordable Healthcare.
American Alliance of Family Business.
American Bakers Association.
American Consult Engineers Council.
American Dental Association.
American Family Business Institute.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Forest & Paper Association.
American Horse Council.
American Hotel & Motel Association.
American Institute of CPA's.
American International Automobile Dealers Association.
American Sheep Industry Association.
American Small Businesses Association.
American Soybean Association.
American Supply Association.
American Trucking Associations.
American Vintners Association.
American Warehouse Association.
American Wholesale Marketers Association.
Amway Corporation.
Associated Builders and Contractors.
Associated Equipment Distributor.
Associated General Contractors of America.
Associated Specialty Contractors.
Association for Manufacturing Technology.
Committee to Preserve the American Family Business.
Communicating for Agriculture.
Families Against Confiscatory Estate and Inheritance Taxes.
Farm Credit Council.
Florists' Transworld Delivery Association.
Food Distributors International.
Food Marketing Institute.
Forest Industries Council on Taxation.
Guest & Associates.
Hallmark Cards, Inc.
Independent Bakers Association.
Independent Bankers Association of America.
Independent Forest Products Association.
Independent Insurance Agents of America.
Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Institute of Certified Financial Planners.
International Council of Shopping Centers.
Lake States Lumber Association.
Land Trust Alliance.
Manufacturing Jewelers and Silversmiths Association.
Marine Retailers Association of America.
National Association of Beverage Retailers.
National Association of Convenience Stores.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Association of Music Merchants.
National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling
Contractors.
National Association of Realtors.
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
National Association of Temporary and Staffing Services.
National Association of the Remodeling Industry.
National Association of Wheat Growers.
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
National Automatic Merchandising Association.
National Automobile Dealers Association.
National Beer Wholesalers Association.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
National Corn Growers Association.
National Cotton Council of America.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Electrical Contractors Association.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
National Farmers Union.
National Federation of Independent Business.
National Funeral Directors Association.
National Grange.
National Grocers Association.
National Hardwood Lumber Association.
National Home Furnishings Association.
National Licensed Beverage Association.
National Marine Manufacturers Association.
National Milk Producers Federation.
National Newspaper Association.
National Pork Producers Council.
National Pre-Cast Concrete Association.
National Restaurant Association.
National Retail Federation.
National Roofing Contractors Association.
National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association.
National Small Business United.
National Telephone Cooperative Association.
National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association.
National Tooling & Machining Association.
Newsletter Publishers Association.
Newspaper Association of America.
North American Equipment Dealers Association.
Northwest Woodland Owners Council.
Petroleum Marketers Association of America.
Printing Industries of America, Inc.
Promotional Products Association International.
Safeguard America's Family Enterprises.
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National
Association.
Small Business Legislative Council.
Society of American Florists.
Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association.
Tax Foundation.
Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.
Tire Association of North America.
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
U.S. Apple Association.
U.S. Business & Industrial Council.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
U.S. Telephone Association.
Washington Council, P.C.
Wine and Spirits Wholesalers.
Wine Institute.
Wood Machinery Manufacturers Association.
Colorado Farm Bureau,
Denver, CO, January 18, 1999.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Mr. Campbell: The Colorado Farm Bureau, the state's largest
farming and ranching organization, appreciates your
sponsorship of the Estate and Gift Tax Rate Reduction Act. It
is our understanding that the bill would amend the Internal
Revenue Service Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and gift
tax completely over a ten year period.
Farm Bureau policy supports the repeal of the federal
estate tax and expanding eligibility for the family business
estate tax exemption by reducing and simplifying requirements
and restrictions. In 1997, the American Farm Bureau
Federation delivered over 20,000 letters to Congress asking
for the abolishment of the estate tax.
We believe that estate taxes are a major reason for keeping
young farmers and ranchers from continuing on the farm or
ranch. Many times a son or daughter cannot pay the
exorbitantly high estate tax and are forced to sell all or
part of the land to developers. First and foremost this is a
threat to our inexpensive food supply. Secondly, this would
threaten wildlife habitat and open space. This bill will
allow agricultural operations to continue from one generation
to the next--like it has for hundreds of years. No person
should have to visit the mortuary and IRS agent in the same
week.
Thank you for your continued support of agriculture.
Sincerely,
Roger Bill Mitchell,
President.
______
By Mr. STEVENS:
S. 39. A bill to provide a national medal for public safety officers
who act
[[Page S442]]
with extraordinary valor above the call of duty, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the public safety medal of valor act
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have all been pleased with the recent
decline in crime in many areas of the country, and today I am
introducing a bill to acknowledge the great commitment and sacrifice
public safety officers at every level have made to that decline. From
responding to traffic accidents, apprehending violent criminals,
fighting fires, combating domestic terrorism, assisting people during
natural disasters--not to mention performing the functions many of us
take for granted--public safety officers are essential to the well-
being and stability of the United States.
While public safety accomplishments often go unrecognized, the
selfless service of those who work each day to preserve the peace and
improve safety in our communities continues. This past year were
reminded of the tremendous sacrifices of this American mainstay when
Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives defending the
peace and protecting lives in our nation's Capitol. In fact, since 1988
over 700 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty,
another 629 have been killed in duty-related accidents, and over
600,000 have been assaulted. We owe a tremendous debt to these heroes
and to their families who have made such a tremendous sacrifice for the
rest of us.
In the past ten years we've had earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes,
vast fires, record cold spells, and numerous other natural disasters.
Throughout those natural disasters, Americans from around the country
counted on firemen, emergency medical technicians, emergency services
personnel, and other public safety personnel from all levels of
government. The many peaceful moments and days that we enjoy between
these disasters and tragedies are the product of the vigilance,
dedication, and hard work of those dedicated to the protection of the
public.
In recognition and honor of these great public servants, I am
introducing the Public Safety Medal of Valor Act. This Act establishes
the highest national recognition of valor for public safety personnel
for acts above and beyond the call of duty.
Under this legislation, an 11-member Medal Review Board selected by
the Congress and by the President will consider nominations of public
safety officers and select recipients of the medal. No more than 10
Public Safety Medal of Valor recipients will be selected in one year. I
call on all of the members of the Senate and House to join me in
support of this important measure to at last provide national
recognition to the heroes in the field of public safety.
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 47. A bill to establish a commission to study the impact on voter
turnout of making the deadline for filing federal income tax returns
conform to the date of federal elections; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
voter turnout enhancement study commission act
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Voter Turnout
Enhancement Study (VoTES) Commission Act, a bill designed to promote
fiscal responsibility while helping to motivate more Americans to get
to the polls on Election Day.
Mr. President, when we balanced the unified budget last year, we did
so by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a
level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton
took office just six years ago. Our government now spends the
equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country
every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average
family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to
hard-working taxpayers.
The Tax Foundation estimates that the medium income family in America
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
In fact, the tax burden imposed on the American people hit a
peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997
and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to
rise--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be
higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and
fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded
20 percent of national income. Notably, the first tow times revenues
broke the 20 percent mark the economy tipped into recession.
Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth
in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for
1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. The heavy tax burden
may not be the only reasons for slow growth, but it is a significant
factor. Consider that economic growth avenged 3.9 percent annually
during the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax
increase.
I am convinced that the tax burden is growing, in part, because so
much of it is obscured from the view of the taxpayers. Withholding, for
example, reduces the visibility and minimizes the pain of making large
tax payments. FICA taxes paid by an employer on behalf of an employee
never show up on a worker's pay stub at all, even though they reduce
wages dollar for dollar. By the time Election Day could hardly be
farther away from April 15.
If the visibility of the tax burden were increased, people might be
more inclined to get to the polls. Move the deadline for filing income-
tax returns from April to November and we could give people a reason to
vote by focusing their attention on the role of government--and how
much it actually costs them--on the single most important day of the
year. Moving Tax Day to Election Day would probably result in more
change in Washington than anything else we could do. Moreover,
maximizing voter turnout is the best way to ensure that government
officials heed the will of the people and make sound public policy.
The bill I am introducing today would provide for a thoughtful and
thorough analysis of a change in the tax-filing deadline from April to
November, it potential effect on voter turnout, as well as any economic
impact it might have. The bill explicitly requires that an independent
commission conduct a cost-benefit analysis--a requirement that Congress
would be wise to impose routinely on legislative initiatives to
separate the good ideas from the bad, and save taxpayers a lot of money
in the process. A number other cost limiting provisions have been
included to protect taxpayers' interests.
While just about every day of the year is celebrated by special
interest groups around the country for the government largesee they
receive, the taxpayers--the silent majority--have only one day of the
year to focus on what that largesse means to them--how much it costs
them--and that is Tax Day. I believe that it ought to coincide with
Election Day so people can clearly choose between candidates who
support higher taxes and more government control, and candidates who
favor lower taxes and the right of people to decide for themselves how
to spend their own money.
I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this initiative,
and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be reprinted in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 47
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 ``Voter Turnout Enhancement
Study Commission Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) The right of citizens of the United States to vote is a
fundamental right.
(2) It is the duty of federal, state, and local governments
to promote the exercise of that right to vote to the greatest
extent possible.
(3) The power to tax is a power that citizens of the United
States only guardedly vest in their elected representatives
to the federal, state, and local governments.
(4) The only regular contacts most Americans have with
their government are the filing of their personal income tax
returns and
[[Page S443]]
their participation in federal, state, and local elections.
(5) About 115 million individual income tax returns were
filed in 1998, but only about 70 million Americans cast votes
in that year's congressional elections.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the Voter Turnout Enhancement Study Commission
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the `Commission').
(b) Membership.--
(1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of nine
members of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
(B) 3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate; and
(C) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed no later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and serve for the life of the
Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect
its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
(d) Compensation.--
(1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall
receive travel expenses, include per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
(e) Initial Meeting.--No later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(f) Meetings.--After the initial meeting, the Commission
shall meet at the call of the Chairman.
(g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(h) Chairman and Vice Chairman.--The Commission shall
select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members.
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough
study of all matters relating to the propriety of conforming
the annual filing date for federal income tax returns with
the date for holding biennial federal elections.
(2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Commission
shall include--
(A) whether establishment of a single date on which
individuals can fulfill their obligations of citizenship as
both electors and taxpayers would increase participation in
federal, state, and local elections; and
(B) a cost benefit analysis of any change in tax filing
deadlines.
(b) Report.--No later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report
to the President and the Congress which shall contain a
detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the
Commission, together with its recommendations for such
legislation and administrative actions as it considers
appropriate.
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such information as the Commission considers
advisable to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(b) Information To Be Gathered.--The Commission shall
obtain information from sources as it deems appropriate,
including, but not limited to, taxpayers and their
representatives, Governors, state and federal election
officials, and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue
Service.
SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate upon the submission of the
report under section 4.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
______
By Mr. STEVENS:
S. 49. A bill to amend the wetlands program under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide credit for the low wetlands loss rate
in Alaska and recognize the significant extent of wetlands conservation
in Alaska property owners, and to ease the burden on overly regulated
Alaskan cities, boroughs, owners, and to ease the burden on overly
regulated Alaskan cities, boroughs, municipalities, and villages; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, according to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service more than 221,000,000 acres of wetlands existed at the
time of Colonial America in the area that is now the contiguous United
States. Since then 117,000,000 of those areas, roughly 53 percent, have
been filled, drained, or otherwise removed from wetland status.
In the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known
as the Clean Water Act, Congress broadly expanded Federal jurisdiction
over wetlands by modifying the definition of ``navigable waters'' as
used in the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. The 1899 Act established the
basis for regulating disposition of dredge spoils in navigable waters.
The 1972 Act expanded that basis to encompass all ``water of the United
States''.
In 1975, a United States district court ordered the Army Corps of
Engineers to publish revised regulations concerning their program to
implement section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Since then, the Courts
have further expanded upon the Corps's authority to include isolated
wetlands and have issued decisions that effectively constrain agency
decision makers to act only to promote conservation, often at the
expense of sound economic development. This expansion of Congressional
intent has also formed the basis for burdensome intrusions on the
property rights of many Alaskans, Alaskan Native Corporations, and the
State of Alaska.
The erosion of agency discretion clearly undermines the Corps of
Engineers' ability to implement sound public policy in my State. Over
the 100 years since the Rivers and Harbors Act, their ``Section 404''
regulatory program has become unnecessarily inflexible and unresponsive
to common sense. In recognizing the value of preserving and restoring
wetlands where appropriate, Congress intended to leave appropriate
discretion to agency managers to balance competing public values. That
intent has lost flexibility with age. Today the lack of regulatory
flexibility threatens to destroy the economic health of many Alaskans.
We are being over-regulated to the point of economic strangulation.
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
approximately 170,200,000 acres of wetlands existed in Alaska in the
1780's and approximately 170,000,000 acres of wetlands exist now. That
represents a loss of less than one-tenth of 1 percent through the
combined effects of either human or natural processes.
Alaska contains more wetlands than all of the other States combined.
Fully 75 percent of the non-mountainous areas of Alaska are wetlands.
Yet we are regulating these vast wetlands in Alaska to the same strict
levels as all the other states, without regard to either special
economic hardships or the unnecessary federal expense this causes.
Ninety-eight percent of all Alaskan communities, including 200 of the
226 remote villages in Alaska, which incidently are dispersed over 1/
5th of the land mass of the United States, are located in or adjacent
to wetlands. To promote the economic self sufficiency of these remote
communities, about 43,000,000 acres of land were granted to Alaska
Natives through regional and village corporations.
These Native allotments were intended to be available for use.
However between 45 percent and 100 percent of each Native corporation's
land is categorized as wetlands. Therefore development of these Native
lands and basic community infrastructure is delayed or even prevented
by an ever tightening regulatory regime designed to protect an
excessively abundant resource in Alaska because it is scarce elsewhere
in the Union.
Naturally Alaska villages, municipalities, boroughs, city
governments, and Native organizations are increasingly frustrated with
the constraints of the wetlands regulatory program because it
interferes with the location of community centers, airports, sanitation
systems, roads, schools, industrial areas, and other critical community
infrastructure.
The same is true of State-owned lands. 104,000,000 acres of land were
granted to the State of Alaska at statehood for purposes of economic
development. Nowhere is flexibility more appropriate than on these
lands. What minimal identifiable environmental benefits expected from
the ever tightened regulation of wetlands are certainly not justified
in Alaska.
The Federal Government already has vast wetlands holdings in Alaska
under the protection of a variety of Federal land management programs.
In Alaska we have 62 percent of all federally designated wilderness
lands, 70 percent of all Federal park lands, and 90 percent of all
Federal refuge lands, thus providing protection against use or
degradation for approximately 60,000,000 acres of wetlands. National
policies intended to achieve `no net loss' of wetlands reflect a
response to the 53 percent loss
[[Page S444]]
of the wetlands base in the 48 contiguous States, but do not take into
account the large percentage of conserved wetlands in Alaska.
Only 12 percent of Alaska's wetlands are privately owned, compared to
74 percent of the wetlands in the 48 contiguous States. Wetlands
regulation designed to protect a large majority of a dwindling resource
are clearly too strict where they would only apply to a small
percentage of a vase resource. Unfortunately, Federal agencies no
longer enjoy the discretion to modify their program to address these
special circumstances. As a result, individual landowners in Alaska
have lost up to 97 percent of their property value and Alaskan
communities have lost a significant portion of their tax base due to
wetlands regulations.
Expansion of the wetlands regulatory program in this manager is
beyond what the Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act.
In Alaska, it has placed unnecessary economic and administrative
burdens on private property owners, small businesses, city governments,
State government, farmers, ranchers, and others, while providing
negligible environmental benefits.
It is time to stop using the wrong regulatory tools. For a State,
such as Alaska, with substantial conserved wetlands, my bill provides
much needed relief from the excessive burdens of the current cumbersome
federal wetlands regulatory program. It relaxes the most stringent
aspects of wetlands regulation, without dismantling agency discretion
to regulate where necessary. This bill restores common sense and cost
effectiveness without loss of high value wetlands.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray,
Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs Lincoln, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reid, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Robb, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wellstone, and
Mr. Kennedy):
S. 51. A bill to reauthorize the Federal programs to prevent violence
against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
violence against women act II
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violence Against
Women Act II. I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle who are co-sponsoring this legislation. My
colleagues joining me today include Senators Specter, Boxer, Murray,
Mikulski, Landrieu, Feinstein, Lincoln, Snowe, Lautenberg, Reid, Reed,
Dodd, Inouye, Kerry, Robb, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Schumer.
Nearly 9 years ago when I first introduced the Violence Against Women
Act, it was by no means a given that this body would consider it, let
alone pass it. Although it may seem hard to believe now, at that time--
less than a decade ago--few thought it either appropriate or necessary
for national legislation to be enacted to confront the very serious
problem of domestic violence and sexual assault.
The road to enactment was a long one. As Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee in the early 1990's, I convened several hearings on the bill
and released many reports on the problem of violence against women.
Three times I convinced the Judiciary Committee to favorably report the
bill to the full Senate. Twice, I had to re-introduce the bill.
Nearly 4 years passed from the original Violence Against Women Act's
first introduction before the Senate fully considered it. But at last--
in September of 1994--the Violence Against Women Act became the law of
our land. And, it did so with substantial support from my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, clearing demonstrating what I have always
known to be the case--that the fight to combat domestic violence and
sexual assault is not a partisan issue, but a serious problem that
affects our constituents in every one of our States and in every one of
our home towns across this country.
But even this bipartisan support to pass the act into law did not
resolve the dispute as to whether the problem of violence against women
merited a national response. As many of my colleagues will recall,
throughout the summer of 1995, the Congress debated whether or not we
should actually fund the Violence Against Women Act.
Fortunately, by the fall of that year, the Congress finally reached a
consensus that the Federal Government both can and should provide
significant resources and leadership in a national effort to end the
violence women suffer at the hands of men, many of who they live with
or have children with. That consensus continues to this day.
Let me provide just a few statistics and examples to show how
successful the initiative to fight violence against women has been, but
how far we still have to go:
On the one hand, the number of women killed by someone with whom they
are in an intimate relationship--such as a current or former spouse, a
cohabiting partner, or a current or former boyfriend--had decreased
markedly--by 60 percent--in 1996 as compared with where it was 20 years
earlier.
And, the total number of women victims of domestic violence is
decreasing as well. In 1993, the year before the Violence Against Women
Act became law, 1.1 million women reported being the victim of domestic
violence or sexual assault. By 1996, the last year for which we have
complete statistics, the number had fallen by 25 percent to about
840,000. This is still far, far too many, of course--even one victim is
too many--but it represents an encouraging trend nonetheless that I
believe we can attribute in part to the successes of this national
effort.
However, the news is not all good. One-fourth--25 percent--of women
responding to a nationwide survey in late 1995 and early 1996 said that
they had been raped or physically assaulted by a current or former
spouse, cohabiting partner, or date in their lifetimes. And
demonstrating that violence against women is primarily domestic partner
violence, 76 percent of women who have been raped or physically
assaulted since age 18 were attacked by a current or former husband,
cohabiting partner, or date. These are troubling statistics. But the
successes of the Violence Against Women Act are combating these trends
in a variety of ways, such as:
Putting thousands of trained police officers on the streets to arrest
abusers before they can victimize again; supporting police officers as
they work to help victims; adding trained prosecutors who put these
abusers where they belong--in jail--or enforce protective orders to
keep them away from those they have abused; tens of thousands of women
and their children have access to shelters that provide a safe haven;
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to a wide
array of support services from counseling to legal assistance; and a
national domestic violence hotline handles hundreds of thousands of
calls for help.
Our consensus in the Congress reflects a fundamental agreement across
our Nation: The time when a woman had to suffer--in silence and alone--
because the criminal who is victimizing her happens to be her husband
or boyfriend is on its way to becoming ancient history.
Today, we must build on this consensus and deliver on its promise--
because for all the strides we have made, there remain far too many
women and their children who are still vulnerable. The statistics I
reported just now reflect that reality. Just because we have had some
success does not mean we can become complacent and abandon the fight
against domestic violence now. And so, the legislation I am introducing
today--the Violence Against Women Act II--has one simple goal: make
more women and their children more safe.
This legislation builds on the tremendous successes of the original
Violence Against Women Act in three key ways--it continues what is
working; it seeks to improve what could work better; and it expands the
national fight into new areas where the need is clear.
There are many other ideas and proposals in addition to those
contained in this bill that deserve serious consideration before the
full Senate debates this legislation. And, I am sure there are ways to
refine and improve this bill. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this bill the best it can
be. There are many Senators who are deeply committed to combating
violence against women, and many of them have joined me today, for
which I am grateful. I encourage all of my colleagues to
[[Page S445]]
review this legislation, offer their insights and lend their names as
co-sponsors and leaders in the fight against domestic violence. I
believe they will find that it offers comprehensive, sensible,
workable, and cost-effective responses to combating violence against
women.
Before I describe some highlights of this legislation, let me first
emphasize what I believe to be the key, core element of the violence
against women II. That central factor is a simple one--the money. We
need to ensure that there continues to be dollars for cops, courts,
prosecutors, judges, shelters, and all the elements which are working.
Keeping the money flowing to where it works requires one simple yet
crucial step--extending the violent crime reduction trust fund to 2002.
The trust fund is due to expire in 2000. This is perhaps the most
significant provision in the act I introduce today, and without it we
will fail in the future to replicate our past successes in combating
violence against women.
Beyond this fundamental step--and I cannot overemphasize the
importance of the trust fund--there are four key policy areas addressed
by the Violence Against Women Act II: strengthening law enforcement's
tools; improving services for the victims of violence; reducing
violence against children; and enhancing and supporting training and
education efforts to enlist many more professionals in our shared
fight.
On the law enforcement front, the bill introduced today starts with
needed improvements to promote inter-state and inter-jurisdictional
enforcement of ``stay-away,'' or protection, orders. This is also known
as giving ``full faith and credit'' to valid protection orders from any
jurisdiction where they were issued. It often happens that the cops in
one State may not know that there is a valid protection order issued by
another jurisdiction. It is not their fault--it is often a matter of
training to recognize valid orders or the means of communicating and
sharing information across state lines. This is a mobile society, and
victims of domestic violence often find they must flee the place they
live and where they previously obtained a protection order so that they
can keep themselves and their children safe. For these situations, we
propose today a few simple fixes: Permitting state and local cops to
use their ``pro-arrest'' grants for this kind of information sharing;
encouraging states to enter into the cooperative agreements necessary
to help interstate enforcement; and calling on the Justice Department
to help develop new protocols and disseminate the ``best practices'' of
State and local cops.
These are all simple and common sense solutions, but very necessary
nevertheless. This bill will help these fixes become reality.
Other initiatives in this bill are to: Enhance and expand the
resources available for courts to handle domestic violence and sexual
assault cases; target the ``date-rape'' drug with the maximum federal
penalties; continue funding for police, prosecutors, law enforcement
efforts in rural communities, and for anti-stalking initiatives; and
extend the support of local police ``pro-arrest'' efforts.
Of course, a comprehensive effort to reduce violence against women
and lessen the harm it causes must do more than just arrest, convict
and imprison abusers--we must also help the victims of violence. This
legislation proposes to assist these crime victims in three fundamental
ways: Providing a means for immediate protections from their abusers,
such as through access to shelters; easier access to the courts and to
the legal assistance necessary to keep their abusers away from them;
and removing the ``catch-22s'' that sometimes literally compel women to
stay with their abusers--such as discriminatory insurance policies that
could force a mother to choose between turning in the man who is
beating her or keeping health insurance for her children. Another
``catch-22'' affects immigrant women who are sometimes faced with a
similar insidious ``choice.'' In 1994, we worked out provisions so
battered immigrant women--whose ability to stay in the country was
dependent on their husbands--would not have to choose between staying
in this country and continuing to be beaten, or leaving their abusers,
but in doing so have to also leave our country (perhaps even without
their children). This bill fixes aspects of this problem that leave an
abused woman with such a horrible, unfair and immoral choice.
Those are this bill's three general policy goals. Let me outline more
specifically just how our legislation proposes to boost the protections
for the victims of violence.
First and foremost, we must build on our successful effort to provide
more shelter space for battered women and their children. There have
been significant efforts already to fund shelters for women who are
victims of domestic violence and their children. However, the unmet
need for shelter remains significant. For example, data from six
states, which together have about 16 percent of the nation's population
had to turn away more than 45,000 battered women who were seeking
shelter because they simply did not have the space. Extrapolating these
figures to the entire nation suggests that about 300,000 battered women
and their children are turned away from shelters every year.
Current appropriations for shelter space stands at about $89 million.
This legislation boosts this amount to $500 million over the the next
three years. The additional money will help close the ``shelter-gap''
and bring us closer to the day when all battered women will have a
safe, secure haven when they need it most.
We must also provide women with the Assistance necessary so that they
can get access to help from our justice system. This bill does so in
some clear and common sense ways, such as: Re-authorizing the expiring
program to provide about $1 million per year for victim and witness
counselors in court; continuing and expanding the highly successful
national domestic violence hotline at a cost of about $4 million a
year); and developing a coordinated approach to connecting victims of
domestic abuse with trained, volunteer attorneys who can provide
critical legal assistant.
To them at this very vulnerable time in their lives. I urge my
colleagues to support--and even build upon--our efforts to put an end
these real problems.
A third area where this legislation seeks action is on reducing
violence against children. As my colleagues know, households where a
woman is beaten are much more likely to also be home to child abuse and
neglect. Moreover, we know that children who witness violence are much
more likely to repeat the cycle when they are adults.
Here, our legislation proposes to continue two longstanding programs
by providing: Resources to serve runaway and homeless youth who are
victims of sexual abuse; and resources for court-appointed special
advocates and special child abuse training for court personnel through
the victims of child abuse act (originally cosponsored by Senator
Thurmond and myself in 1990.)
The remaining area targeted by the Violence Against Women Act--two
includes several efforts to help train and educate those already on the
front-lines of the battle against violence against women.
Over the past few years, I have worked with several corporations who
have begun their own workplace initiatives--everything from 24-hour
assistance hotlines for their employees, training to help managers
better recognize domestic violence, and even comprehensive employee
assistant efforts.
Helping other companies start or improve--on their own initiative--
such anti-violence efforts is why this legislation includes a national
workplace clearinghouse on violence against women. The clearinghouse
will provide technical assistance and help circulate best practices to
companies interested in combating violence against women.
Another problem in the field involves the complex nature of criminal
investigations into sexual assault cases. To assist the cops in the
field who conduct these investigations, this legislation calls on the
Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards of training and
practice of forensic examinations following sexual assaults.
Finally, this legislation continues the authorization for rape
prevention and education programs. These programs provide public
awareness and education efforts to teach young women how to protect
themselves from rape and attack.
I have just offered the most general outline of the contents of the
Violence Against Women Act II. I introduced
[[Page S446]]
this legislation in the last session of Congress. My colleagues and I
worked diligently and productively on it last year and made substantial
progress. This year, I am determined that we will complete the work we
started last year and pass the Violence Against Women Act II.
I urge my colleagues to review this legislation carefully. This is
not just a bipartisan effort--it is a non-partisan effort in which I
hope every one of my colleagues will join me. I am confident they will
find this bill a comprehensive and practical response that will help us
meet a goal I believe is shared by every member of this Senate--making
more women and more children more safe now and in the future.
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. 51
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 ``Violence
Against Women Act II''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Sec. 101. Full faith and credit enforcement of protection orders.
Sec. 102. Role of courts.
Sec. 103. Reauthorization of STOP grants.
Sec. 104. Control of date-rape drug.
Sec. 105. Reauthorization of grants to encourage arrest policies.
Sec. 106. Violence against women in the military system.
Sec. 107. Hate crimes prevention.
Sec. 108. Reauthorization of rural domestic violence and child abuse
enforcement grants.
Sec. 109. National stalker and domestic violence reduction.
Sec. 110. Amendments to domestic violence and stalking offenses.
TITLE II--STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Sec. 201. Civil legal assistance.
Sec. 202. Shelters for battered women and children.
Sec. 203. Victims of abuse insurance protection.
Sec. 204. National domestic violence hotline.
Sec. 205. Federal victims' counselors.
Sec. 206. Battered women's employment protection.
Sec. 207. Ensuring unemployment compensation.
Sec. 208. Battered immigrant women.
Sec. 209. Older women's protection from violence.
TITLE III--LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
Sec. 301. Safe havens for children.
Sec. 302. Study of child custody laws in domestic violence cases.
Sec. 303. Reauthorization of runaway and homeless youth grants.
Sec. 304. Reauthorization of victims of child abuse programs.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
Sec. 401. Education and training of health professionals.
Sec. 402. Education and training in appropriate responses to violence
against women.
Sec. 403. Rape prevention and education.
Sec. 404. Violence against women prevention education among youth.
Sec. 405. Education and training to end violence against and abuse of
women with disabilities.
Sec. 406. Community initiatives.
Sec. 407. National commission on standards of practice and training for
sexual assault examinations.
Sec. 408. National workplace clearinghouse on violence against women.
Sec. 409. Strengthening research to combat violence against women.
TITLE V--EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND
Sec. 501. Extension.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``domestic violence'' has the meaning given
the term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2);
and
(2) the term ``sexual assault'' has the meaning given the
term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.3796gg-2).
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
SEC. 101. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION
ORDERS.
(a) In General.--Part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in the part heading, by adding ``AND ENFORCEMENT OF
PROTECTION ORDERS'' at the end;
(2) in section 2101(b), by adding at the end the following:
``(7) To provide technical assistance and computer and
other equipment to police departments, prosecutors, courts,
and tribal jurisdictions to facilitate the widespread
enforcement of protection orders, including interstate
enforcement, enforcement between States and tribal
jurisdictions, and enforcement between tribal
jurisdictions.''; and
(3) in section 2102--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, including the enforcement of protection
orders from other States and jurisdictions (including tribal
jurisdictions);''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) have established cooperative agreements with
neighboring jurisdictions to facilitate the enforcement of
protection orders from other States and jurisdictions
(including tribal jurisdictions); and
``(4) will give priority to using the grant to develop and
install data collection and communication systems, including
computerized systems, linking police, prosecutors, courts,
and tribal jurisdictions for the purpose of identifying and
tracking protection orders and violations of protection
orders.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Attorney General
shall annually compile and broadly disseminate (including
through electronic publication) information about successful
data collection and communication systems that meet the
purposes described in subsection (b)(3). Such dissemination
shall target States, State and local courts, Indian tribal
governments, and units of local government.''.
(b) Custody and Protection Orders.--Section 2265 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Registration.--
``(1) In general.--A State or Indian tribe shall not notify
the party against whom a protection order has been made that
the protection order has been registered or filed in the
State or tribal jurisdiction unless requested to do so by the
party protected under that order.
``(2) No prior registration or filing required.--Nothing in
this subsection may be construed to require the prior filing
or registration of a protection order in an enforcing State
in order to secure enforcement pursuant to subsection (a).
``(e) Notice.--A protection order that is otherwise
consistent with this section shall be accorded full faith and
credit and enforced notwithstanding the failure to provide
notice to the party against whom the order is made of its
registration or filing in the enforcing State or Indian
tribe.''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents for title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended in the item relating to part
U, by adding ``and Enforcement of Protection Orders'' at the
end.
SEC. 102. ROLE OF COURTS.
(a) Courts as Eligible STOP Grantees.--Part T of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796gg et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2001--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by inserting ``State and local courts,'' after
``States,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``tribal courts,'' after ``Indian tribal
governments,''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``,
judges and other court personnel,'' after ``law enforcement
officers''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, court,'' after
``police''; and
(2) in section 2002--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local
courts,'' after ``States,'' the second place it appears;
(B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(3) of the amount granted--
``(A) not less than 25 percent shall be allocated to police
and prosecutors;
``(B) not less than 30 percent shall be allocated to victim
services; and
``(C) not less than 10 percent shall be allocated for State
and local courts; and''; and
(C) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``court,'' after
``law enforcement,''.
(b) Reauthorization of State Justice Institute Grants.--
Chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 (42 U.S.C. 13991 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 40412--
(A) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``stereotyping of
individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102))
who are victims of rape, sexual assault, abuse, or
violence,'' before ``racial stereotyping'';
(B) in paragraph (13), by inserting ``or among individuals
with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)),'' after
``socioeconomic groups,'';
(C) in paragraph (18), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
[[Page S447]]
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(20) domestic violence and child abuse in custody
determinations and stereotypes regarding the fitness of
individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) to
retain custody of children in domestic violence cases;
``(21) promising practices in the vertical management of
domestic violence offender cases; and
``(22) issues relating to violence against and abuse of
individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)),
including the nature of physical, mental, and communications
disabilities, the special vulnerability to violence of
individuals with disabilities, and the types of violence and
abuse experienced by individuals with disabilities.''; and
(2) in section 40414, by striking subsection (a) and
inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under
section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this
chapter $600,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2002.''.
(c) Federal Judicial Personnel.--In carrying out section
620(b)(3) of title 28, United States Code, the Federal
Judicial Center, shall include in its educational and
training programs, including the training programs for newly
appointed judges, information on the topics listed in section
40412 of the Equal Justice for Women in the Courts Act (42
U.S.C. 13992) that pertain to issues within the jurisdiction
of the Federal courts, and shall prepare materials necessary
to implement this section and the amendments made by this
section.
(d) Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies.--
(1) Eligible grantees; use of grants for education.--
Section 2101 of part U of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796hh) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``State and local
courts, tribal courts,'' after ``Indian tribal
governments,'';
(B) in each of subsections (b) and (c), by inserting
``State and local courts,'' after ``Indian tribal
governments''; and
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``policies and'' and
inserting ``policies, educational programs, and''; and
(ii) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by inserting
``parole and probation officers,'' after ``prosecutors,''
each place that term appears.
(2) Allotment for indian tribes.--Section 2101 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796hh) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Allotment for Indian Tribes.--
``(1) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the total
amount made available for grants under this section for each
fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian tribal
governments.
``(2) Reallotment of funds.--If, beginning 12 months after
the first day of any fiscal year for which amounts are made
available under this subsection, any amount made available
under this subsection remains unobligated, the unobligated
amount may be allocated without regard to paragraph (1) of
this subsection.''.
SEC. 103. REAUTHORIZATION OF STOP GRANTS.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 1001(a)(18) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)(18)) is amended to read as follows:
``(18) There is authorized to be appropriated from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section
310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out part T $184,000,000
for fiscal year 2000, $185,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$186,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
(b) State Coalition Grants.--Part T of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2001--
(A) in subsection (b)(5), by inserting ``, and the forms of
violence and abuse suffered by women who are individuals with
disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102))''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) State Coalition Grants.--
``(1) Purpose.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
each State domestic violence coalition and sexual assault
coalition for the purposes of coordinating State victim
services activities, and collaborating and coordinating with
Federal, State, and local entities engaged in violence
against women activities.
``(2) Grants to state coalitions.--The Attorney General
shall make grants to--
``(A) each State domestic violence coalition, as determined
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10410
et seq.); and
``(B) each State sexual assault coalition, as determined by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Public
Health Service Act.
``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--Receipt of an award
under this subsection by each State domestic violence and
sexual assault coalition shall not preclude the coalition
from receiving additional grants under this part to carry out
the purposes described in subsection (b).'';
(2) in section 2002(b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) 2 percent shall be available for grants for State
coalitions under section 2001(c), with the coalition for each
State, the coalition for the District of Columbia, the
coalition for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
coalition for the combined Territories of the United States
each receiving an amount equal to \1/53\ of the total amount
made available under this paragraph for each fiscal year;'';
and
(3) in section 2003--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``by a person with whom
the victim has engaged in a social relationship of a romantic
or intimate nature'' after ``child in common,'';
(B) in paragraph (8)--
(i) by striking ``assisting domestic violence or sexual
assault victims through the legal process'' and inserting
``providing assistance for victims seeking legal, social, or
health care services''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, except that the term does not include any
program or activity that is targeted primarily for
offenders''; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``physical''.
(d) Reallotment of Funds.--Section 2002(e) of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
1(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Reallotment of funds.--
``(A) In general.--If, beginning 1 year after the last day
of any fiscal year for which amounts are made available under
section 1001(a)(18), any amount made available remains
unobligated, the unobligated amount may be allocated by a
State to fulfill the purposes described in section 2001(b),
without regard to subsection (c)(3) of this section.
``(B) Guidelines.--The Attorney General shall promulgate
guidelines to implement this paragraph.''.
SEC. 104. CONTROL OF DATE-RAPE DRUG.
Notwithstanding section 201 or subsection (a) or (b) of
section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811,
812(a), 812(b)) respecting the scheduling of controlled
substances, the Attorney General shall by order transfer
flunitrazepam from schedule IV of such Act to schedule I of
such Act.
SEC. 105. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST
POLICIES.
Section 1001(a)(19) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(19)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(19) There is authorized to be appropriated from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section
310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out part U $64,000,000 for
fiscal year 2000, $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$66,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
SEC. 106. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE MILITARY SYSTEM.
(a) Criminal Offenses Committed Outside the United States
by Persons Accompanying the Armed Forces.--
(1) In general.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 211 the following:
``CHAPTER 212--DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES COMMITTED
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
``Sec.
``3261. Definitions.
``3262. Domestic violence and sexual assault offenses committed by
persons employed by or accompanying, the Armed Forces
outside the United States.
``3263. Delivery to authorities of foreign countries.
``3264. Regulations.
``Sec. 3261. Definitions
``In this chapter--
``(1) the term `armed forces' has the same meaning as in
section 101(a)(4) of title 10;
``(2) a person is `employed by the Armed Forces outside of
the United States' if the person--
``(A) is an employee of the Department of Defense;
``(B) is present or residing outside of the United States
in connection with such employment; and
``(C) is a national of the United States, as defined in
101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(22)); and
``(3) a person is `accompanying the Armed Forces outside of
the United States' if the person--
``(A) is a dependent of a member of the armed forces, as
determined under regulations prescribed pursuant to section
3264;
``(B) is a dependent of an employee of the Department of
Defense, as determined under regulations prescribed pursuant
to section 3264;
``(C) is residing with the member or employee outside of
the United States; and
``(D) is a national of the United States, as defined in
101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(22)).
``Sec. 3262. Domestic violence and sexual assault offenses
committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed
Forces outside the United States
``(a) In General.--Whoever, while employed by or
accompanying the Armed Forces outside of the United States,
engages
[[Page S448]]
in conduct that would constitute a domestic violence or
sexual assault offense, if the conduct had been engaged in
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, shall be subject to prosecution in a
district court of the United States.
``(b) Concurrent Jurisdiction.--Nothing contained in this
chapter deprives courts-martial, military commissions,
provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent
jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by
statute or by the law of war may be tried by courts-martial,
military commissions, provost courts, or other military
tribunals.
``(c) Priority of Exercise of Jurisdiction.--
``(1) Action by military tribunal.--No prosecution may be
commenced in the United States district court under this
section until an official of the Department of Defense
designated pursuant to regulations jointly prescribed by the
Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard when it is
not operating as a service in the Navy) waives the exercise
of jurisdiction referred to in subsection (b) in accordance
with procedures set forth in the regulations.
``(2) Action by foreign government.--No prosecution may be
commenced in a district court under this section if a foreign
government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the
United States, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person
for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the
approval of the Attorney General of the United States or the
Deputy Attorney General of the United States (or a person
acting in either such capacity), which function of approval
shall not be delegated.
``(d) Arrests.--
``(1) Law enforcement personnel.--The Secretary of Defense
may designate and authorize any person serving in a law
enforcement position in the Department of Defense to arrest
outside of the United States any person described in
subsection (a) if there is probable cause to believe that
such person engaged in conduct which constitutes a criminal
offense under subsection (a).
``(2) Release to civilian law enforcement.--A person
arrested under paragraph (1) shall be released to the custody
of civilian law enforcement authorities of the United States
for removal to the United States for judicial proceedings in
the United States district court of the named jurisdiction of
origin of the person arrested in relation to conduct referred
to in such paragraph if--
``(A) military jurisdiction has been waived under
subsection (c)(1) in the case of that person; and
``(B) that person has not been, and is not to be, delivered
to authorities of a foreign country under section 3263; or
``Sec. 3263. Delivery to authorities of foreign countries
``(a) In General.--Any person designated and authorized
under section 3262(d) may deliver a person described in
section 3262(a) to the appropriate authorities of a foreign
country in which the person is alleged to have engaged in
conduct described in subsection (a) if--
``(1) the appropriate authorities of that country request
the delivery of the person to such country for trial for such
conduct as an offense under the laws of that country; and
``(2) the delivery of such person to that country is
authorized by a treaty or other international agreement to
which the United States is a party.
``(b) Determination by the Secretary.--The Secretary of
Defense shall determine which officials of a foreign country
constitute appropriate authorities for purposes of this
section.
``Sec. 3264. Regulations
``The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations
governing the apprehension, detention, and removal of persons
under this chapter. Such regulations shall be uniform
throughout the Department of Defense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of part II of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 211
the following:
``212. Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Offenses Committed Outside
the United States.......................................3261''.....
(b) Records of Military Justice Actions.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter XI of chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 940a. Art. 140a Military justice information:
transmission to Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation
``Whenever a member of the armed forces is discharged or
dismissed from the armed forces or is released from active
duty, the Secretary of the military department concerned
shall transmit to the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation a copy of records of any penal action taken
against the member during that period under this chapter,
including any nonjudicial punishment imposed under section
815 of this title (article 15).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter IX of chapter 47 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``940a. 140a. Military justice information: transmission to the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''.
(c) Transitional Compensation.--Section 1059(g)(2) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the
Secretary may not resume such payments'' and inserting ``the
Secretary may, under circumstances determined extraordinary
by the Secretary, resume such payments''.
SEC. 107. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``hate crime''
has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994
note).
(b) Prohibition of Certain Acts of Violence.--Section 245
of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law,
willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the
use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to
cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any
person--
``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined
in accordance with this title, or both; and
``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--
``(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of
this paragraph; or
``(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph
include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill.
``(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law,
in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully
causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of
fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause
bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability
of any person--
``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined
in accordance with this title, or both; and
``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
``(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of
this paragraph; or
``(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph
include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances
described in this subparagraph are that--
``(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the
victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a
facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign
commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or
foreign commerce; or
``(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign
commerce.''.
(c) Duties of Federal Sentencing Commission.--
(1) Amendment of federal sentencing guidelines.--Pursuant
to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States
Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the
issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes
and shall, if appropriate amend the Federal sentencing
guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to
the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor
during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who
recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.
(2) Consistency with other guidelines.--In carrying out
this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission
shall--
(A) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other
Federal sentencing guidelines; and
(B) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the
same offense.
(d) Grant Program.--
(1) Authority to make grants.--The Administrator of the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the
Department of Justice shall make grants, in accordance with
such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to
State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes
committed by juveniles.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(e) Authorization for Additional Personnel To Assist State
and Local Law Enforcement.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the
Department of Justice, including the Community Relations
Service, for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 such sums as
are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent
and respond to alleged violations of section 245 of title 18,
United States Code (as amended by this section).
(f) Severability.--If any provision of this section, an
amendment made by this section, or the application of such
provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held
to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this section, the
amendments made by this section, and the application of the
provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be
affected thereby.
[[Page S449]]
SEC. 108. REAUTHORIZATION OF RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
CHILD ABUSE ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 40295(c)(1) of the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13971(c)(1)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under
section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this
section--
``(A) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
(b) Indian Tribes.--Section 40295(c) of the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13971(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Allotment for indian tribes.--
``(A) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the total
amount made available to carry out this section for each
fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian tribal
governments.
``(B) Reallotment of funds.--If, beginning 12 months after
the last day of any fiscal year for which amounts are made
available to carry out this paragraph, any amount made
available under this paragraph remains unobligated, the
unobligated amount may be allocated without regard to
subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 109. NATIONAL STALKER AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REDUCTION.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 40603 of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14032) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 40603. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section 310001
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this subtitle--
``(1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(2) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(3) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 40602(a) of the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14031 note) is amended
by inserting ``and implement'' after ``improve''.
SEC. 110. AMENDMENTS TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING
OFFENSES.
(a) Interstate Domestic Violence.--Section 2261(a) of title
18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) Travel or conduct of offender.--A person who travels
in interstate or foreign commerce or to or from Indian
country with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate a
spouse or intimate partner, and who, in the course of or as a
result of such travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime
of violence against that spouse or intimate partner, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).
``(2) Causing travel of victim.--A person who causes a
spouse or intimate partner to travel in interstate or foreign
commerce or to or from Indian country by force, coercion,
duress, or fraud, and who, in the course of or as a result of
such conduct or travel, commits or attempts to commit a crime
of violence against that spouse or intimate partner, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).''.
(b) Interstate Stalking.--Section 2261A of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2261A. Interstate stalking
``Whoever--
``(1) with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate
another person, engages in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States in conduct that
places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or
serious bodily injury to, that person or a member of the
immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person;
or
``(2) with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate
another person, travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or
enters or leaves Indian country, and, in the course of or as
a result of such travel, engages in conduct that places that
person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily
injury to, that person or a member of that person's immediate
family (as defined in section 115),
shall be punished as provided in section 2261.''.
(c) Interstate Violation of Protection Order.--Section
2262(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) Travel or conduct of offender.--A person who travels
in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters of leaves Indian
country, with the intent to engage in conduct that violates
the portion of a protection order that prohibits or provides
protection against violence, threats, or harassment against,
contact or communication with, or physical proximity to,
another person, or that would violate such a portion of a
protection order in the jurisdiction in which the order was
issued, and subsequently engages in such conduct, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).
``(2) Causing travel of victim.--A person who causes
another person to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or
to or from Indian country by force, coercion, duress, or
fraud, and in the course of or as a result of such conduct or
travel engages in conduct that violates the portion of a
protection order that prohibits or provides protection
against violence, threats, or harassment against, contact or
communication with, or physical proximity to, another person,
or that would violate such a portion of a protection order in
the jurisdiction in which the order was issued, shall be
punished as provided in subsection (b).''.
(d) Full Faith and Credit.--Section 2265 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Tribal Court Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this
section, a tribal court shall be deemed to have jurisdiction
over any activity occurring in Indian country.''.
(e) Definitions.--Section 2266 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2266. Definitions
``In this chapter:
``(1) Bodily injury.--The term `bodily injury' means any
act, except one done in self-defense, that results in
physical injury or sexual abuse.
``(2) Enters or leaves indian country.--The term `enters or
leaves Indian country' includes leaving the jurisdiction of 1
tribal government and entering the jurisdiction of another
tribal government.
``(3) Indian country.--The term `Indian country' has the
meaning stated in section 1151.
``(4) Protection order.--The term `protection order'
includes any injunction or other order issued for the purpose
of preventing violent or threatening acts or harassment
against, or contact or communication with or physical
proximity to, another person, including temporary and final
orders issued by civil and criminal courts (other than
support or child custody orders issued pursuant to State
divorce and child custody laws) whether obtained by filing an
independent action or as a pendente lite order in another
proceeding so long as any civil order was issued in response
to a complaint, petition or motion filed by or on behalf of a
person seeking protection. Custody and visitation provisions
in protection orders are subject to this chapter.
``(5) Serious bodily injury.--The term `serious bodily
injury' has the meaning stated in section 2119(2).
``(6) Spouse or intimate partner.--The term `spouse or
intimate partner' includes--
``(A) a spouse, a former spouse, a person who shares a
child in common with the abuser, a person who cohabits or has
cohabited with the abuser as a spouse, and a person with whom
the abuser has engaged in a social relationship of a romantic
or intimate nature; and
``(B) any other person similarly situated to a spouse who
is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the
State or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or
where the victim resides.
``(7) State.--The term `State' includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, a commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
``(8) Travel in interstate or foreign commerce.--The term
`travel in interstate or foreign commerce' does not include
travel from 1 State to another by an individual who is a
member of an Indian tribe and who remains at all times in the
territory of the Indian tribe of which the individual is a
member.''.
TITLE II--STRENGTHENING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
SEC. 201. CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The purpose of this section is to enable
the Attorney General to make grants to further the health,
safety, and economic well-being of victims of domestic
violence, stalking, and sexual assault by providing civil
legal assistance to such victims.
(b) Civil Legal Assistance Grants.--The Attorney General
may make grants under this subsection to private nonprofit
entities, publicly funded organizations not acting in a
governmental capacity, and Indian tribal governments and
affiliated organizations, which shall be used--
(1) to implement, expand, and establish cooperative efforts
and projects between domestic violence and sexual assault
victim advocacy organizations and civil legal assistance
providers to strengthen a broad range of civil legal
assistance for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and
sexual assault;
(2) to implement, expand, and establish efforts and
projects to strengthen a broad range of civil legal
assistance for victims of domestic violence, stalking, and
sexual assault by organizations with a demonstrated history
of providing direct legal or advocacy services on behalf of
these victims; and
(3) to provide training, technical assistance, and data
collection to improve the capacity of grantees and other
entities to offer civil legal assistance to victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
(c) Grant to Create Database of Programs That Provide Civil
Legal Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence, Stalking,
and Sexual Assault.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may make a grant to
establish, operate, and maintain a national computer database
of programs that provide civil legal assistance to victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault.
(2) Database requirements.--A database established with a
grant under this subsection shall be--
(A) designed to facilitate the referral of persons to
programs that provide civil legal assistance to victims of
domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault; and
[[Page S450]]
(B) operated in coordination with the national domestic
violence hotline established under section 316 of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act.
(d) Evaluation.--The Attorney General may evaluate the
grants funded under this section through contracts or other
arrangements with entities expert on domestic violence,
stalking, and sexual assault, and on evaluation research.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under
section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this
section--
(A) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) Allocation of funds.--Of the amount made available
under this subsection in each fiscal year, not less than 5
percent shall be used for grants for programs that assist
victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault on
lands within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe.
(3) Nonsupplantation.--Amounts made available under this
section shall be used to supplement and not supplant other
Federal, State, and local funds expended to further the
purpose of this section.
SEC. 202. SHELTERS FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
(a) State Shelter Grants; Direct Emergency Assistance.--
Section 303 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10402) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
``(G) provide documentation, including memoranda of
understanding, of the specific involvement of the State
domestic violence coalition and other knowledgeable
individuals and interested organizations, in the development
of the application; and''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``No funds provided'' and inserting ``(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (2), no funds provided''; and
(B) by inserting after the period the following:
``(2) Not more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated to
carry out this section and distributed under subsection (a)
or (b) may be used to provide emergency assistance, such as
transportation and housing assistance, directly to victims of
family violence, or to the dependents of such victims, who
are in the process of fleeing an abusive situation. Any
entity that provides such assistance shall annually prepare
and submit to the Secretary a report specifying, and
describing the distribution of, funds provided pursuant to
this paragraph. The report shall not contain information
identifying an individual recipient of such assistance.''.
(b) State Minimum; Reallotment.--Section 304 of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10403) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for grants to States
for any fiscal year'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``and available for grants to States under this
subsection for any fiscal year--
``(1) Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin
Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the combined Freely Associated States shall each be
allotted not less than \1/8\ of 1 percent of the amounts
available for grants under section 303(a) for the fiscal year
for which the allotment is made; and
``(2) each State shall be allotted for payment in a grant
authorized under section 303(a) $500,000, with the remaining
funds to be allotted to each State in an amount that bears
the same ratio to such remaining funds as the population of
such State bears to the population of all States.'';
(2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by inserting
``and available'' before ``for grants'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) If, at the end of the sixth month of a fiscal year
for which sums are appropriated under section 310--
``(A) the entire portion of such sums that is made
available for grants under section 303(b) has not been
distributed to Indian tribes and organizations described in
section 303(b) in grants because of the failure of 1 or more
of the tribes or organizations to meet the requirements for
such a grant, the Secretary shall--
``(i) use the remainder of the portion to make grants under
section 303(b) to Indian tribes and organizations who meet
the requirements; and
``(ii) make the grants in proportion to the original grants
made to the tribes and organizations under section 303(b) for
such year.''; and
(C) in paragraph (3) (as redesignated in subparagraph (A))
by inserting ``or distribution under section 303(b)'' after
``303(a)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) In subsection (a)(2), the term `State' does not
include any jurisdiction specified in subsection (a)(1).''.
(c) Secretarial Responsibilities.--Section 305(a) of the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C.
10404(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``an employee'' and inserting ``1 or more
employees'';
(2) by striking ``of this title.'' and inserting ``of this
title, including carrying out evaluation and monitoring under
this title.''; and
(3) by striking ``individual'' and inserting
``individuals''.
(d) Resource Centers.--Section 308 of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10407) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking the following:
``(2) Grants.--From the amounts'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Grants.--
``(A) Centers.--From the amounts'';
(B) by inserting ``on providing information, training, and
technical assistance'' after ``focusing''; and
(C) by inserting after the period the following:
``(B) Initiatives.--From such amounts, the Secretary may
award grants to private nonprofit organizations for
information, training, and technical assistance initiatives
in the subject areas identified in subsection (c), if--
``(i) such initiatives do not duplicate the activities of
the entities operating the special issue resource centers
provided for in subsection (c); and
``(ii) the total amounts awarded for all such initiatives
do not exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 7 percent of the
funds appropriated for making grants under this section.'';
and
(2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Providing technical assistance and training to local
entities carrying out domestic violence programs that provide
shelter or related assistance.
``(9) Improving access to services, information, and
training, concerning family violence, within Indian tribes
and Indian tribal agencies.
``(10) Responding to emerging issues in the field of family
violence that the Secretary may identify in consultation with
advocates for local entities carrying out domestic violence
programs that provide shelter or related assistance, State
domestic violence coalitions, and national domestic violence
organizations.''.
(e) Reauthorization.--Section 310(a) of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10409(a)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title--
``(A) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(C) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(2) Source of funds.--Amounts made available under
paragraph (1) may be appropriated from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund established under section 310001 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14211).''.
(f) Limitation on Funds.--Section 310 of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10409), as
amended by subsection (e), is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``under subsection
303(a)'' and inserting ``under section 303(a)'';
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``not more than the
lesser of $7,500,000 or'' before ``5'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking the following:
``(d) Grants for State Coalitions.--Of the amounts'' and
inserting the following:
``(d) Grants for State Coalitions.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), of
the amounts''; and
(B) by inserting after the period the following:
``(2) Appropriations exceeding $110,000,000.--If the total
amount appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year
exceeds $110,000,000, the Secretary shall use, for making
grants under section 311, not less than--
``(A) $11,000,000; plus
``(B) 8 percent of the amount appropriated under such
subsection for such fiscal year in excess of $110,000,000.'';
(4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(5) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Evaluation, Monitoring, and Administration.--Of the
amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal
year, not more than $1,200,000 shall be used by the Secretary
for evaluation, monitoring, and administrative costs under
this title.''.
(g) Needs Assessment.--Title III of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 319. NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
``In carrying out this title, the Secretary shall provide
for the conduct of a nationwide needs assessment relating to
the programs carried out under this title.''.
(h) Model Leadership Grants for Domestic Violence
Intervention in Underserved Communities.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.), as
amended by subsection (g), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 320. MODEL LEADERSHIP GRANTS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
``(a) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants to
develop and implement
[[Page S451]]
model community intervention strategies to address family
violence in underserved populations (as such term is defined
in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2)).
``(2) Limitations.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall award grants to not more than 10 State
domestic violence coalitions and to not more than 10 local
entities that carry out domestic violence programs providing
shelter or related assistance.
``(3) Purposes.--Grants awarded under paragraph (1) shall
be used for--
``(A) assessing the needs of underserved populations in the
State involved;
``(B) building collaborative relationships between the
grant recipients and community-based organizations serving
underserved populations; and
``(C) developing and implementing model community
intervention strategies to decrease the incidence of family
violence in underserved populations.
``(4) Periods.--The Secretary shall award grants under
paragraph (1) for periods of not more than 3 years.
``(b) Eligibility.--
``(1) Initial eligibility.--To be eligible for an initial
year of funding through a grant awarded under subsection
(a)(1), an applicant shall--
``(A) submit to the Secretary an application containing an
acceptable plan for assessing the needs of underserved
populations for the model community intervention strategies
described in subsection (a)(3)(C), and identifying a specific
population for development of such an intervention strategy,
in the first year of the grant; and
``(B) demonstrate to the Secretary inclusion of
representatives from community-based organizations in
underserved communities in planning and designing the needs
assessment under subparagraph (A).
``(2) Continued eligibility.--To be eligible for continued
funding for not more than 2 additional years through a grant
awarded under subsection (a)(1), a recipient of funding for
the initial year shall submit to the Secretary an application
containing--
``(A) a plan for implementing the intervention strategy,
and specifying the collaborative relationships with
community-based organizations serving the identified
underserved populations to be supported under the grant; and
``(B) a plan for disseminating the intervention strategy
throughout the State and, at the option of the recipient, to
other States.
``(c) Priority for Collaborative Funding.--
``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under subsection
(a)(1), the Secretary shall give priority to State domestic
violence coalitions, and local entities that carry out
domestic violence programs, that submit applications in
collaboration with community-based organizations serving
underserved populations.
``(2) Amounts.--The Secretary shall award grants under
subsection (a)(1) to coalitions and entities described in
paragraph (1) in amounts of not less than $100,000 per fiscal
year.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 310 of the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C.
10409), as amended by subsection (f), is further amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Redistribution of Funds Available Due to Certain
Limitations.--
``(1) Appropriations exceeding $110,000,000.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2), if the total amount appropriated
under subsection (a) for a fiscal year exceeds $110,000,000,
the Secretary shall use not less than 2 percent of the amount
appropriated under such subsection for such fiscal year in
excess of $110,000,000 for making grants under section 303 or
320.
``(2) Appropriations exceeding $150,000,000.--If the total
amount appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year
exceeds $150,000,000, the Secretary shall use not less than 7
percent of the amount appropriated under such subsection for
such fiscal year in excess of $150,000,000 for making grants
under section 303 or 320.''.
(i) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 303(b)(2) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10402(b)(2)) is amended, in the
second sentence, by striking ``(D), (E) and (F)'' and
inserting ``(D), (E), (F), and (G)''.
(2) Section 306 of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10405) is amended, in the second
sentence, by striking ``section 303(a)(2)(B) through
303(a)(2)(F)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) through (G)
of section 303(a)(2)''.
(3) Section 309(6) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10408(6)) is amended by striking
``the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands'' and inserting ``the
United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the combined Freely Associated
States''.
(4) Section 311(c) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10410(c)) is amended by striking
``the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands'' and inserting
``the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated States''.
SEC. 203. VICTIMS OF ABUSE INSURANCE PROTECTION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) Abuse.--The term ``abuse'' means the occurrence of 1 or
more of the following acts by a current or former household
or family member, intimate partner, or caretaker:
(A) Attempting to cause or causing another person bodily
injury, physical harm, substantial emotional distress,
psychological trauma, rape, sexual assault, or involuntary
sexual intercourse.
(B) Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly
committing acts toward another person, including following
the person without proper authority and under circumstances
that place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or
physical harm.
(C) Subjecting another person to false imprisonment or
kidnaping.
(D) Attempting to cause or causing damage to property so as
to intimidate or attempt to control the behavior of another
person.
(2) Adverse action.--The term ``adverse action'' means--
(A) denying, refusing to issue, renew, or reissue, or
canceling or otherwise terminating an insurance policy or
health benefit plan;
(B) restricting, excluding, or limiting insurance or health
benefit plan coverage or denying or limiting payment of a
claim incurred by an insured, except as otherwise permitted
or required by State laws relating to life insurance
beneficiaries; or
(C) adding a premium differential to any insurance policy
or health benefit plan.
(3) Health benefit plan.--The term ``health benefit plan''
means any public or private entity or program that provides
for payments for health care, including--
(A) a group health plan (as defined in section 607 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1167)) or a multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined
in section 3(40) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1102(40)) that
provides health benefits;
(B) any arrangement consisting of a hospital or medical
expense incurred policy or certificate, hospital or medical
service plan contract, or health maintenance organization
subscriber contract;
(C) workers' compensation or similar insurance to the
extent that it relates to workers' compensation medical
benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade Commission); and
(D) automobile medical insurance to the extent that it
relates to medical benefits (as defined by the Federal Trade
Commission).
(4) Health carrier.--The term ``health carrier'' means a
person that contracts or offers to contract on a risk-
assuming basis to provide, deliver, arrange for, pay for, or
reimburse any of the cost of health care services, including
a sickness and accident insurance company, a health
maintenance organization, a nonprofit hospital and health
service corporation or any other entity providing a plan of
health insurance, health benefits, or health services.
(5) Innocent insured.--The term ``innocent insured'' means
a subject of abuse who--
(A) is insured under the same policy as the abuser; and
(B) is not, taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, the cause of any claim incurred or any claim
that may incur.
(6) Insured.--The term ``insured'' means a party named on a
policy, certificate, or health benefit plan, including an
individual, corporation, partnership, association,
unincorporated organization, or any similar entity, as the
person with legal rights to the benefits provided by the
policy, certificate, or health benefit plan, including (for
purposes of group insurance) a person who is a beneficiary
covered by a group policy, certificate, or health benefit
plan, and including (for purposes of life insurance) the
person whose life is covered under an insurance policy.
(7) Insurer.--The term ``insurer'' means any person,
reciprocal exchange, interinsurer, Lloyds insurer, fraternal
benefit society, or other legal entity engaged in the
business of insurance, including agents, brokers, adjusters,
and third party administrators, and includes health benefit
plans, health carriers, and life, disability, and property
and casualty insurers.
(8) Personal identifying information.--The term ``personal
identifying information'' means information that identifies
an individual, including an individual's photograph, social
security number, driver identification number, name, address,
telephone number, place of employment, and medical,
disability, or abuse status.
(9) Policy.--The term ``policy'' means a contract of
insurance, certificate, indemnity, suretyship, or annuity
issued, proposed for issuance, or intended for issuance by an
insurer, including endorsements or riders to an insurance
policy or contract.
(10) Subject of abuse.--The term ``subject of abuse'' means
a person--
(A) against whom an act of abuse has been directed;
(B) who has prior or current injuries, illnesses, or
disorders that resulted from abuse;
(C) who seeks, may have sought, or had reason to seek
medical or psychological treatment for abuse or protection or
shelter from abuse; or
(D) who has incurred or may incur a claim as a result of
abuse.
(b) Acts Against Subjects of Abuse.--
(1) Discriminatory acts prohibited.--
(A) In general.--No insurer may, directly or indirectly,
take any adverse action against an applicant or insured on
the basis that the applicant or insured, or any person
[[Page S452]]
employed by the applicant or insured or with whom the
applicant or insured is known to have a relationship or
association is, has been, or may be the subject of abuse.
(B) Innocent insured.--No insurer may, directly or
indirectly, take any adverse action against an innocent
insured.
(2) Reasons for adverse actions.--An insurer that takes an
adverse action against a known subject of abuse shall advise
the applicant or insured of the specific reasons for the
action in writing. Reference to general underwriting
practices or guidelines shall not constitute a specific
reason.
(3) Use of information.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an
insurer, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof,
shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to
any person or entity personal identifying information about a
subject of abuse.
(B) Exception.--Personal identifying information referred
to in subparagraph (A) may be disclosed--
(i) with the informed, written consent of the subject of
abuse at the time the disclosure is sought;
(ii) if such information is necessary for the provision of
or the payment for services provided by the insurer or is
incident to the ordinary course of business of the insurer;
or
(iii) to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant
issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
equivalent State warrant, a grand jury subpoena, or a court
order.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (B)
shall be construed to permit an insurer to disclose personal
identifying information about a subject of abuse to a current
or former household or family member, intimate partner, or
caretaker of the subject of abuse.
(c) Enforcement.--
(1) Federal trade commission.--
(A) In general.--The Federal Trade Commission shall have
the power to examine and investigate any insurer to determine
whether such insurer has been, or is, in violation of
subsection (b) if the violation involved is not prohibited
under other Federal or State law or is prohibited under State
law but in the opinion of the Commission is not being
enforced by the State.
(B) Remedies.--If the Federal Trade Commission determines
that an insurer has been, or is, in violation of subsection
(b)--
(i) in the case of a violation of Federal or State law, the
Commission shall transmit such information to the appropriate
enforcement authority; and
(ii) in the case of a violation that is not prohibited
under other Federal or State law, or is prohibited under
State law but in the opinion of the Commission is not being
enforced by the State, the Commission may take action against
such insurer as if the insurer was in violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission Act by issuing a cease and
desist order, which may include any individual relief
warranted under the circumstances, including temporary,
preliminary, and permanent injunctive and compensatory
relief.
(2) Private cause of action.--
(A) In general.--An applicant or insured who believes that
the applicant or insured has been affected by a violation
under subsection (b) may bring an action against the insurer
in a Federal or State court of original jurisdiction.
(B) Remedies.--In an action under subparagraph (A), upon
proof of conduct of a violation of subsection (b) by a
preponderance of the evidence, the court may award
appropriate relief, including--
(i) temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief;
(ii) actual damages, in an amount that is not less than
liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation;
(iii) punitive damages;
(iv) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs
reasonably incurred, including the costs of expert witnesses;
and
(v) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the
court determines to be appropriate.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit a life insurer from declining to issue
a life insurance policy if the applicant or prospective owner
of the policy is or would be designated as a beneficiary of
the policy and if--
(1) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy lacks
an insurable interest in the insured; or
(2) the applicant or prospective owner of the policy is
known, on the basis of police or court records, to have
committed an act of abuse against the proposed insured.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to any action taken after December 31, 1998.
SEC. 204. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE.
(a) Reauthorization.--Section 316(f)(1) of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416(f)(1))
is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under
section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this
section--
``(A) $3,600,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $3,800,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(C) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
(b) Report by Grant Recipients.--Section 316 of the Family
Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10416) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Report by Grant Recipients.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, each recipient of a grant under
this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a
report that contains--
``(A) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities
carried out by the recipient with amounts received under this
section; and
``(B) such other information as the Secretary may
prescribe.
``(2) Notice and public comment.--Before renewing any grant
under this section for a recipient, the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register a copy of the report
submitted by the recipient under this subsection and allow
not less than 90 days for notice of and opportunity for
public comment on the published report.''.
SEC. 205. FEDERAL VICTIMS' COUNSELORS.
Section 40114 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1910))
is amended by striking ``Columbia)--'' and all that follows
before the period and inserting ``Columbia) $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002''.
SEC. 206. BATTERED WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION.
(a) Entitlement to Leave for Non-Federal Employees.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 101 of the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(14) Addressing domestic violence and its effects.--The
term `addressing domestic violence and its effects' means--
``(A) seeking medical attention for or recovering from
injuries caused by domestic violence;
``(B) seeking legal assistance or remedies, including
communicating with the police or an attorney, or
participating in any legal proceeding, related to domestic
violence;
``(C) obtaining psychological or other counseling related
to experiences of domestic violence;
``(D) participating in safety planning and other actions to
increase safety from future domestic violence, including
temporary or permanent relocation;
``(E) being unable to attend or perform work due to an
incident of domestic violence, including an act or threat of
violence, stalking, coercion, or harassment, occurring within
the previous 72 hours; and
``(F) participating in any other activity necessitated by
domestic violence that must be undertaken during the hours of
employment involved.
``(15) Domestic violence.--The term `domestic violence' has
the meaning given such term in section 2003 of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-
2).''.
(2) Leave requirement.--Section 102 of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) In order to care for the son, daughter, or parent of
the employee, if such son, daughter, or parent is addressing
domestic violence and its effects.
``(F) Because the employee is addressing domestic violence
and its effects, which make the employee unable to perform
the functions of the position of such employee.'';
(B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Domestic violence.--Leave under subparagraph (E) or
(F) of subsection (a)(1) may be taken by an eligible employee
intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule. The taking of
leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule pursuant
to this paragraph shall not result in a reduction in the
total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled under
subsection (a) beyond the amount of leave actually taken.'';
(C) in subsection (d)(2)(B), by striking ``(C) or (D)'' and
inserting ``(C), (D), (E), or (F)''; and
(D) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``or (D)'' and
inserting ``, (D), (E), or (F)''.
(3) Certification.--Section 103 of the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is amended--
(A) in the heading of the section, by inserting before the
period the following: ``; CONFIDENTIALITY''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Domestic Violence.--In determining if an employee
meets the requirements of subparagraph (E) or (F) of section
102(a)(1), the employer of an employee may require the
employee to provide--
``(1) documentation of the domestic violence involved, such
as a police or court record, or documentation of the domestic
violence from a shelter worker, attorney, member of the
clergy, or medical or other professional from whom the
employee has sought assistance in addressing domestic
violence and its effects; or
``(2) other corroborating evidence, such as a statement
from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances
that provide the basis for the claim of domestic violence, or
physical evidence of domestic violence, such as a photograph
or torn or bloody clothing.
``(g) Confidentiality.--All evidence provided to the
employer under subsection (f) of
[[Page S453]]
domestic violence experienced by an employee or the son,
daughter, or parent of an employee, including a statement of
an employee, any corroborating evidence, and the fact that an
employee has requested leave for the purpose of addressing,
or caring for a son, daughter, or parent who is addressing,
domestic violence and its effects, shall be retained in the
strictest confidence by the employer, except to the extent
that disclosure is consented to by the employee in a case in
which disclosure is necessary to protect the safety of the
employee or a co-worker of the employee, or requested by the
employee to document domestic violence to a court or
agency.''.
(b) Entitlement to Leave for Federal Employees.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 6381 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) at the end of paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the term `addressing domestic violence and its
effects' means--
``(A) seeking medical attention for or recovering from
injuries caused by domestic violence;
``(B) seeking legal assistance or remedies, including
communicating with the police or an attorney, or
participating in any legal proceeding, related to domestic
violence;
``(C) obtaining psychological or other counseling related
to experiences of domestic violence;
``(D) participating in safety planning and other actions to
increase safety from future domestic violence, including
temporary or permanent relocation;
``(E) being unable to attend or perform work due to an
incident of domestic violence, including an act or threat of
violence, stalking, coercion, or harassment, occurring within
the previous 72 hours; and
``(F) participating in any other activity necessitated by
domestic violence that must be undertaken during the hours of
employment involved; and
``(8) the term `domestic violence' has the meaning given
the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
(2) Leave requirement.--Section 6382 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) In order to care for the son, daughter, or parent of
the employee, if such son, daughter, or parent is addressing
domestic violence and its effects.
``(F) Because the employee is addressing domestic violence
and its effects, which make the employee unable to perform
the functions of the position of such employee.'';
(B) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Leave under subparagraph (E) or (F) of subsection
(a)(1) may be taken by an employee intermittently or on a
reduced leave schedule. The taking of leave intermittently or
on a reduced leave schedule pursuant to this paragraph shall
not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to
which the employee is entitled under subsection (a) beyond
the amount of leave actually taken.'';
(C) in subsection (d), by striking ``(C), or (D)'' and
inserting ``(C), (D), (E), or (F)''; and
(D) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``or (D)'' and
inserting ``, (D), (E), or (F)''.
(3) Certification.--Section 6383 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in the heading of the section, by adding at the end the
following: ``; confidentiality''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) In determining if an employee meets the requirements
of subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 6382(a)(1), the
employing agency of an employee may require the employee to
provide--
``(1) documentation of the domestic violence involved, such
as a police or court record, or documentation of the domestic
violence from a shelter worker, attorney, member of the
clergy, or medical or other professional from whom the
employee has sought assistance in addressing domestic
violence and its effects; or
``(2) other corroborating evidence, such as a statement
from any other individual with knowledge of the circumstances
that provide the basis for the claim of domestic violence, or
physical evidence of domestic violence, such as a photograph
or torn or bloody clothing.
``(g) All evidence provided to the employing agency under
subsection (f) of domestic violence experienced by an
employee or the son, daughter, or parent of an employee,
including a statement of an employee, any corroborating
evidence, and the fact that an employee has requested leave
for the purpose of addressing, or caring for a son, daughter,
or parent who is addressing, domestic violence and its
effects, shall be retained in the strictest confidence by the
employing agency, except to the extent that disclosure is
consented to by the employee in a case in which disclosure is
necessary to protect the safety of the employee or a co-
worker of the employee, or requested by the employee to
document domestic violence to a court or agency.''.
(c) Effect on Other Laws and Employment Benefits.--
(1) More protective laws, agreements, programs, and
plans.--Nothing in this section or the amendments made by
this section shall be construed to supersede any provision of
any Federal, State, or local law, collective bargaining
agreement, or other employment benefit program or plan that
provides greater leave benefits for employed victims of
domestic violence than the rights established under this
section or such amendments.
(2) Less protective laws, agreements, programs, and
plans.--The rights established for employees under this
section or the amendments made by this section shall not be
diminished by any State or local law, collective bargaining
agreement, or employment benefit program or plan.
(d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the date that is 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 207. ENSURING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
(a) Unemployment Compensation.--Section 3304 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (18);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (19) as paragraph (20); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
``(19) compensation is to be provided where an individual
is separated from employment due to circumstances directly
resulting from the individual's experience of domestic
violence; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Construction.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(19), an
employee's separation from employment shall be treated as due
to circumstances directly resulting from the individual's
experience of domestic violence if the separation resulted
from--
``(A) the employee's reasonable fear of future domestic
violence at or en route to or from the employee's place of
employment;
``(B) the employee's wish to relocate to another geographic
area in order to avoid future domestic violence against the
employee or the employee's family;
``(C) the employee's need to recover from traumatic stress
resulting from the employee's experience of domestic
violence;
``(D) the employer's denial of the employee's request for
the temporary leave from employment to address domestic
violence and its effects authorized by subparagraphs (E) and
(F) of section 102(a)(1) of the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993; or
``(E) any other circumstance in which domestic violence
causes the employee to reasonably believe that termination of
employment is necessary for the future safety of the employee
or the employee's family.
``(2) Reasonable efforts to retain employment.--For
purposes of subsection (a)(19), if State law requires the
employee to have made reasonable efforts to retain employment
as a condition for receiving unemployment compensation, such
requirement shall be met if the employee--
``(A) sought protection from, or assistance in responding
to, domestic violence, including calling the police or
seeking legal, social work, medical, clergy, or other
assistance;
``(B) sought safety, including refuge in a shelter or
temporary or permanent relocation, whether or not the
employee actually obtained such refuge or accomplished such
relocation; or
``(C) reasonably believed that options such as taking a
leave of absence, transferring jobs, or receiving an
alternative work schedule would not be sufficient to
guarantee the employee or the employee's family's safety.
``(3) Active search for employment.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(19), if State law requires the employee to
actively search for employment after separation from
employment as a condition for receiving unemployment
compensation, such requirement shall be treated as met where
the employee is temporarily unable to actively search for
employment because the employee is engaged in seeking safety
or relief for the employee or the employee's family from
domestic violence, including--
``(A) going into hiding or relocating or attempting to do
so, including activities associated with such hiding or
relocation, such as seeking to obtain sufficient shelter,
food, schooling for children, or other necessities of life
for the employee or the employee's family;
``(B) actively pursuing legal protection or remedies,
including meeting with the police, going to court to make
inquiries or file papers, meeting with attorneys, or
attending court proceedings; or
``(C) participating in psychological, social, or religious
counseling or support activities to assist the employee in
ending domestic violence.
``(4) Provision of information to meet certain
requirements.--In determining if an employee meets the
requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), the
unemployment agency of the State in which an employee is
requesting unemployment compensation by reason of subsection
(a)(19) may require the employee to provide--
``(A) documentation of the domestic violence, such as
police or court records, or documentation of the domestic
violence from a shelter worker or an employee of a domestic
violence program, an attorney, a clergy member, or a medical
or other professional from whom the employee has sought
assistance in addressing domestic violence and its effects;
or
``(B) other corroborating evidence, such as a statement
from any other individual with
[[Page S454]]
knowledge of the circumstances which provide the basis for
the claim, or physical evidence of domestic violence, such as
photographs, torn or bloody clothes.
All evidence of domestic violence experienced by an employee,
including an employee's statement, any corroborating
evidence, and the fact that an employee has applied for or
inquired about unemployment compensation available by reason
of subsection (a)(19) shall be retained in the strictest
confidence by such State unemployment agency, except to the
extent consented to by the employee where disclosure is
necessary to protect the employee's safety.
``(5) Effect of claims.--Claims filed for unemployment
compensation solely by reason of subsection (a)(19) shall be
disregarded in determining an employer's State unemployment
taxes based on unemployment experience.''.
(b) Social Security Personnel Training.--Section 303(a) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(a)) is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (4) through (10) as paragraphs (5)
through (11), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(3) the following:
``(4) Such methods of administration as will ensure that
claims reviewers and hearing personnel are adequately trained
in the nature and dynamics of claims for unemployment
compensation based on domestic violence under section
3304(a)(20) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and in
methods of ascertaining and keeping confidential information
about possible experiences of domestic violence to ensure
that requests for unemployment compensation based on domestic
violence are reliably screened, identified, and adjudicated,
and to ensure that complete confidentiality is provided for
the employee's claim and submitted evidence.''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 3306 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(u) Domestic Violence.--In this chapter, the term
`domestic violence' has the meaning given the term in section
2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply in the case of
compensation paid for weeks beginning 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(2) Meeting of state legislature.--If the Secretary of
Labor identifies a State as requiring a change to its
statutes or regulations in order to comply with the
amendments made by this section, the amendments made by this
Act shall apply in the case of compensation paid for weeks
beginning after the earlier of--
(A) the date the State changes its statutes or regulations
in order to comply with the amendments made by this section;
or
(B) the end of the first session of the State legislature
which begins after the date of enactment of this Act or which
began prior to such date and remained in session for not less
than 25 calendar days after such date;
except that in no case shall the amendments made by this Act
apply before the date which is 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term ``session'' means a regular, special,
budget, or other session of a State legislature.
SEC. 208. BATTERED IMMIGRANT WOMEN.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the goal of the immigration protections for battered
immigrants included in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
was to remove immigration laws as a barrier that kept
battered immigrant women and children locked in abusive
relationships;
(2) providing battered immigrant women and children who
were experiencing domestic violence at home with protection
against deportation allows them to obtain protection orders
against their abusers and frees them to cooperate with law
enforcement and prosecutors in criminal cases brought against
their abusers and the abusers of their children; and
(3) there are several groups of battered immigrant women
and children who do not have access to the immigration
protections of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which
means that their abusers are virtually immune from
prosecution because their victims can be deported and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service cannot offer them
protection no matter how compelling their case under existing
law.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to promote criminal prosecutions of all persons who
commit acts of battery or extreme cruelty against immigrant
women and children;
(2) to offer protection against domestic violence occurring
in family and intimate relationships that are covered in
State protection order, domestic violence, and family law
statutes; and
(3) to correct erosions of Violence Against Women Act
immigration protections that occurred as a result of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996.
(c) Effect of Changes in Abusers' Citizenship Status.--(1)
Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(v) For the purposes of any petition filed under clause
(iii) or (iv), denaturalization, loss or renunciation, or
changes to the abuser's citizenship status after filing of
the petition shall not preclude the classification of the
eligible self-petitioning spouse or child as an immediate
relative.''.
(2) Section 204(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new clause:
``(iv)(I) For the purposes of petitions filed or approved
under clauses (ii) and (iii), loss of lawful permanent
residence status by a spouse or parent after the filing of a
petition under that clause shall not preclude approval of the
petition, and, for an approved petition, shall not affect the
alien's ability to adjust status under section 245(a) and (c)
or obtain status as a lawful permanent resident based on the
approved self-petition under clauses (ii) and (iii).
``(II) Upon the lawful permanent resident spouse or parent
becoming a United States citizen through naturalization,
acquisition of citizenship, or other means, any petition
filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
pending or approved under section 204(a)(1)(B) on behalf of
an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty may be deemed to be a petition filed under section
204(a)(1)(A) of this Act even if the acquisition of
citizenship occurs after divorce.''.
(d) Determinations of Good Moral Character.--
(1) Cancellations of removal; suspensions of deportation.--
Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1229b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Good moral character determinations.--For the
purposes of making `good moral character' determinations
under paragraph (2), the Attorney General is not limited by
the criminal court record and may make a finding of good
moral character, notwithstanding the existence of
disqualifying criminal act or criminal conviction, in the
case of an alien who has been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty but who--
``(i) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to,
violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
``(ii) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, prostitution,
if the alien was forced into prostitution by an abuser;
``(iii) was convicted of or pled guilty to committing a
crime if the alien committed the crime under duress from the
person who battered or subjected the alien to extreme
cruelty; or
``(iv) was convicted of or pled guilty to a domestic
violence-related crime if the Attorney General determines
that the alien acted in self-defense.
``(5) Inclusion of other aliens in petition.--An alien
applying for relief under section 244(a)(3) (as in effect
before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) or this subsection may
include--
``(A) the alien's children in the alien's application if
such children are physically present in the United States at
the time of application, and, if the alien is found eligible
for suspension, the Attorney General may adjust the status of
the alien's children; or
``(B) the alien's parent in the alien's application in the
case of an application filed by an alien who was abused by a
citizen or lawful permanent resident parent and, if the alien
is found eligible for suspension, the Attorney General may
adjust the status of both the alien applicant and the alien's
parent.
``(6) Determinations under suspension of deportation.--For
the purposes of making good moral character determinations
under section 244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (as in effect before the enactment of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996),
the Attorney General is not limited by the criminal court
record and may make a finding of good moral character,
notwithstanding the existence of a disqualifying criminal act
or criminal conviction, in the case of an alien who has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty but who--
``(i) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to,
violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
``(ii) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to,
prostitution if the alien was forced into prostitution by an
abuser;
``(iii) has been convicted of, or pled guilty to
committing, a crime under duress from the person who battered
or subjected the alien to extreme cruelty; or
``(iv) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, a domestic
violence-related crime if the Attorney General determines
that the alien acted in self-defense.
(2) Immediate relative status.--Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vi)(I) For the purposes of making good moral character
determinations under this subparagraph, the Attorney General
is not limited by the criminal court record and may make a
finding of good moral character, notwithstanding the
existence of a disqualifying criminal act or criminal
conviction, in the case of an alien who otherwise qualifies
for relief under section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) or (iv), but
who--
``(aa) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to,
violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
``(bb) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, prostitution if
the alien was forced into prostitution by an abuser;
``(cc) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, committing a
crime under duress from the
[[Page S455]]
person who battered or subjected the alien to extreme
cruelty; or
``(dd) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, a domestic
violence-related crime, if the Attorney General determines
that the alien acted in self-defense.
``(II) After finding that an alien has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty and is otherwise eligible for
relief under section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) or (iv), the Attorney
General may make a finding of `good moral character' with
respect to the alien, notwithstanding the existence of a
disqualifying criminal act or criminal conviction.''.
(3) Second preference immigration status--Section
204(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(v)(I) For the purposes of making good moral character
determinations under this subparagraph, the Attorney General
is not limited by the criminal court record and may make a
finding of good moral character, notwithstanding the
existence of a disqualifying criminal act or criminal
conviction, in the case of an alien who otherwise qualifies
for relief under section 204(a)(1)(B) (ii) and (iii), but
who--
``(aa) has been convicted of, or who pled guilty to,
violating a court order issued to protect the alien;
``(bb) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, prostitution
where the alien was forced into prostitution by an abuser;
``(cc) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, committing a
crime under duress from the person who battered or subjected
the alien to extreme cruelty; or
``(dd) was convicted of, or pled guilty to, a domestic
violence-related crime, if the Attorney General determines
that the alien acted in self-defense.
``(II) After finding that an alien has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty and is otherwise eligible for
relief under section 204(a)(1)(B) (ii) or (iii), the Attorney
General may in the Attorney General's sole discretion make a
finding of good moral character with respect to the alien,
notwithstanding the existence of a disqualifying criminal act
or criminal conviction.''.
(e) Waivers of Inadmissibility.--(1) Section 212 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(p) The Attorney General, in the Attorney General's
discretion, may waive any provision of section 212 (other
than subsection (a) (3), (10)(A), (10)(D), and (10)(E)) for
humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is
otherwise in the public interest for any alien who qualifies
for--
``(1) status under clause (iii) or (iv) of section
204(a)(1)(A) or classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of
section 204(a)(1)(B); or
``(2) relief under section 240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) (as in
effect before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996).''.
(2) Section 212(h)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)) is amended--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'';
(B) at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' and
inserting ``or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in the case of an alien who qualifies for status
under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or
classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of section
204(a)(1)(B) or who qualifies for relief under section
240A(b)(2), or section 244(a)(3) (as in effect before the
enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996), if it is established to the
satisfaction of the the Attorney General that the alien's
admission would further humanitarian purposes, ensure family
unity, or otherwise be in the public interest; and''.
(3) Section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(G) Exceptions.--The provisions of this paragraph shall
not apply to deny admissibility to an alien if the Attorney
General has approved the alien's self-petition or application
pursuant to section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) or (iv), 204(a)(1)(B)
(ii) or (iii), 240A(b)(2), or 244(a)(3) (as in effect before
the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note).
(f) Waiver of Certain Removal Grounds.--Section
237(a)(2)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(E)) is amended by inserting at the end the
following new clause:
``(iii) Waiver.--The Attorney General may waive the
application of clauses (i) and (ii)--
``(I) upon determination that--
``(aa) the alien was acting in self-defense,
``(bb) the alien was not the primary perpetrator of
violence in the relationship,
``(cc) the alien was found to have violated a protection
order intended to protect the alien, or
``(dd) the alien was convicted of committing a crime under
duress from the person who subjected the alien to battering
or extreme cruelty, or
``(II) for humanitarian purposes.''.
(g) Procedure for Granting Immigrant Status.--
(1) Definition.--Section 101(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(50) The term `intended spouse' means any alien who meets
the criteria set forth in section 204(j)(1)(B) or
204(k)(1)(B).''.
(2) Immediate relative status.--
(A) Self-petitioning spouses.--Section 204(a)(1)(A)(iii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) An alien who is described in subsection (j) may
file a petition with the Attorney General under this clause
for classification of the alien (and any child of the alien
if such a child has not been classified under clause (iv))
under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) if the alien demonstrates to
the Attorney General that--
``(I) the alien is residing in the United States (unless
the alien's spouse, intended spouse, or parent is an employee
of the Department of State or a member of the United States
Armed Forces stationed abroad);
``(II) the marriage or the intent to marry the United
States citizen was entered into in good faith by the alien;
and
``(III) during the marriage or relationship intended by the
alien to be legally a marriage, the alien or a child of the
alien has been battered or has been the subject of extreme
cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse or intended
spouse.''.
(B) Definition.--Section 204 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act is amended (8 U.S.C. 1154) by adding at the
end the following:
``(j) Definition.--An alien described in subsection
(a)(1)(A)(iii) is an alien--
``(1)(A) who is the spouse of a citizen of the United
States; or
``(B)(i) who believed in good faith that he or she had
married a citizen of the United States;
``(ii) whose marriage to such citizen would otherwise meet
the definition of qualifying marriage under section
216(d)(1)(A)(i); and
``(iii) who otherwise meets any applicable requirements
under this Act to establish the existence of and bona fides
of a marriage;
but whose marriage is not legitimate solely because of the
bigamy of such citizen of the United States;
``(2) who is a person of good moral character;
``(3) who is eligible to be classified as an immediate
relative under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) or who would have been
so classified but for the bigamy of the citizen of the United
States that the alien intended to marry; and
``(4) who has resided in the United States with the alien's
spouse or intended spouse, or has resided within or outside
the territory of the United States with the citizen spouse at
the assigned foreign duty station if the alien's spouse or
intended spouse is an employee of the Department of State or
a member of the United States Armed Forces stationed
abroad.''.
(C) Self-petitioning children.--Section 204(a)(1)(A)(iv) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(A)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) An alien who is the child of a citizen of the United
States, who is a person of good moral character, who is
eligible to be classified as an immediate relative under
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and who has resided in the United
States with the citizen parent (or has resided within or
outside the territory of the United States with the citizen
parent at the assigned foreign duty station if the alien's
parent is an employee of the Department of State or a member
of the United States Armed Forces stationed abroad) may file
a petition with the Attorney General under this subparagraph
for classification of the alien under such section if the
alien demonstrates to the Attorney General that the alien is
residing in the United States (unless the alien's parent is
an employee of the Department of State or a member of the
United States Armed Forces stationed abroad) and during the
period of residence with the citizen parent in the United
States or at the assigned foreign duty station the alien has
been battered by or has been the subject of extreme cruelty
perpetrated by the alien's citizen parent.''.
(D) Filing of petitions.--Section 204(a)(1)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154 (a)(1)(A)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
(vii) ``An alien who is the spouse, intended spouse, or
child filing under clause (iii) or (iv) of this subparagraph
of an employee of the Department of State or a member of the
United States Armed Forces stationed abroad eligible to file
a petition under this subsection shall file such petition
with the Attorney General.''.
(3) Second preference immigration status.--
(A) Self-petitioning spouses.--Section 204(a)(1)(B)(ii) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) An alien who is described in subsection (k) may file
a petition with the Attorney General under this clause for
classification of the alien (and any child of the alien if
such a child has not been classified under clause (iii))
under section 203(a)(2)(A) if the alien demonstrates to the
Attorney General that--
``(I) the alien is residing in the United States (unless
the alien's spouse, intended spouse, or child is an employee
of the Department of State or a member of the United States
Armed Forces stationed abroad);
``(II) the marriage or the intent to marry the lawful
permanent resident was entered into in good faith by the
alien; and
[[Page S456]]
``(III) during the marriage or relationship intended by the
alien to be legally a marriage, the alien or a child of the
alien has been battered or has been the subject of extreme
cruelty perpetrated by the alien's spouse or intended
spouse.''.
(B) Definition.--Section 204 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(k) Definition.--An alien described in subsection
(a)(1)(B)(ii) is an alien--
``(1)(A) who is the spouse of a lawful permanent resident
of the United States; or
``(B)(i) who believed in good faith that he or she had
married a lawful permanent resident of the United States;
``(ii) whose marriage to such lawful permanent resident
would otherwise meet the definition of qualifying marriage
under section 216(d)(1)(A)(i); and
``(iii) who otherwise meets any applicable requirements
under this Act to establish the existence of and bona fides
of a marriage;
but whose marriage is not legitimate solely because of the
bigamy of such lawful permanent resident of the United
States;
``(2) who is a person of good moral character;
``(3) who is eligible to be classified as a spouse of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section
203(a)(2)(A) or who would have been so classified but for the
bigamy of the lawful permanent resident of the United States
that the alien intended to marry; and
``(4) who has resided in the United States with the alien's
spouse or intended spouse, or has resided within or outside
the territory of the United States with the lawful permanent
resident spouse or intended spouse at the assigned foreign
duty station if the alien's spouse or intended spouse is an
employee of the Department of State or a member of the United
States Armed Forces stationed abroad.''.
(C) Self-petitioning children.--Section 204(a)(1)(B)(iii)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iii) An alien who is the child of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, who is a person of good
moral character, who is eligible for classification under
section 203(a)(2)(A), and who has resided in the United
States with the alien's permanent resident alien parent (or
has resided within or outside the territory of the United
States with the lawful permanent resident parent at the
assigned foreign duty station if the alien's parent is an
employee of the Department of State or a member of the United
States Armed Forces stationed abroad) may file a petition
with the Attorney General under this subparagraph for
classification of the alien under such section if the alien
demonstrates to the Attorney General that the alien is
residing in the United States (unless the alien's parent is
an employee of the Department of State or a member of the
United States Armed Forces stationed abroad) and during the
period of residence with the permanent resident parent in the
United States or at the assigned foreign duty station the
alien has been battered by or has been the subject of extreme
cruelty perpetrated by the alien's permanent resident
parent.''.
(D) Filing of petitions.--Section 204(a)(1)(B) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154 (a)(1)(B)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vi) An alien who is the spouse, intended spouse, or
child filing under clauses (ii) and (iii) of this
subparagraph of an employee of the Department of State or a
member of the United States Armed Forces stationed abroad
eligible to file a petition under this subsection shall file
such petition with the Attorney General.''.
(h) Adjustment of Status.--(1) Section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or the status of
any other alien having an approved petition for
classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v),
(B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1),'' after ``into the
United States'';
(B) in subsections (c)(2) and (c)(4) by inserting ``or an
alien having an approved petition for classification under
subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)
of section 204(a)(1),'' after ``other than an immediate
relative as defined in section 201(b)'' each place it
appears;
(C) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ``(other than an
alien having an approved petition for classification under
subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)
of section 204(a)(1)),'' after ``an alien''; and
(D) in subsection (c)(8), by inserting ``(other than an
alien having an approved petition for classification under
subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (A)(v), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)
of section 204(a)(1)),'' after ``any alien''.
(2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall apply to
applications for adjustment of status pending on or made on
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1255(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``This paragraph shall not apply to
aliens who seek adjustment of status on the basis of an
approved self-petition under clause (iii) or (iv) of section
204(a)(1)(A) or classification under clause (ii) or (iii) of
section 204(a)(1)(B).''.
(i) Eliminating Time Limitations on Motions To Reopen
Removal and Deportation Proceedings for Victims of Domestic
Violence.--
(1) Removal proceedings.--
(A) In general.--Section 240(c)(6)(C) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(C)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Special rule for battered spouses and children.--
There is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen,
and the deadline specified in subsection (b)(5)(C) does not
apply, if the basis of the motion is to apply for adjustment
of status based on a petition filed under clause (iii) or
(iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A), clause (ii) or (iii) of section
204(a)(1)(B), or section 240A(b)(2) and if the motion to
reopen is accompanied by a cancellation of removal
application to be filed with the Attorney General or by a
copy of the self-petition that will be filed with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service upon the granting of
the motion to reopen.''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendments made by subparagraph
(A) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of
section 304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996.
(2) Deportation proceedings.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any limitation imposed by
law on motions to reopen deportation proceedings under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the
title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note)), there is no time limit on the filing
of a motion to reopen such proceedings, and the deadline
specified in section 242B(c)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (as so in effect) does not apply, if the
basis of the motion is to apply for relief under clause (iii)
or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B)
of such Act, or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as so in
effect) and if the motion to reopen is accompanied by a
suspension of deportation application to be filed with the
Attorney General or by a copy of the self-petition that will
be filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon
the granting of the motion to reopen.
(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply to motions
filed by aliens who--
(i) are, or were, in deportation proceedings under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect before the
title III-A effective date in section 309 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note)); and
(ii) have become eligible to apply for relief under clause
(iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B)
of such Act, or section 244(a)(3) of such Act (as in effect
before the title III-A effective date in section 309 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note)) as a result of the amendments
made by--
(I) subtitle G of title IV of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat.
1953 et seq.); or
(II) section XX03 of this title.
(j) Cancellation of Removal; Adjustment of Status.--(1)(A)
Paragraph (1) of section 240A(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) Termination of continuous period.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
for purposes of this section, any period of continuous
residence or continuous physical presence in the United
States shall be deemed to end when the alien is served a
notice to appear under section 239(a) or when the alien has
committed an offense referred to in section 212(a)(2) that
renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under
section 212(a)(2) or removable from the United States under
section 237(a)(2) or 237(a)(4), whichever is earliest.
``(B) Special rule for battered spouse or child.--For
purposes of subsection (b)(2), the service of a notice to
appear referred to in subparagraph (A) shall not be deemed to
end any period of continuous physical presence in the United
States.''.
(B) Section 240A(e)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(C) Aliens in removal proceedings who applied for
cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(2).''.
(C) The amendments made by subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall
take effect as if included in the enactment of section 304 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 587).
(2)(A) Section 309(c)(5)(C) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1101 note) is amended--
(i) by amending the subparagraph heading to read as
follows:
``(C) Special rule for certain aliens granted temporary
protection from deportation and for battered spouses and
children.--''; and
(ii) in clause (i)--
(I) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (IV);
(II) by striking the period at the end of subclause (V) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
``(VI) is an alien who was issued an order to show cause or
was in deportation proceedings prior to April 1, 1997, and
who applied for suspension of deportation under section
244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as in
effect before the date of the enactment of this Act).''.
[[Page S457]]
(B) The amendments made by subparagraph (A) shall take
effect as if included in the enactment of section 309 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).
(3) Section 240A(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) An alien shall be considered to have failed to
maintain continuous physical presence in the United States
under subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) if the alien has departed
from the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or
for periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days. In the case
of an alien applying for cancellation of removal under
subsection (b)(2), the Attorney General may waive the
provisions of this subsection for humanitarian purposes, if
the alien demonstrates a substantial connection between the
absences and the battery or extreme cruelty forming the basis
of the application for cancellation of removal.''.
(4) Section 244(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (as in effect before the title III-A effective date of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; division C; 110 Stat. 3009-
625)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Attorney General may waive the physical presence requirement
for humanitarian purposes if the alien demonstrates a
substantial connection between the absences and the battery
or extreme cruelty forming the basis of the application for
suspension of deportation.''.
(k) Exception to Public Charge Grounds of
Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to--
``(i) an alien who qualifies for status as a spouse or
child of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident
pursuant to clause (iii) or (iv) of section 204(a)(1)(A) or
clause (ii) or (iii) of section 204(a)(1)(B);
``(ii) an alien who qualifies for status as the spouse or
child of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident
under section 204(a)(1)(A) (i) or (ii) or section
204(a)(1)(B)(i) and who has been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty; or
``(iii) derivatives and immediate relative children of
aliens under clause (i) or (ii) of this subparagraph.''.
(l) Grants To Combat Violent Crimes Against Women.--
(1) In general.--Section 2001 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the Executive Office of
Immigration Review,'' after ``Indian tribal governments'';
and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, immigration and
asylum officers, immigration judges,'' after ``law
enforcement officers'';
(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) training justice system personnel on the immigration
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the
ramifications of those provisions for victims of domestic
violence who appear in civil and criminal court proceedings
and potential immigration consequences for the perpetrators
of domestic violence.''.
(2) Grants to encourage arrest policies.--Section 2101(c)
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796hh(c)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) certify that their laws, policies, and practices do
not discourage or prohibit prosecutors and law enforcement
officers from granting access to information about the
immigration status of a domestic violence perpetrator to the
victim, the child, or their advocate''.
(3) Effect on other goals.--Section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(11) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
identifying and reporting the alien status of a crime victim
or of a victim of a domestic violence crime shall not
supersede the goal of obtaining the cooperation of the victim
in the reporting and prosecution of such crime or the goal of
protecting the victim of such crime with a protection order
or other legal relief available to assist crime victims or
domestic violence victims under Federal or State laws.''.
(m) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on--
(1) the number of and processing times of petitions under
section 204(a)(1)(A) (iii) and (iv) and 204(a)(1)(B) (ii) and
(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at district
offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and at
the regional office of the Service in St. Albans, Vermont;
(2) the policy and procedures of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service by which an alien who has been
battered or subjected to extreme cruelty who is eligible for
suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal under
can place him or herself in deportation or removal
proceedings so that he or she may apply for suspension of
deportation or cancellation of removal, the number of
requests filed at each district office under this policy and
the number of these requests granted broken out by District;
and
(3) the average length of time at each Immigration and
Naturalization office between the date that an alien who has
been subject to battering or extreme cruelty eligible for
suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal requests
to be placed in deportation or removal proceedings, and the
date that immigrant appears before an immigration judge to
file an application for suspension of deportation or
cancellation of removal.
SEC. 209. OLDER WOMEN'S PROTECTION FROM VIOLENCE.
(a) Violence Against Women Act of 1994 Amendments.--The
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1902) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle H--Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, Including
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Against Older Individuals
``SEC. 40801. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) In general.--The terms `elder abuse, neglect, and
exploitation', `domestic violence', and `older individual'
have the meanings given the terms in section 102 of the Older
Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002).
``(2) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the
meaning given the term in section 2003 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg-2).
``SEC. 40802. LAW SCHOOL CLINICAL PROGRAMS ON ELDER ABUSE,
NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION.
``The Attorney General shall make grants to law school
clinical programs for the purposes of funding the inclusion
of cases addressing issues of elder abuse, neglect, and
exploitation, including domestic violence, and sexual
assault, against older individuals.
``SEC. 40803. TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
``The Attorney General shall develop curricula and offer,
or provide for the offering of, training programs to assist
law enforcement officers and prosecutors in recognizing,
addressing, investigating, and prosecuting instances of elder
abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including domestic
violence, and sexual assault, against older individuals.
``SEC. 40804. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this subtitle.''.
(b) Family Violence Prevention and Services Act
Amendments.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 309 of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10408) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) The term `older individual' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3002).''.
(2) Domestic violence services for older individuals.--
Section 311(a) of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10410(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) work with domestic violence programs to encourage the
development of programs, including outreach, support groups,
and counseling, targeted to older individuals.''.
(3) Demonstration grants for community initiatives.--
Section 318(b)(2)(F) of the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10418(b)(2)(F)) is amended by
inserting ``and adult protective services entities'' before
the semicolon.
(c) Older Americans Act of 1965 Amendments.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 102 of the Older Americans Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(45) The term `domestic violence' has the meaning given
the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).
``(46) The term `sexual assault' has the meaning given the
term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
(2) Research about the sexual assault of women who are
older individuals.--Section 202(d)(3)(C) of the Older
Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3012(d)(3)(C)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) in establishing research priorities under clause
(i), consider the importance of research about the sexual
assault of women who are older individuals.''.
(3) State long-term care ombudsman program.--Section
303(a)(1) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3023(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period the
following: ``, except that for grants to carry out section
321(a)(10), there are authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary without fiscal year limitation''.
(4) Training for health professionals on screening for
elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.--Section 411 of the
Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3031) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
[[Page S458]]
``(f) Training for Health Professionals on Screening for
Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, in consultation
with the Assistant Secretary, develop curricula and implement
continuing education training programs for protective service
workers, health care providers, social workers, clergy, and
other community-based social service providers in settings,
including senior centers, adult day care settings, and senior
housing, to improve the ability of the persons using the
curriculum and training programs to recognize and address
instances of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation,
including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against
older individuals.
``(2) Training and curricula.--In carrying out paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall develop and implement separate
curricula and training programs for adult protective services
workers, medical students, physicians, physician assistants,
nurse practitioners, nurses, and clergy.''.
(5) Domestic violence shelters and programs for older
individuals.--Section 422(b) of the Older Americans Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3035a(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) expand access to domestic violence shelters and
programs for older individuals and encourage the use of
senior housing, nursing homes, or other suitable facilities
or services when appropriate as emergency short-term shelters
or measures for older individuals who are the victims of
elder abuse, including domestic violence, and sexual assault,
against older individuals; and
``(14) promote research on legal, organizational, or
training impediments to providing services to older
individuals through shelters, such as impediments to
provision of the services in coordination with delivery of
health care or senior services.''.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--
(A) Ombudsman program.--Section 702(a) of the Older
Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058a(a)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(a) Ombudsman Program.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out chapter 2 such sums as may be
necessary without fiscal year limitation.''.
(B) Elder abuse prevention program.--Section 702(b) of the
Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058a(b)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Prevention of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and
Exploitation.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out chapter 3 such sums as may be necessary without
fiscal year limitation.''.
(7) Community initiatives and outreach.--Title VII of the
Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058 et seq.) is
amended--
(A) by redesignating subtitle C as subtitle D;
(B) by redesignating sections 761 through 764 as sections
771 through 774, respectively; and
(C) by inserting after subtitle B the following:
``Subtitle C--Community Initiatives and Outreach
``SEC. 761. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES TO COMBAT ELDER ABUSE,
NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION.
``The Secretary shall make grants to nonprofit private
organizations to support projects in local communities,
involving diverse sectors of each community, to coordinate
activities concerning intervention in and prevention of elder
abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including domestic
violence, and sexual assault, against older individuals.
``SEC. 762. OUTREACH TO OLDER INDIVIDUALS.
``The Secretary shall make grants to develop and implement
outreach programs directed toward assisting older individuals
who are victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation
(including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against
older individuals), including programs directed toward
assisting the individuals in senior housing complexes and
senior centers.
``SEC. 763. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle such sums as may be necessary without fiscal year
limitation.''.
(d) Public Health Service Act Amendments.--
(1) Title vii programs; preferences in financial awards.--
Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
295j), as amended by section 107(a) of the Health Professions
Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-392; 112
Stat. 3560) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and
Referral of Victims of Elder Abuse and Neglect.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions
entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in
making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give
preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified
applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the
requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or
certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student
have had significant training (such as training conducted in
accordance with curricula or programs authorized under
section 411(f) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3031(f))), in carrying out the following functions as a
provider of health care:
``(A) Identifying victims of elder abuse and neglect,
including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against
older individuals, and maintaining complete medical records
that include documentation of the examination, treatment
given, and referrals made, and recording the location and
nature of the victim's injuries.
``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope
of the health professional's discipline, training, and
practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice
regarding the dynamics and nature of elder abuse and neglect.
``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private
entities that provide services for such victims.
``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in
this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a
school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental
health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section
801), a program for the training of physician assistants, or
a program for the training of allied health professionals.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act II,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce of
the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources of the Senate, a report specifying--
``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving
preference under paragraph (1);
``(B) the number of hours of training required by the
entities for purposes of such paragraph;
``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
``(D) the types of courses through which the training is
being provided.
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) In general.--The terms `abuse', `neglect', `domestic
violence', and `older individual' have the meanings given the
terms in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3002).
``(B) Elder abuse and neglect.--The term `elder abuse and
neglect' means abuse and neglect of an older individual.
``(C) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the
meaning given the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
(2) Title viii programs; preferences in financial awards.--
Section 806 of the Public Health Service Act (as added by
section 123 of the Health Professions Education Partnerships
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-392)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and
Referral of Victims of Elder Abuse and Neglect.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions
entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in
making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give
preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified
applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the
requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or
certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student
have had significant training (such as training conducted in
accordance with curricula or programs authorized under
section 411(f) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C.
3031(f))), in carrying out the following functions as a
provider of health care:
``(A) Identifying victims of elder abuse and neglect,
including domestic violence, and sexual assault, against
older individuals, and maintaining complete medical records
that include documentation of the examination, treatment
given, and referrals made, and recording the location and
nature of the victim's injuries.
``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope
of the health professional's discipline, training, and
practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice
regarding the dynamics and nature of elder abuse and neglect.
``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private
entities that provide services for such victims.
``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in
this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or
other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to
receive an award described in such paragraph.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act II,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce of
the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources of the Senate, a report specifying--
``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving
preference under paragraph (1);
``(B) the number of hours of training required by the
entities for purposes of such paragraph;
``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
``(D) the types of courses through which the training is
being provided.
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) In general.--The terms `abuse', `neglect', `domestic
violence', and `older individual' have the meanings given the
terms in section 102 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3002).
``(B) Elder abuse and neglect.--The term `elder abuse and
neglect' means abuse and neglect of an older individual.
``(C) Sexual assault.--The term `sexual assault' has the
meaning given the term in section 2003 of the Omnibus Crime
Control
[[Page S459]]
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2).''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 411(f) of the Older
Americans Act of 1965 (as added by subsection (c)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
provide information about the curricula and training programs
to entities described in section 791(d)(2) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295j(d)(2)) and section
806(i)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (as added by
section 123 of the Health Professions Education Partnerships
Act of 1998 and amended by section 209(d)(2) of the Violence
Against Women Act II) that seek grants or contracts under
title VII or VIII of such Act.''.
TITLE III--LIMITING THE EFFECTS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN
SEC. 301. SAFE HAVENS FOR CHILDREN.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to
States and Indian tribal governments to enable States and
Indian tribal governments to enter into contracts and
cooperative agreements with public or private nonprofit
entities to assist those entities in establishing and
operating supervised visitation centers for purposes of
facilitating supervised visitation and visitation exchange of
children by and between parents.
(b) Considerations.--In awarding grants under subsection
(a), the Attorney General shall take into account--
(1) the number of families to be served by the proposed
visitation center;
(2) the extent to which the proposed supervised visitation
center serves underserved populations (as defined in section
2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2));
(3) with respect to an applicant for a contract or
cooperative agreement, the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates cooperation and collaboration with nonprofit,
nongovernmental entities in the local community served,
including the State domestic violence coalition, State sexual
assault coalition, local shelters, and programs for domestic
violence and sexual assault victims;
(4) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates
coordination and collaboration with State and local court
systems, including mechanisms for communication and referral;
and
(5) the extent to which the applicant demonstrates
implementation of domestic violence and sexual assault
training for all employees.
(c) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Amounts provided under a grant, contract,
or cooperative agreement awarded under this section shall be
used to establish and operate supervised visitation centers.
(2) Applicant requirements.--The Attorney General shall
award grants for contracts and cooperative agreements under
this section in accordance with such regulations as the
Attorney General may promulgate. The regulations shall
establish a multi-year grant process. The Attorney General
shall give priority in awarding grants for contracts and
cooperative agreements under this section to States that
consider domestic violence in making a custody decision and
require findings on the record. An applicant awarded a
contract or cooperative agreement by a State that receives a
grant under this section shall--
(A) demonstrate recognized expertise in the area of family
violence and a record of high quality service to victims of
domestic violence and/or sexual assault;
(B) demonstrate collaboration with and support of the State
domestic violence coalition, sexual assault coalition or
local domestic violence and sexual assault shelter or program
in the locality in which the supervised visitation center
will be operated;
(C) provide supervised visitation and visitation exchange
services over the duration of a court order to promote
continuity and stability;
(D) ensure that any fees charged to individuals for use of
services are based on an individual's income;
(E) demonstrate that adequate security measures, including
adequate facilities, procedures, and personnel capable of
preventing violence, are in place for the operation of
supervised visitation; and
(F) described standards by which the supervised visitation
center will operate.
(d) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the end of
each fiscal year, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report that includes information concerning--
(1) the number of individuals served and the number of
individuals turned away from services (categorized by State),
the number of individuals from underserved populations served
and turned away from services, and the type of problems that
underlie the need for supervised visitation or visitation
exchange, such as domestic violence, child abuse, sexual
assault, emotional or other physical abuse, or a combination
of such factors;
(2) the numbers of supervised visitations or visitation
exchanges ordered during custody determinations under a
separation or divorce decree or protection order, through
child protection services or other social services agencies,
or by any other order of a civil, criminal, juvenile, or
family court;
(3) the process by which children or abused partners are
protected during visitations, temporary custody transfers,
and other activities for which the supervised visitation
centers are established under this section;
(4) safety and security problems occurring during the
reporting period during supervised visitations or at
visitation centers including the number of parental abduction
cases;
(5) the number of parental abduction cases in a judicial
district using supervised visitation services, both as
identified in criminal prosecution and custody violations;
and
(6) program standards across the country that are in place
for operating a supervised visitation center.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under
section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this
section--
(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(C) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(2) Distribution.--Of amounts made available to carry out
this section for each fiscal year, not less than 95 percent
shall be used to award grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements.
(3) Allotment for indian tribes.--
(A) In general.--Not less than 5 percent of the total
amount made available to carry out this section for each
fiscal year shall be available for grants to Indian tribal
governments.
(B) Reallotment of funds.--If, beginning 9 months after the
first day of any fiscal year for which amounts are made
available under this paragraph, any amount made available
under this paragraph remains unobligated, the unobligated
amount may be allocated without regard to subparagraph (A).
SEC. 302. STUDY OF CHILD CUSTODY LAWS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
CASES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) conduct a study of Federal and State laws relating to
child custody, including the Parental Kidnaping Prevention
Act of 1980, and the amendments made by that Act, and the
effect of those laws on child custody cases in which domestic
violence is a factor; and
(2) submit to Congress a report describing the results of
that study, including the effects of implementing or applying
new model State laws, and the recommendations of the Attorney
General regarding legislative changes to reduce the incidence
or pattern of violence against women or of sexual assault of
the child.
(b) Sufficiency of Defenses.--In carrying out subsection
(a) with respect to the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of
1980, and the amendments made by that Act, the Attorney
General shall examine the sufficiency of defenses to parental
abduction charges available in cases involving domestic
violence, and the burdens and risks encountered by victims of
domestic violence arising from compliance with the full faith
and credit (and judicial jurisdiction) requirements of that
Act and the amendments made by that Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriate to carry out this section $200,000 for each
of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
(d) Condition for Custody Determination.--Section
1738A(c)(2)(C)(ii) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the child, or a
sibling or parent of the child,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, including any act of domestic violence
by the other parent'' before the semicolon.
SEC. 303. REAUTHORIZATION OF RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH
GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 316(c) of the Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712d(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to
carry out this section--
``(1) $21,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(2) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(3) $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
(b) Dissemination of Information.--Section 316 of part A of
the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712d) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary shall
annually compile and broadly disseminate (including through
electronic publication) information about the use of amounts
expended and the projects funded under this subtitle,
including any evaluations of the projects and information to
enable replication and adoption of the strategies identified
in the projects. Such dissemination shall target community-
based programs, including domestic violence and sexual
assault programs.''.
SEC. 304. REAUTHORIZATION OF VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE PROGRAMS.
(a) Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program.--Section
218(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
13014(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control
and
[[Page S460]]
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out
this subtitle--
``(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
``(2) $12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and
2002.''.
(b) Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel
and Practitioners.--Section 224(a) of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13024(a) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry
out this subtitle $2,300,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2002.''.
(c) Grants for Televised Testimony.--Section 1001(a)(7) of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) There is authorized to be appropriated from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under section
310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out part N $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
(d) Dissemination of Information.--The Attorney General
shall annually compile and broadly disseminate (including
through electronic publication) information about the use of
amounts expended and the projects funded under section 218(a)
of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
13014(a)), section 224(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13024(a)), and section 1007(a)(7) of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(7)), including any evaluations of the
projects and information to enable replication and adoption
of the strategies identified in the projects. Such
dissemination shall target community-based programs,
including domestic violence and sexual assault programs.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENING EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO COMBAT VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN
SEC. 401. EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.
(a) Title VII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
295j), as amended by section 209 of this Act, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and
Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions
entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in
making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give
preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified
applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the
requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or
certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student
have had significant training in carrying out the following
functions as a provider of health care:
``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and
maintaining complete medical records that include
documentation of the examination, treatment given, and
referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the
victim's injuries.
``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope
of the health professional's discipline, training, and
practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice
regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private
entities that provide services for such victims.
``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in
this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a
school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental
health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section
853), a program for the training of physician assistants, or
a program for the training of allied health professionals.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources of the Senate, a report specifying--
``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving
preference under paragraph (1);
``(B) the number of hours of training required by the
entities for purposes of such paragraph;
``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
``(D) the types of courses through which the training is
being provided.
``(4) Definition of domestic violence.--In this subsection,
the term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly
referred to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal
abuse, woman battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder
abuse, and acquaintance rape.''.
(b) Title VIII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
Section 860 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 298b-
7), as amended by section 209 of this Act, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and
Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions
entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in
making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give
preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified
applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the
requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or
certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student
have had significant training in carrying out the following
functions as a provider of health care:
``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and
maintaining complete medical records that include
documentation of the examination, treatment given, and
referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the
victim's injuries.
``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope
of the health professional's discipline, training, and
practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice
regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private
entities that provide services for such victims.
``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in
this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or
other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to
receive an award described in such paragraph.
``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification
and Referral Act of 1997, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a
report specifying--
``(A) the health professions entities that are receiving
preference under paragraph (1);
``(B) the number of hours of training required by the
entities for purposes of such paragraph;
``(C) the extent of clinical experience so required; and
``(D) the types of courses through which the training is
being provided.
``(4) Definition of domestic violence.--In this subsection,
the term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly
referred to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal
abuse, woman battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder
abuse, and acquaintance rape.''.
SEC. 402. EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
(a) Authority.--The Attorney General may make grants in
accordance with this section to public and private nonprofit
entities that, in the determination of the Attorney General,
have--
(1) nationally recognized expertise in the areas of
domestic violence and sexual assault; and
(2) a record of commitment and quality responses to reduce
domestic violence and sexual assault.
(b) Purpose.--Grants under this section may be used for the
purposes of developing, testing, presenting, and
disseminating model programs to provide education and
training in appropriate and effective responses to victims of
domestic violence and victims of sexual assault (including,
as appropriate, the effects of domestic violence on children)
to individuals (other than law enforcement officers and
prosecutors) who are likely to come into contact with such
victims during the course of their employment, including--
(1) campus personnel, such as administrators, housing
officers, resident advisers, counselors, and others;
(2) caseworkers, supervisors, administrators,
administrative law judges, and other individuals
administering Federal and State benefits programs, such as
child welfare and child protective services, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families, social security disability,
child support, medicaid, unemployment, workers' compensation,
and similar programs;
(3) justice system professionals, such as court personnel,
guardians ad litem and other individuals appointed to
represent or evaluate children, probation and parole
officers, bail commissioners, judges, and attorneys;
(4) medical and health care professionals, including mental
and behavioral health professionals such as psychologists,
psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, counselors, and
others; and
(5) religious professionals, such as clergy persons and lay
employees.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to
carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2002.
SEC. 403. RAPE PREVENTION AND EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--Part J of title III of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 393A the following:
``SEC. 393B. USE OF ALLOTMENTS FOR RAPE PREVENTION EDUCATION.
``(a) Permitted Use.--Notwithstanding section 1904(a)(1),
amounts transferred by the State for use under this part
shall be used for rape prevention and education programs
conducted by rape crisis centers, State sexual assault
coalitions, and other public and private nonprofit entities
for--
``(1) educational seminars;
``(2) the operation of hotlines;
``(3) training programs for professionals;
``(4) the preparation of informational material;
[[Page S461]]
``(5) education and training programs for students and
campus personnel designed to reduce the incidence of sexual
assault at colleges and universities; and
``(6) other efforts to increase awareness of the facts
about, or to help prevent, sexual assault, including efforts
to increase awareness in underserved communities and
awareness among individuals with disabilities (as defined in
section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12102)).
``(b) National Resource Center.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall, through the National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, establish a National Resource Center
on Sexual Assault to provide resource information, policy,
training, and technical assistance to Federal, State, and
Indian tribal agencies, as well as to State sexual assault
coalitions and local sexual assault programs and to other
professionals and interested parties on issues relating to
sexual assault. The Resource Center shall maintain a central
resource library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and
disseminate information and statistics and analyses thereof
relating to the incidence and prevention of sexual assault.
``(c) Targeting of Education Programs.--States providing
grant moneys must ensure that not less than 25 percent of the
funds are used for educational programs targeted for middle
school, junior high, and high school students. The programs
targeted under this subsection shall be provided by or in
consultation with rape crisis centers, State sexual assault
coalitions, or other entities recognized for their expertise
in preventing sexual assault or in providing services to
victims of sexual assault.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under
section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this
section--
``(A) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(2) Sexual assault coalitions.--Not less than 10 percent
of the total amount made available under this subsection in
each fiscal year shall be used to make grants to State sexual
assault coalitions to address public health issues associated
with sexual assault through training, resource development,
or similar research.
``(3) National resource center allotment.--Not less than 1
percent of the total amount made available under this
subsection in each fiscal year shall be available for
allotment under subsection (b).
``(e) Limitations.--
``(1) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts transferred by
States for use under this section shall be used to supplement
and not supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds
expended to provide services of the type described in
subsection (a).
``(2) Studies.--A State may not use more than 2 percent of
the amount received by the State under this section for each
fiscal year for surveillance studies or prevalence studies.
``(3) Administration.--A State may not use more than 5
percent of the amount received by the State under this
section for each fiscal year for administrative expenses.
``(f) Eligible Organizations.--The Secretary shall award a
grant under subsection (b) of this section to a private
nonprofit entity which can--
``(1) demonstrate that it has recognized expertise in the
area of sexual assault, a record of high-quality services to
victims of sexual assault, including a demonstration of
support from advocacy groups, such as State sexual assault
coalitions or recognized national sexual assault groups; and
``(2) demonstrate a commitment to the provision of services
to underserved populations.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `rape prevention and education' includes
education and prevention efforts directed at sexual offenses
committed by offenders who are not known to the victim as
well as offenders who are known to the victim;
``(2) the term `rape crisis center' means a private
nonprofit organization that is organized, or has as one of
its primary purposes, to provide services for victims of
sexual assault and has a record of commitment and
demonstrated experience in providing services to victims of
sexual assault;
``(3) the term `sexual assault' has the meaning given the
term in section 2003 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg-2); and
``(4) the term `State sexual assault coalition' means a
statewide nonprofit, non-governmental membership organization
administering a majority of sexual assault programs within
the State that, among other activities, provides training and
technical assistance to sexual assault programs within the
State.
``(h) Terms.--
``(1) Basis of allotments.--The Secretary shall make
allotments to each State on the basis of the population of
the State.
``(2) Limitation.--No State may use amounts made available
by reason of subsection (a) in any fiscal year for
administration of any prevention program other than the rape
prevention and education program for which allotments are
made under this section.
``(3) Availability of funds.--Any amount paid to a State
for a fiscal year and remaining unobligated at the end of
such year shall remain available for the next fiscal year to
such State for the purposes for which it was made.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Public health service.--Section 1910A of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-10) is repealed.
(2) Violence against women act of 1994.--Section 40151 of
the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 1920) is
repealed.
SEC. 404. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION EDUCATION AMONG
YOUTH.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
shall provide grants to individuals or organizations to carry
out educational programs for elementary schools, middle
schools, secondary schools, or institutions of higher
education with respect to information regarding, and
prevention of, domestic violence and violence among intimate
partners.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this
section, an individual or organization shall work in domestic
violence prevention, health or social work, law or law
enforcement, schools, or institutions of higher education.
(c) Applications.--An individual or organization that
desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services an application, in
such form and manner as the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall prescribe, that--
(1) demonstrates that the educational program is
comprehensive, engaging, and appropriate to the target ages,
addresses cultural diversity, has the potential to change
attitudes and behaviors, is developed based on research and
experience in the areas of youth education and domestic
violence, collects some form of data on changes in
participants' attitudes or behavior, and includes an
evaluation component;
(2) in the case of a program for a collegiate audience,
demonstrates input from members of the campus community,
campus or local law enforcement, education professionals,
legal and psychological experts on battering, and victim
advocate organizations; and
(3) contains such other information, agreements, and
assurances as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may
require.
(d) Uses of Funds.--
(1) In general.--An individual or organization that
receives a grant under this section may use the grant funds--
(A) to carry out educational programs for elementary
schools, middle schools, secondary schools, or institutions
of higher education with respect to information regarding,
and prevention of, domestic violence and violence among
intimate partners;
(B) to modify the program materials of the model programs
implemented under section 317 of the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10417), if
appropriate, in order to make the materials applicable to a
particular age group;
(C) to purchase the materials described in subparagraph
(B); or
(D) to establish pilot educational programs described in
paragraph (1) for institutions of higher education for the
purpose of identifying model programs for such institutions.
(2) Limitation.--An individual or organization that
receives a grant under this section for a fiscal year shall
use not more than 7 percent of the grant funds for
administrative expenses.
(e) Publication.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall publish the availability of grants under this
section through announcements in professional publications
for the individuals or organizations described in subsection
(d)(2), and through notice in the Federal Register.
(f) Term.--A grant under this section may be awarded for a
period of not more than 3 fiscal years.
(g) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under this
section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
ensure an equitable geographic distribution to individuals
and organizations throughout the United States.
(h) Requirements.--In carrying out an educational program
under this section, an individual or organization shall--
(1) develop the program, or acquire model program materials
if available;
(2) carry out the program with a school's or institution of
higher education's involvement; and
(3) report the results of the program to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services in a format provided by the
Secretary.
(i) Evaluation and Report.--
(1) College level programs.--Not later than December 31,
2000, the Secretary shall evaluate the pilot educational
programs for college audiences assisted under subsection
(e)(1)(D) with the goal of identifying and describing model
programs.
(2) Evaluation and report.--Not later than 3 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall--
(A) transmit to Congress the design and an evaluation of
the model collegiate programs;
(B) report to Congress regarding results of the elementary
school, middle school, secondary school, and institution of
higher education programs funded under this section; and
(C) suggest changes or improvements to be made in the
programs.
(j) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the
[[Page S462]]
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall publish in the
Federal Register proposed regulations implementing this
section. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
publish in the Federal Register final regulations
implementing this section.
(k) Definitions.--
(1) Elementary school; secondary school.--The terms
``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' have the
meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 1201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1141).
(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section (other than subsection (d)(1)(D) and
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (i)(2))--
(A) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
(B) $2,700,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(2) Collegiate programs; report.--There is authorized to be
appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to carry
out subsection (d)(1)(D) and subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (i)(2) $400,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(3) Availability.--Amounts appropriated under this
subsection shall remain available until the earlier of--
(A) the date on which those amounts are expended; or
(B) December 31, 2001.
SEC. 405. EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST AND
ABUSE OF WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to
States and nongovernmental private entities to provide
education and technical assistance for the purpose of
providing training, consultation, and information on
violence, abuse, and sexual assault against women who are
individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)).
(b) Priorities.--In making grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to applications designed
to provide education and technical assistance on--
(1) the nature, definition, and characteristics of
violence, abuse, and sexual assault experienced by women who
are individuals with disabilities;
(2) outreach activities to ensure that women who are
individuals with disabilities who are victims of violence,
abuse, and sexual assault receive appropriate assistance;
(3) the requirements of shelters and victim services
organizations under Federal anti-discrimination laws,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and
(4) cost-effective ways that shelters and victim services
may accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities in
accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(c) Uses of Grants.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall provide information and training to
organizations and programs that provide services to
individuals with disabilities, including independent living
centers, disability-related service organizations, and
domestic violence programs providing shelter or related
assistance.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to
carry out this section--
(1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 406. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES.
Section 318 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10418) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (I);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) groups that provide services to or advocacy on behalf
of individuals with disabilities (as defined in section 3 of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12102)); and''; and
(2) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund established under section 310001 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14211) to carry out this section--
``(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(2) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
``(3) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
SEC. 407. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON STANDARDS OF PRACTICE AND
TRAINING FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a
multidisciplinary, multiagency national commission, which
shall--
(1) evaluate standards of training and practice for
licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault
forensic examinations and develop a national recommended
standard for training;
(2) recommend minimum sexual assault forensic examination
training for all health care students to improve the
recognition of injuries suggestive of rape and sexual assault
and baseline knowledge of appropriate referrals in victim
treatment and evidence collection;
(3) review national, State, and local protocols on sexual
assault for forensic examinations, and based on the review,
develop a recommended national protocol, and establish a
mechanism for nationwide dissemination; and
(4) study and evaluate State procedures for payment of
forensic examinations for victims of sexual assault and
establish a recommended Federal protocol for the payment of
forensic examinations.
(b) Membership.--The members of the national commission
established under this section shall be appointed by the
Attorney General from among individuals who are experts in
the prevention and treatment of rape and sexual assault,
including--
(1) individuals employed in the fields of victim services,
criminal justice, forensic nursing, forensic science,
emergency room medicine, law, and social services; and
(2) individuals who are experts in the prevention and
treatment of sex crimes in ethnic, social, and language
minority communities, as well as rural, disabled, and other
underserved communities.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a
report to Congress on the findings of the commission
established under subsection (a).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to
carry out this section $200,000 for fiscal year 2000.
SEC. 408. NATIONAL WORKPLACE CLEARINGHOUSE ON VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN.
(a) Authority.--The Attorney General may make a grant in
accordance with this section to a private, nonprofit entity
that meets the requirements of subsection (b) to establish
and operate a national clearinghouse and resource center to
provide information and assistance to employers and labor
organizations on appropriate workplace responses to domestic
violence and sexual assault.
(b) Grantees.--Each applicant for a grant under this
section shall submit to the Attorney General an application,
which shall--
(1) demonstrate that the applicant--
(A) has a nationally recognized expertise in the area of
domestic violence and sexual assault and a record of
commitment and quality responses to reduce domestic violence
and sexual assault; and
(B) will provide matching funds from non-Federal sources in
an amount equal to not less than 10 percent of the total
amount of the grant under this section; and
(2) include a plan to conduct outreach to encourage
employers (including small and large businesses, as well as
public entities such as universities, and State and local
governments) to develop and implement appropriate responses
to assist employees who are victims of domestic violence or
sexual assault.
(c) Use of Grant Amount.--A grant under this section may be
used for salaries, travel expenses, equipment, printing, and
other reasonable expenses necessary to assemble, maintain,
and disseminate to employers and labor organizations
information on appropriate responses to domestic violence and
sexual assault, including costs associated with such
activities as--
(1) developing and disseminating model protocols and
workplace policies;
(2) developing and disseminating models for employer and
union sponsored victims' services;
(3) developing and disseminating training videos and model
curricula to promote better understandings of workplace
issues surrounding domestic violence; and
(4) planning and conducting conferences and other
educational opportunities.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211) to
carry out this section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2002.
SEC. 409. STRENGTHENING RESEARCH TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN.
Chapter 9 of subtitle B of the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13961 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 40294. RESEARCH TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
``(a) Education, Prevention, and Intervention Research
Grants.--
``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Attorney General shall make grants to entities,
including domestic violence and sexual assault organizations,
research organizations, and academic institutions, to support
research and evaluation of education, prevention, and
intervention programs on violent behavior against women.
``(2) Use of funds.--The research conducted under this
section shall include--
``(A) longitudinal research to study the developmental
trajectory of violent behavior
[[Page S463]]
against women and the manner in which that violence differs
from other violent behaviors;
``(B) the examination of risk factors for sexual and
intimate partner violence for victims and perpetrators, such
as poverty, childhood victimization and other traumas;
``(C) the examination of short- and long-term efforts of
programs designed to prevent sexual and intimate partner
violence;
``(D) outcome evaluations of interventions and school
curriculum targeted at children and teenagers;
``(E) the examination and documentation of the processes
and informal strategies women experience in attempting to
manage and stop the violence in their lives; and
``(F) the development, testing, and evaluation of the
economic and health benefits of effective methods of domestic
violence screening and prevention programs at all points of
entry into the health care system, including mental health,
emergency medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, and primary care,
and an assessment of the costs of domestic violence to the
health care system.
``(b) Addressing Gaps in Research.--
``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Attorney General shall make grants to domestic
violence and sexual assault organizations, research
organizations, and academic institutions in order to address
gaps in research and knowledge about violence against women,
including violence against women in underserved communities.
``(2) Uses of funds.--The research conducted with grants
made under this subsection shall include--
``(A) the development of national- and community-level
survey studies to measure the incidence and prevalence of
violence against women in underserved populations and the
terms women use to describe their experiences of violence;
``(B) qualitative and quantitative research to understand
the manner in which factors that shape the context and
experience of violence in women's lives, as well as the
education, prevention, and intervention strategies available
to women (including minors);
``(C) a study of violence against women as a risk factor
for diseases from a multivariate perspective;
``(D) an examination of the prevalence and dynamics of
emotional and psychological abuse, the effects on women of
such abuse, and the education, prevention, and intervention
strategies that are available to address this type of abuse;
``(E) an examination of the need for and availability of
legal assistance and services for victims of sexual assault;
and
``(F) the use of nonjudicial alternative dispute resolution
(such as mediation, negotiation, conciliation, and
restorative justice models) in cases in which domestic
violence is a factor, comparing nonjudicial alternative
dispute resolution and traditional judicial methods based
upon the quality of representation of the victim, the
training of mediators or other facilitators, the satisfaction
of the parties, the outcome of the proceedings, and such
other factors as may be identified; and
``(G) an examination of effective models to address
domestic violence in child protective services and child
welfare agencies, including--
``(i) documenting the scope of the problem;
``(ii) identifying the risk of harm perpetrators of
domestic violence pose to children and to parents who are
victims of domestic violence; and
``(iii) examining effective models to address domestic
violence in the context of child welfare and child protection
that protect children while protecting parents who are
victims of domestic violence.
``(c) Sentencing Commission Study.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this section, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall submit to Congress a
report on--
``(1) sentences given to offenders incarcerated in Federal
and State prisons for homicides or assaults in which the
victim was a spouse, former spouse, or intimate partner of
the offender;
``(2) the effect of illicit drugs and alcohol on domestic
violence and the sentences imposed for offenses involving
illicit drugs and alcohol in which domestic violence
occurred;
``(3) the extent to which acts of domestic violence
committed against the offender, including coercion, may have
contributed to the commission of an offense;
``(4) an analysis delineated by race, gender, type of
offense, and any other categories that would be useful for
understanding the problem of domestic violence; and
``(5) recommendations with respect to the offenses
described in this subsection, including any basis for a
downward adjustment in any applicable Federal sentencing
guidelines determination.
``(d) Research on Pregnancy and Sexual Assault.--
``(1) Purposes.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
and the Attorney General shall make grants to nonprofit
entities, including sexual assault organizations, research
organizations, and academic institutions, in order to gather
qualitative and quantitative data on the experiences of
minors and adults who become pregnant as a result of sexual
assault within State health care, judicial, and social
services systems.
``(2) Use of amounts.--The research conducted with grants
made under this subsection shall include--
``(A) the incidence and prevalence of pregnancy resulting
from sexual assault, including the ages of the victim and
perpetrator, and any relationship between the perpetrator and
the victim (such as family, acquaintance, intimate partner,
spouse, household member, etc.);
``(B) the degree to which State adoption, child custody,
visitation, child support, parental termination, and child
welfare criminal justice laws and policies serve the needs of
women (including minors) who become pregnant as a result of
sexual assault;
``(C) the impact of State social services rules, policies,
and procedures on women (including minors) who become
pregnant as a result of sexual assault and on those children
born as a result of the sexual assault;
``(D) the availability of public and private legal,
medical, and mental health counseling, financial, and other
forms of assistance to women (including minors) who become
pregnant as a result of sexual assault, and to the children
born as a result of the sexual assault, including the extent
to which barriers exist in accessing that assistance; and
``(E) recommendations for improvements in State health
care, judicial, and social services systems to address the
needs of women (including minors) who become pregnant as a
result of sexual assault and of the children born as a result
of the sexual assault.
``(e) Status Report on Laws Regarding Rape and Sexual
Assault Offenses.--
``(1) Study.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
national, State, and local domestic violence and sexual
assault coalitions and programs, including, nationally
recognized experts on sexual assault, such as from the
judiciary, the legal profession, psychological associations,
and sex offender treatment providers, shall conduct a
national study to examine the status of the law with respect
to rape and sexual assault offenses and the effectiveness of
the implementation of laws in addressing such crimes and
protecting their victims. In carrying out this subsection,
the Attorney General may utilize the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office
for Victims of Crime, or any other appropriate component of
the Department of Justice.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall submit
to Congress a report on the findings of the study under
paragraph (1), which shall include--
``(A) an analysis of the degree of uniformity among the
States with respect to rape and sexual assault laws
(including sex offenses committed against children),
including the degree of uniformity among States with respect
to--
``(i) definitions of rape and sexual assault, including any
marital rape exception and any other exception or downgrading
of offense;
``(ii) the element of consent and coercive conduct,
including deceit;
``(iii) the element of physical resistance and affirmative
nonconsent as a precondition for conviction;
``(iv) the element of force, including penetration
requirement as aggravating factor and use of coercion;
``(v) evidentiary matters--
``(I) inferences--timeliness of complaint under the Model
Penal Code;
``(II) post traumatic stress disorder (including rape
trauma syndrome) relevancy of scope and admissibility;
``(III) rape shield laws--in camera evidentiary
determinations;
``(IV) prior bad acts; and
``(V) corroboration requirement and cautionary jury
instructions;
``(vi) the existence of special rules for rape and sexual
assault offenses;
``(vii) the use of experts;
``(viii) sentencing--
``(I) plea bargains;
``(II) presentence reports;
``(III) recidivism and remorse;
``(IV) adolescents;
``(V) psychological injuries;
``(VI) gravity of crime and trauma to victim; and
``(VII) race; and
``(ix) any personal or professional relationship between
the perpetrator and the victim; and
``(B) any recommendations of the Attorney General for
reforms to foster uniformity among the States in addressing
rape and sexual assault offenses in order to protect victims
more effectively while safeguarding the due process rights of
the accused.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund established under section 310001 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211)--
``(1) to carry out subsection (a), $3,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001;
``(2) to carry out subsection (b), $2,100,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001;
``(3) to carry out subsection (c), $200,000 for fiscal year
2000;
``(4) to carry out subsection (d), $500,000 for fiscal year
2000; and
``(5) to carry out subsection (e), $200,000 for fiscal year
2000.''.
TITLE V--EXTENSION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND
SEC. 501. EXTENSION.
(a) In General.--Section 310001(b) of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
[[Page S464]]
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) for fiscal year 2001, $4,400,000,000; and
``(8) for fiscal year 2002, $4,500,000,000.''.
(b) Conforming Discretionary Spending Cap Reduction.--Upon
enactment of this Act, the discretionary spending limits for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 set forth in section 251(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 901(c)) are reduced as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2001, $4,400,000,000 in new budget
authority and $5,981,000,000 in outlays.
(2) For fiscal year 2002, $4,500,000,000 in new budget
authority and $4,530,000,000 in outlays.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Brownback):
S. 52. A bill to provide a direct check for education; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
DIRECT CHECK FOR EDUCATION ACT
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we start this 106th Congress, I think it
is clear that education is going to be one of the top priorities we
will address in this session of Congress. We are going to be working on
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and
I believe all of us, on both sides, are saying that this is a national
priority.
As my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, said in a
speech that he made at Northeastern University, ``Ever since there has
been a United States of America, there have been public schools. And
there has been a constant debate about how to make them work.'' I know
that since I was elected to the United States Senate 12 years ago I
have listened and participated in the many debates on public education
that have occurred in this institution. I have even had some ideas of
my own on how to improve education--some of which have been passed by
this body and signed into law.
My intentions, like those of my Senate colleagues--have been good
intentions. We all share the same goal of providing our children with a
great education. We have been trying to do the right thing.
Today, however, our good intentions have mushroomed into burdensome
regulations, unfunded mandates, and unwanted meddling. Parents,
teachers, and local school officials have less and less control over
what happens in the classroom. Instead of empowering parents, teachers,
and local school officials we have empowered the federal government and
bureaucrats. We have slowly eroded the opportunity for creativity and
innovation on the local level and have once again established a system
where supposedly the Olympians on the hill know what is best for the
peasants in the valley.
Mr. President, let me give you some examples of what our good
intentions have gotten us.
We have 760 education programs scattered throughout 39 different
federal agencies. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review
said that the Department of Education's discretionary grant process
lasts 26 weeks and takes 487 steps from start to finish. The General
Accounting Office has estimated that there are nearly 13,400 full-time
jobs in the 50 states funded by the Department of Education with an
additional 4,600 direct Department of Education employees.
We have teachers being taken off the task of teaching, preparing
lesson plans, taking on after school student activities, etc. and
instead are researching for grant opportunities, reading regulations,
preparing applications, filling out paperwork requirements, complying
with cumbersome rules, and reporting on how they spend the federal
money received. Or we have teachers and administrators deciding that
the extra federal money is not worth the time and effort that it will
take to get and comply with that they do not even bother to go through
the process.
Most of us are now aware of the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study, released last year by the National Center for Education
Statistics, that ranked American senior high school students 19th out
of 21 industrialized nations in math, and 16th out of the same 21
countries in science. In addition, 40 percent of our Nation's fourth
graders do not read at even a basic level. Colleges across this country
are spending over $1 billion a year in remedial education.
Is this acceptable? Are we satisfied with the status quo? The answer
should be--must be--an unequivocal NO.
In our business we pay a lot of attention to polls. For several
years, the polls across the country have been telling us that we have a
problem with public education. This is not new news and the question
remains the same: How do we fix public education?
Mr. President, before I provide my answer to that question I want to
take this opportunity to read from an editorial from a home-state
newspaper, the Southeast Missourian.
Nearly a decade ago, then-President Bush and the nation's
governors set a series of goals for America's schoolchildren
in reading, math, graduation rates and other measures. But
the national education goals panel says the nation's public
schools will fall short of the goals for 2000.
We can only hope these continued failures to improve
education will result in a overthrow of the so-called
experts. These are the people, usually far removed from the
classroom, who embrace quick fixes and fads in the face of
each hand-wringing report.
Unfortunately, the fixes make the problems worse. What's
needed is to return America's schools back to the basics and
back to local teachers, administrators, school boards, and
parents. Without a foundation in the basics, the rest of
education just won't take.
We must take so-called remedies out of the hands of the
federal government. National mandates are meaningless for
America's schools. The problem must be addressed one district
and one school at a time. Why not let classroom teachers--
instead of bureaucrats and politicians--fashion a plan to
improve learning in the classroom? Give more control to the
local districts in building reading retention, math skills
and graduation rates?
Mr. President, the editorial goes on, but it ends with the following:
The answer to fixing America's educational woes rests with
individual school boards and passionate educators. The
bureaucrats must reduce the red tape and mandates that are
strangling our schools. Give those who know best the time,
talent and incentives to finally fix public education.
I agree with the Southeast Missourian. The answer to improving public
education does not lie within the halls of Congress or in the granite
buildings of the downtown Washington education establishment. As the
editorial stated, we are ``far removed from the classroom.''
In my opinion, the real solutions--the laboratories--are local
schools when they are given the opportunity to excel and not play the
``Mother, May I?'' game with Washington.
Here in Congress we must not be afraid to propose change. But in
proposing change we must go directly to those who can provide some
answers--the teachers, principals, school administrators, school board
members, and parents.
For the past couple of years, I have done just that and have
developed in conjunction with them the ``Direct Check for Education
Act.
Quite simply, the purpose of this bill is to consolidate six,
primarily competitive grant programs of the Department of Education's
programs. The programs are Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education
Technology, Innovative Education Program Strategies, Fund for the
Improvement of Education, and the President's 100,000 teachers program.
The bill then proposes to return the federal funding by issuing a
``Direct Check'' to the local school district based on the number of
students in each district. The result would be a resource of flexible
funding that would allow individual schools and parents to determine
how best to use the funds, including the hiring of new teachers,
additional classrooms, new textbooks, expanded technology initiatives,
drug and alcohol prevention programs, etc. The list goes on and on.
My ``Direct Check'' proposal is not the ``save-all'' answer. But the
``Direct Check'' will reduce the costly and time-consuming paperwork
process that local school districts endure in obtaining federal grants
and funding. It will treat children and schools the same by awarding
funding to schools based upon the students served instead of rewarding
some and penalizing others. My ``Direct Check for Education'' is a
first step in simplifying and going ``back to the basics'' of
education.
Mr. President, there will be those in the Washington education
establishment who will oppose this bill. Instead
[[Page S465]]
of finding ways to empower those at the local level the opposition will
argue that we need even more federal programs, more bureaucracy, more
micro management of the classroom.
I believe the bottom line is this: Education, while a national
priority, is a local responsibility. We must empower parents, teachers,
school administrators, school boards, etc. because education decisions
can best be made by people at the local schools who know the names and
the challenges facing the students in those schools.
Let's keep things simple. Let's take off the Federal stranglehold and
let local school districts do their jobs. Let's educate our children
for a lifetime of achievement.
We have burdened it with excessive regulations and red tape. We have
once again established a system where supposedly the ``olympians'' on
the Hill know what is best for the ``peasants'' in the valley.
I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Education is
and must be a national priority. But the good intentions that we have
had in this body have led to the creation of more than 760 Federal
education programs. Has that made education better? I don't think so.
We added three more last year. And now we gather that the President is
going to come up with a grand new Federal scheme. How many people
really believe that the 764th Federal education program is going to
assure that our kids can read? Is it going to assure that we get our
high school students out of the 19th place out of 21 in terms of
mathematics? I don't believe so.
Our system is not working. If you want to know how well it is
working, go back home. Ask the teachers in your local school district.
Ask the principals in your local school district. Ask the parents at
home. Ask the school board members. If you do that, I believe you will
hear what I have heard, time and time again: They are tired of playing
``Mother, May I?'' with the Federal Government. They are tired of
spending the time to fill out the forms for the grants, to comply and
jump through the hoops that the Federal Government sets out for them,
to write the reports and fill out the evaluation forms that are needed,
only to have a competitive grant program run out at the end of 3 years.
They are tired of playing ``Mother, May I?'' with the Federal
Government.
We have an opportunity to do something that I think is very
significant. Instead of going down the road that is going to be
proposed of another new Federal program, we ought to take the remedies
out of the hands of the Federal Government. National mandates are
meaningless for American schools. The problems must be addressed one
school district, one school, at a time. Why not let classroom teachers,
the parents, the administrators--instead of bureaucrats and
politicians--make the decisions on how to improve the education in
their school districts? Give more control back to local districts and
let them build reading retention, math skills, and improve graduation
rates.
Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill we call the direct check
for education bill. It takes six of the major Federal competitive grant
programs--Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education Technology, Innovative
Education Program Strategies, the Fund for the Improvement of
Education, and the President's 100,000 teachers program--and puts them
into a pool. That pool is to be divided on the basis of the students--K
through 12--on average daily attendance. And it is to be returned to
those local school districts on the basis of the number of students
they have. Very simple. Cut the Federal red tape. Let them use those
education dollars.
It starts off with a $3.5-million authorization, because we want to
allow schools that already have competitive grants of multiyear tenure
to complete those grants. At the end it will rise to $5 billion. It
should come out to about $100 per student in every school--and turn the
job back to the local schools, the parents, the teachers, the school
board members, the administrators.
There are those who oppose this approach. They argue that we need
even more Federal control. But as I said at the beginning, while it is
a national priority, education must be returned to the local school
districts as a local responsibility, to empower the people who know the
names of the kids, their problems, their challenges, and their
opportunities, to make the decision.
Let's keep things simple. Let's take off the Federal stranglehold.
Let's let local schools do their jobs. Let's educate our children for a
lifetime of achievement. Ask your teachers, your principals, your
superintendents, your school board members; and then I ask my
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that Senator
Ashcroft and I are introducing today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
common questions about the direct check for education bill be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 52
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 ``Direct Check for Education
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) education should be a national priority but must remain
a local responsibility;
(2) the Federal Government's regulations and involvement
often creates barriers and obstacles to local creativity and
reform;
(3) parents, teachers, and local school districts must be
allowed and empowered to set local education priorities; and
(4) schools and education professionals must be accountable
to the people and children served.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United
States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of
Palau.
SEC. 4. DIRECT AWARDS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.
(a) Direct Awards.--From amounts appropriated under
subsection (b) and not used to carry out subsection (c), the
Secretary shall make direct awards to local educational
agencies in amounts determined under subsection (e) to enable
the local educational agencies to support programs or
activities, for kindergarten through grade 12 students, that
the local educational agencies deem appropriate.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $3,500,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $4,000,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and $5,000,000,000
for fiscal year 2004.
(c) Multiyear Awards.--The Secretary shall use funds
appropriated under subsection (b) for each fiscal year to
continue to make payments to eligible recipients pursuant to
any multiyear award made prior to the date of enactment of
this Act under the provisions of law repealed under
subsection (d). The payments shall be made for the duration
of the multiyear award.
(d) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5801 et
seq.).
(2) Section 307 of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1999.
(3) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
(4) Part B of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7331 et seq.).
(5) Part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.).
(6) The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C.
6101 et seq.).
(e) Determination of Amount.--
(1) Per child amount.--The Secretary, using the information
provided under subsection (f), shall determine a per child
amount for a year by dividing the total amount appropriated
under subsection (b) for the year, by the average daily
attendance of kindergarten through grade 12 students in all
States for the preceding year.
(2) Local educational agency award.--The Secretary, using
the information provided under subsection (f), shall
determine the amount provided to each local educational
agency under this section for a year by multiplying--
(A) the per child amount determined under paragraph (1) for
the year; by
(B) the average daily attendance of kindergarten through
grade 12 students that are served by the local educational
agency for the preceding year.
(f) Census Determination.--
(1) In general.--Each local educational agency shall
conduct a census to determine the average daily attendance of
kindergarten through grade 12 students served by the local
[[Page S466]]
educational agency not later than December 1 of each year.
(2) Submission.--Each local educational agency shall submit
the number described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary not
later than March 1 of each year.
(g) Penalty.--If the Secretary determines that a local
educational agency has knowingly submitted false information
under subsection (f) for the purpose of gaining additional
funds under this section, then the local educational agency
shall be fined an amount equal to twice the difference
between the amount the local educational agency received
under this section, and the correct amount the local
educational agency would have received under this section if
the agency had submitted accurate information under
subsection (f).
(h) Disbursal.--The Secretary shall disburse the amount
awarded to a local educational agency under this Act for a
fiscal year not later than July 1 of each year.
SEC. 5. AUDIT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct audits of the
expenditures of local educational agencies under this Act to
ensure that the funds made available under this Act are used
in accordance with this Act.
(b) Sanctions and Penalties.--If the Secretary determines
that the funds made available under section 4 were not used
in accordance with section 4(a), the Secretary may use the
enforcement provisions available to the Secretary under part
D of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234 et
seq.).
____
Common Questions About the Direct Check for Education
What programs make up the new Direct Check for Education?
Goals 2000; School-to-Work; Education Technology (Title
III); Innovative Education Program Strategies (Part B, Title
VI); Fund for the Improvement of Education (Part A, Title X);
100,000 Teachers.
What is the level of funding for the Direct Check for
Education?
Based on fiscal year 1999 appropriations first year funding
could be more than $3.5 billion. Over 5 years the ``Direct
Check'' total could provide over $20 billion in direct checks
to local schools.
How can the Direct Check funds by spent?
The local school district, with parents, teachers,
administrators, etc., would have the flexibility to spend the
funds on what they determine to be the priorities--new
teachers, new classrooms, textbooks, computers, drug
prevention programs, etc.
Does the Direct Check for Education impact Title I funding
for disadvantaged students?
The bill does not make any changes to Title I.
How are private schools affected by the Direct Check for
Education?
The bill makes no changes affecting private schools.
How will States and the federal government be sure the funds
are properly spent?
The Department of Education will have post-audit review
authority and would retain the same sanctions and penalties
currently in place.
What will determine the Direct Check amount for a local
school?
The total amount for funds provided divided by the number
of students nationally will give you a per student average.
That average multiplied by the number of students in a local
school will give that school the amount of its ``Direct
Check''.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senior
Senator from Missouri for his introduction of the ``Direct Check for
Education'' bill. It is with great pleasure that I add my name as a
cosponsor of this important legislation, which will improve the
educational opportunities for our nation's school children by sending
federal resources directly to local school districts to use in the way
they know will benefit students most effectively.
Mr. President, when we talk about education, we should start by
asking: ``What do our parents want for their children? We know that
parents want their children to get a first-class education that boosts
student achievement and elevates them to excellence. Parents want
schools that are safe, classes that are small, and principals and
teachers to have authority to make the right decisions in all areas of
learning, school discipline and after-school activities. Parents want
teachers who care for students and know the subjects they teach.
Parents do not want Washington in control of classrooms.
The next question we should ask is: How can we attain what parents
want? How can our children achieve academic excellence? The House
Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations answered this question in a report released in July of
1998, called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted
in Education Today.'' The Subcommittee found that successful schools
and school systems were not the product of federal funding and
directives, but instead were characterized by: parental involvement in
the education of their children, local control, emphasis on basic
academics, and dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant
bureaucracy and ineffective programs. These are the ingredients we must
have to elevate educational performance.
Knowing the ingredients of educational success for our children, we
must next ask whether our current federal education programs contain
these ingredients.
First, we should observe that in a sense, the federal government has
played conflicting roles in education, providing resources with one
hand, while creating obstacles with the other. We have spent over $12
billion on major education programs in the last two years, and this
year, we are slated to spend nearly $15 billion. Yet, if current trends
continue, only about 65% of federal education dollars will be spent
this year on educating our children, due to the excessive bureaucracy
in our federal programs.
And we should remember that federal funding accounts for only about
7% of the total amount spent on education, while the lion's share comes
from state and local taxes. However, that 7% of the funding pie
consumes a disproportionate share of the time states and local school
districts need to administer education programs. Unfortunately, most
federal education programs often do not contain the basic ingredients
for educational success, but rather contain components that can
actually stifle the ingredients for success.
In the last 35 years, the federal government has continued to take
away parental involvement, local control, flexibility, and teacher and
community input by spinning a complex web of federal elementary and
secondary education programs, each of which contain their own set of
rules that consume the time and resources of states and school
districts.
A 1990 study found that 52% of the paperwork required of an Ohio
school district was related to participation in federal programs, while
federal dollars provided less than 5% of total education funding in
Ohio. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in state funds.
However, 297 state employees are needed to oversee only $1 billion in
federal funds--six times as many per dollar. The Federal Department of
Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to
receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze takes up to 35% of
every federal education dollar.
Many federal programs have taken away precious dollars and teacher
time. Rather than being able to spend time on classroom preparation,
teachers instead have to spend hours filling out federal forms to
comply with federal rules.
Another problem with a number of our federal education programs is
that many of our children and school districts never get to see the
federal tax dollars that their parents pay for education. This is
because a great deal of federal educational funding is awarded on a
competitive basis. In essence, local schools must come to Washington
and beg for the money taxpayers sent to the federal treasury. As a
result, smaller and poorer schools, who don't have the time and money
to wade through thick grant applications or hire a grant writer, cannot
share in the money their parents sent to the federal government.
To make matters worse, once a school district is successful in
obtaining a competitive grant after a harrowing application process, it
must spend countless hours and resources complying with the leviathan
of regulations and rules attached to the grant.
Competitive funding, along with the vast number of federal education
programs, has led to a cottage industry in selling information on
education program descriptions, filing instructions, and application
deadlines for each of these programs. The ``Education at a Crossroads''
report I mentioned earlier describes this cottage industry:
``The Education Funding Research Council identifies
potential sources of funds for local school districts, and
sells for nearly $400 the Guide to Federal Funding for
Education. The company promises to steer its subscribers to
[[Page S467]]
``a wide range of Federal programs,'' and offers these
subscribers timely updates on ``500 education programs.''
More recently, the Aid for Education Report published by CD
Publications advertised that ``huge sums are available. . .in
the federal government alone, there are nearly 800 different
education programs that receive authorization totaling almost
a hundred billion dollars.''
It's a shame that a school district has to pay $400 for a catalog to
learn how to get back the money that its community has sent to
Washington to educate its children. But sadly, this is often the case.
A third problem we can identify with many current federal education
programs is that federal dollars are often earmarked for one particular
use, and cannot be used for any other purpose. This inflexible funding
hurts schools that have other needs than the ones prescribed by the
federal government. A recent example of this is the $1.2 billion
earmarked last year for classroom size reduction. While more teachers
and class size reduction are noble endeavors, some schools don't need
more teachers, but instead need more computers. However, the only use
of this $1.2 billion can be for hiring more teachers. Such a policy
flies in the face of one ingredient for educational success, local
control.
So, we know we have created a lot of federal education programs and
we have dedicated a great deal of resources for these programs. What
results are we getting? The National Center for Education Statistics'
NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States reveals
that 40 percent of fourth graders do not read at a basic level. The
same report also indicates that half of the students from urban school
districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. And the NAEP Report Card
also shows that United States 12th graders only outperformed two out of
21 nations in mathematics. The Brookings Institution released a study
in April of 1998 indicating that public institutions of higher
education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial education for
students.
Knowing these disastrous results, we cannot afford to keep spending
our federal education dollars in the same way we have been doing for
years if it's not stimulating academic success. Parents, teachers,
school boards, and members of our community won't stand for this kind
of failure. They want and need opportunities to be more involved in
deciding how to spend the federal education dollar, because they know
what works. We must spend our federal resources for elementary and
secondary education in ways that embrace the ingredients of success.
Rather than fund the patchwork of federal elementary and secondary
education programs that Washington wants, Congress should send that
money directly to local school districts. Parents and teachers need the
financing, flexibility and freedom to fund programs they know will
improve their children's education.
Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal does just
this. He takes some of the Department of Education's largest
competitive grant programs and returns the money in the form of a
``direct check'' to the local school districts based on the number of
students in each district. Schools may use the funds in ways they
believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement.
Under the ``Direct Check'' proposal, no longer would school districts
have to come to Washington and beg for the money they sent to
Washington to educate their children. No longer would teachers and
administrators have to spend countless and wasted hours filling out
federal grant application and compliance forms. No longer would schools
be forced to earmark federal dollars for programs that have no
relevance to their students' needs. Rather, school districts with the
input of teachers, school boards, administrators, and of course,
parents, would have the authority and flexibility to use federal
dollars for what they best see fit.
For example, local schools could deploy resources to hire new
teachers, raise teacher salaries, buy new textbooks or new computers--
whatever the schools deem most important to the educational success of
their students. The Direct Check to Education proposals gives schools
more time, flexibility, and money to spend on what's most important:
providing classroom instruction to our nation's children.
With the flexible, equitable distribution of federal funding under
Senator Bond's proposal comes accountability. Local school districts
will be penalized for knowingly submitting false information regarding
the number of students in their districts. Moreover, the Secretary of
Education may audit local educational agency expenditures to ensure
that funds are used in accordance with the Direct Check in Education
Act. And most importantly, parents, school boards, and members of the
community will be able to give direct input into funding decisions,
since those decisions will be made right in the community, rather than
hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of miles away in Washington, D.C.
Local decision making allows for local accountability.
Mr. President, we have learned from experience that our many of our
current federal education programs and dollars are not producing what
we expect for our students. We know that successful education programs
occur when crucial decisions are made by local communities, teachers,
school boards, and parents. This is why I support Senator Bond's
``Direct Check for Education'' proposal. His plan embraces the
ingredients of educational success, as it gives parents, teachers and
school boards the authority and flexibility to direct funds to programs
they know work for their children.
As I said earlier, Senator Bond's proposal consolidates a number of
the Department of Education's federal programs for elementary and
secondary education. I believe we should explore whether other federal
education programs--both within and outside the Department of
Education--should also be taken and put into a ``direct check'' to our
local school districts. We must continue to look for ways to direct our
federal resources in ways that reflect the ingredients of success and
educational excellence for our children.
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 53. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a
reduction in the capital gain rates for all taxpayers and a partial
dividend income exclusion for individuals, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
capitol gains and dividend income reform act
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 54. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the corporate alternative minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.
corporate tax equity act
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
S. 55. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the
tax rate for certain small businesses, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
small business investment and growth act
______
By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gramm, Mr.
Grams, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire,
Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Sessions):
family heritage preservation act
S. 56. A bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax
on generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I introduce a series of bills designed
to help sustain the economic expansion and enhance the rate of economic
growth in this country. The four measures, which together make up what
I refer to as the Agenda for Economic Growth and Opportunity, will help
encourage investment in small businesses, enhance the wages of American
workers, and make our country more competitive in the global economy.
Mr. President, it was just over 36 years ago that President John F.
Kennedy made the following observation in his State of the Union
message--an observation that someone could just as easily make about
today's economy. He said, ``America has enjoyed 22 months of
uninterrupted economic recovery.''
[[Page S468]]
The current expansion, albeit weaker than most during this century,
has gone on somewhat longer. ``But,'' President Kennedy went on to say,
``recovery is not enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must
expand the long-run strength of our economy. We must move along the
path to a higher rate of economic growth.''
Economic growth. The concept is studied endlessly by economists and
statisticians, but what does it mean for the average American family,
and why should policy-makers be so concerned about it?
For most of the 20th century, our nation enjoyed very strong rates of
economic growth and the dividends that came with it. The 1920s saw
annual economic growth above five percent. In the 1950s, it was above
six percent. Economic growth during the Kennedy and Johnson years
averaged 4.8 percent annually. During the years after the Reagan tax
cuts and before the 1990 tax increase, the economy grew at an average
rate of 3.9 percent a year, according to data supplied by the Joint
Economic Committee.
The Clinton years, by contrast, have actually seen the economy grow
at a much slower rate--an average rate of only about 2.3 percent a
year. And recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project
that the growth of real Gross Domestic Product is likely to slow to
just over two percent for the last part of 1998 and the early part of
1999. What that means is that, while we may not exactly be hurting as a
nation, we are not becoming much better off, either. We are certainly
not leaving much of a legacy for our children and grandchildren to meet
the needs of tomorrow.
Slower growth means fewer job opportunities in the days ahead for
young Americans just entering the workforce and for those people
seeking to free themselves from the welfare rolls. It means stagnant
wages and salaries, and fewer opportunities for career advancement for
those who do have jobs. It means less investment in new plants and
equipment, and new technology--things needed to enhance productivity
and ensure that American businesses can remain competitive in the
global marketplace.
So what do we do to spur economic growth--to ensure that jobs will
continue to be available for those who want them, that families can
earn better wages, and that American business maintains a dominant role
in the global economy? Those are, after all, the goals of the agenda I
am laying out today--an agenda for economic growth and opportunity for
all Americans, for those struggling to make ends meet today, and for
our children when they enter the workforce tomorrow.
Let me begin my answer with another quotation from John Kennedy:
``[I]t is increasingly clear--to those in Government,
business, and labor who are responsible for our economy's
success--that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag
on private purchasing power, profits, and employment.
Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks
growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It
distorts use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions,
depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget
deficits.''
Mr. President, although we managed to balance the unified budget last
year, there is still much in what President Kennedy said that is
relevant to our situation today. Consider, for example, that we
balanced the budget by taxing and spending at a level of about $1.72
trillion--a level of spending that is 25 percent higher than when
President Clinton took office just six years ago. Our government now
spends the equivalent of $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the
country every year. That is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the
average family of four. But all of that spending comes at a tremendous
cost to hard-working taxpayers. As President Kennedy put it, it is a
drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment.
The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal
government is imposing--how big is the drag on the economy--would be
helpful here. Consider that federal revenues hit a peacetime high of
19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1997 and, according to
the Congressional Budget Office, will continue to climb--to 20.5
percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will be higher than any
year since 1945, and it would be only the third and fourth years in our
nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of
national income. Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20
percent mark, the economy tipped into recession.
Mr. President, the agenda I am proposing attacks some of the most
significant deficiencies in our nation's Tax Code that are inhibiting
savings and investment, and job creation--deficiencies that keep us
from reaching our potential as a nation. I do not make these proposals
as a substitute for fundamental tax reform or an across-the-board
reduction in income-tax rates, which I believe are the ultimate
solutions to the problem. But fundamental tax reform is going to take
some time to accomplish, maybe several years. And I am not convinced
that President Clinton will ever agree to an across-the-board reduction
in tax rates. Therefore, what we need now are interim steps--things we
can do quickly--to make sure our movement into the 21st century is
based on the bedrock of a strong and growing economy.
These Tax Code changes will help strengthen the economy and, in turn,
produce more revenue for the federal government to help keep the budget
balanced. Recent experience proves that it is a strong and growing
economy--not high tax rates--that generates substantial amounts of new
revenue for the Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped
eliminate last year's unified budget deficit.
Mr. President, the first of the four tax-related bills I am
introducing is based primarily upon President John Kennedy's own growth
package from three decades ago. Like the Kennedy plan, the legislation
would reduce the percentage of long-term capital gains included in
individual income subject to tax to 30 percent. It would reduce the
alternative tax on the capital gains of corporations to 22 percent.
I would note that Democratic President John Kennedy's plan called for
a deeper capital gains tax cut than the Republican-controlled Congress
passed in 1997.
There was a reason that John Kennedy called for a significant cut in
the capital gains tax. ``The present tax treatment of capital gains and
losses is both inequitable and a barrier to economic growth,'' the
President said. ``The tax on capital gains directly affects investment
decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more
dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures
in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth
of the economy.''
So if we are concerned whether new jobs are being created, whether
new technology is developed, whether workers have the tools they need
to do a better, more efficient job, we should support measures that
reduce the cost of capital to facilitate the achievement of all these
things. Remember, for every employee, there is an employer who took
risks, made investments, and created jobs. But that employer needed
capital to start. Economist Allen Sinai estimates that a capital-gains
tax reduction would help businesses create as many as 500,000 new jobs.
A capital-gains tax reduction would provide critical help to the
country's entrepreneurs, especially those striving to open their own
small businesses or grow their businesses. Small business is, after
all, that engine that drives the nation's economy. In Arizona, about
half of those businesses are run by women. An estimated 130,000 women-
owned businesses in the state employ more than 330,000 people. These
are precisely the kind of firms that have difficulty securing the
capital they need to expand. High capital-gains taxes are one reason
why.
Mr. President, it may come as a surprise to some people, but
experience shows that lower capital-gains tax rates help not only small
businesses and the economy, but federal revenues
[[Page S469]]
as well. The most impressive evidence, as noted in a recent report by
the American Council for Capital Formation, can be found in the period
from 1978 to 1985. During those years, the top marginal federal tax
rate on capital gains was cut significantly--from 35 percent to 20
percent--but total individual capital gains tax receipts nearly
tripled--from $9.1 billion to $26.5 billion annually.
Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that the
maximizing capital gains tax rate--that is, the rate that would bring
in the most Treasury revenue--is somewhere between nine and 21 percent.
The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the optimal rate is
probably 15 percent or less. The bill I am introducing today would set
an effective top rate on capital gains earned by individuals, by virtue
of the 70 percent exclusion, at 11.88 percent.
Mr. President, when capital gains tax rates are too high, people need
only hold onto their assets to avoid the tax indefinitely. No sale, no
tax. But that means less investment, fewer new businesses and new jobs,
and--as historical surveys show--far less revenue to the Treasury than
if capital gains taxes were set at a lower level. Just as the local
department store does not lose money on weekend sales--because volume
more than makes up for lower prices--lower capital gains tax rates can
encourage more economic activity and, in turn, produce more revenue for
the government.
Capital gains reform will help the Treasury. A capital gains tax
reduction would help unlock a sizable share of the estimated $7
trillion of capital that is left virtually unused because of high tax
rates. More importantly, it will help the family that has a small plot
of land it would like to sell, or a small business that would like to
expand, buy new equipment, and create new jobs.
Moreover, evidence shows that most of the tax savings will go to
Americans of modest means. According to Internal Revenue Service data,
almost 53 percent of taxpayers reporting capital gains had adjusted
gross incomes of less than $50,000. Another 28 percent have AGIs
between $50,000 and $100,000.
Nearly two years ago, this Congress reduced capital gains taxes, but
it did so in a way that added substantially to the complexity of the
Tax Code. And, in my view, it did not cut the tax rate enough. John
Kennedy's idea--that is, simply providing a 70 percent exclusion--was a
superior approach, and that is what I am proposing today.
Mr. President, the second part of this bill proposes a similar
exclusion for dividend income. The rationale is twofold: first, to
further encourage saving and investment; and second, to eliminate any
bias in the Tax Code that might favor investments whose returns are
paid primarily in capital gains over those that pay dividends. With
recent reductions in the capital-gains tax, there may now be more
incentive to invest in instruments that produce earnings taxed at the
low capital-gains rate, as opposed to investing for dividends which are
taxed at the regular, higher income-tax rate. My bill proposes to put
dividend income on par with capital gains for purposes of levying an
income tax.
The exclusion for dividend income would also go a long way toward
eliminating the double taxation of such income, which is currently
taxed once at the corporate level and then again when it is provided to
investors in the form of dividends. A report by the American Council
for Capital Formation notes that dividend income is taxed more heavily
in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. The
Council indicates that dividend income is subject to a U.S. tax rate of
60.4 percent, compared to an average of 51.1 percent abroad. This high
rate is due to the double taxation of dividend income.
Mr. President, the second in this series of bills is the Corporate
Tax Equity Act, a bill designed to help U.S. businesses make larger
capital expenditures and thereby enhance productivity and job creation
by repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Mr. President, the original intent of the AMT was to make it harder
for large, profitable corporations to avoid paying any federal income
tax. But the way to have accomplished that objective was not, in my
view, to impose an AMT, but to identify and correct the provisions of
law that allowed large companies to inappropriately lower their federal
tax liabilities to begin with. Ironically, the primary shelters
corporations were using to minimize their tax liability--that is, the
accelerated depreciation and safe harbor leasing of the old Tax Code--
were being corrected at the time the AMT was enacted.
I would point out that the AMT is not a tax, per se. As indicated in
an April 3, 1996 report by the Congressional Research Service, the AMT
is merely intended to serve as a prepayment of the regular corporate
income tax, not a permanent increase in overall corporate tax
liability. What that means in practical terms is that businesses are
forced to make interest-free loans to the federal government under the
guise of the AMT. Corporations pay a tax for which they are not liable,
but which they are able to apply toward their future regular tax
liability.
I would also point out that most of the corporations paying the AMT
are relatively small. The General Accounting Office, in a 1995 report
on the issue, found that, in most years between 1987 and 1992, more
than 70 percent of corporations paying the AMT had less than $10
million in assets.
The AMT requires corporations to calculate their tax liability under
two separate but parallel income-tax systems. Firms must calculate
their AMT liability even if they end up paying the regular tax. At a
minimum, that means that firms must maintain two sets of records for
tax purposes.
The compliance costs are substantial. In 1992, for example, while
only about 28,000 corporations paid the AMT, more than 400,000
corporations filed the AMT form, and an even greater--but unknown--
number of firms performed the calculations needed to determine their
AMT liability. A 1993 analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation found
that the AMT added 16.9 percent to a corporation's total cost of
complying with federal income tax laws.
Mr. President, repealing the corporate AMT would help free up badly
needed capital to assist in business expansion and job creation.
According to a study by DRI/McGraw-Hill, AMT repeal would have
increased fixed investment by a total of 7.9 percent, raised Gross
Domestic Product by 1.6 percent, and increased labor productivity by
1.6 percent between 1996 and 2005. The study also projected that repeal
would produce an additional 100,000 jobs a year during the years 1998
to 2002.
Mr. President, the third bill in this package is the Small Business
Investment and Growth Act, which would ensure that small businesses do
not pay a higher income-tax rate than large corporations. Congressman
Phil Crane of Illinois has been promoting similar legislation in the
House of Representatives.
Mr. President, the 1990 and 1993 increases in marginal income-tax
rates put a tremendous strain on the nearly two million small
businesses around the country that are organized as S corporations.
Since these small businesses pay taxes at the individual income-tax
rate, they can be subject to rates as high as 39.6 percent--higher than
any other corporate entity. By contrast, the top rate imposed on large
corporations is only 34 percent.
What sense is there in imposing tax rates on small businesses that
are higher than those levied on better financed corporations? Estimates
indicate that successful American businesses have been able to create
three to four new jobs for every additional $100,000 they retain in the
business. So higher taxes are counterproductive. They deny small
businesses the funds they need to invest in new jobs, new equipment,
and new facilities. That hurts small companies. And it hurts the
economy.
The bill I am introducing today would establish a top rate of 34
percent when a small business reinvests its earnings in its operation,
or when the earnings are distributed to the shareholders for the
purposes of making tax payments. This lower tax rate would be
applicable only to the first $5 million in taxable income of the small
business.
The bill is a similar, but expanded, version of legislation that I
introduced during the 105th Congress. Although the latest version would
provide relief to more S corporations, I want to make
[[Page S470]]
it clear that I would prefer to provide tax relief to all businesses.
And since taxes paid by businesses are merely passed along in the form
of higher prices, we are really talking about providing relief to all
consumers.
The Small Business Investment and Growth Act represents an important
first step toward reducing excessive taxes on small business and
encouraging S corporation owners and managers to reinvest income into
their businesses, thereby creating more jobs and fueling economic
growth. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure
and reducing the tax burden imposed on America's small businesses.
Mr. President, the fourth in the series of economic growth incentives
is a bill to repeal the federal estate, or death, tax.
Mr. President, it was Ben Franklin who said some 200 years ago that
nothing in this world is certain except death and taxes. Leave it to
the federal government to find a way to put those two inevitabilities
together to create a death tax that is not only confiscatory, but
offensive to Americans' sense of fairness, harmful to the environment,
and injurious to small business and the economy.
Although most Americans will probably never pay a death tax, most
people still sense that there is something terribly wrong with a system
that allows Washington to seize more than half of whatever is left
after someone dies--a system that prevents hard-working Americans from
passing the bulk of their nest eggs to their children or grandchildren.
The respected liberal Professor of Law at the University of Southern
California, Edward J. McCaffrey, put it this way: ``Polls and practices
show that we like sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes.'' ``The
estate tax,'' he went on to say, ``is an anti-sin, or a virtue tax. It
is a tax on work and savings without consumption, on thrift, on long
term savings. There is no reason even a liberal populace need support
it.''
Democrat economists Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell reached similar
conclusions, writing in a 1992 study that death taxes ``have failed to
achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue. They impose
large excess burdens. They are unfair.''
In fact, 77 percent of the people responding to a survey by the
Polling Company last year indicated that they favor repeal of the death
tax. When Californians had the chance to weigh in with a ballot
proposition, they voted two-to-one to repeal their state's death tax.
The legislatures of five other states have enacted legislation since
1997 that will either eliminate or significantly reduce the burden of
their states' death taxes.
Talk to the men and women who run small businesses around the country
and you will find that death taxes are a major concern to them. The
1995 White House Conference on Small Business identified the death tax
as one of small business's top concerns, and delegates to the
conference voted overwhelming to endorse its repeal.
Remember, this is a tax that is imposed on a family business at the
moment when it is least able to afford the payment--upon the death of
the person with the greatest practical and institutional knowledge of
that business's operations. It should come as no surprise, then, that a
1993 study by Prince and Associates--a Stratford, Connecticut research
and consulting firm--found that nine out of 10 family businesses that
failed within three years of the principal owner's death attributed
their companies' demise to trouble paying the death tax. Six out of 10
family-owned businesses fail to make it to the second generation. The
death tax is a major reason why.
Think of what that means to women and minority-owned businesses in
particular. Instead of passing a hard-earned and successful business on
to the next generation, many families have to sell the company in order
to pay the death tax. The upward mobility of such families is stopped
in its tracks. The proponents of this tax always speak of the need to
hinder ``concentrations of wealth.'' What the tax really hinders is new
American success stories.
Even if a family does not have to sell its business to pay the death
tax, there are still significant costs that are imposed either directly
or indirectly. Some people simply take preemptive action--they slow the
growth of their businesses to limit their death-tax burden. Of course,
that means less investment in our communities and fewer jobs created.
Others divert money they would have spent on new equipment or new hires
to insurance policies designed to cover death-tax costs. Still others
spend millions on lawyers, accountants, and other advisors for death-
tax planning purposes. But that leaves fewer resources to invest in the
company, start up new businesses, hire additional people, or pay better
wages.
What that suggests to me is that, although the death tax raises only
about one percent of the federal government's annual revenue, it exerts
a disproportionately large and negative impact on the economy. Alicia
Munnell, who belonged to President Clinton's Council of Economic
Advisors, estimates that the costs of complying with death-tax laws are
of roughly the same magnitude as the revenue raised, or about $23
billion in 1998. In other words, for every dollar of tax revenue raised
by the death tax, another dollar is squandered in the economy simply to
comply with or avoid the tax.
Over time, the adverse consequences are compounded. A report issued
by the Joint Economic Committee just last month concluded that the
existence of the death tax this century has reduced the stock of
capital in the economy by nearly half a trillion dollars.
By repealing it and putting those resources to better use, the Joint
Committee estimates that as many as 240,000 jobs could be created over
seven years and Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in
disposable personal income.
Is it not better to encourage the creation of new jobs for tax-paying
Americans than to impose a tax that puts people out of work or lowers
their income? I think so, and that is why I favor repeal of the death
tax.
Mr. President, I suggested a moment ago that the death tax had a
harmful effect, not only on the economy, but on the environment, as
well. That is something that we need to consider here. An increasing
number of families that own environmentally sensitive lands are having
to sell the property for development in order to pay the death tax.
Natural habitats are being destroyed as a result. With that in mind,
Michael Bean of The Nature Conservancy observed that the death tax is
``highly regressive in the sense that it encourages the destruction of
ecologically important land.'' It represents a real and present threat
to endangered and threatened species and their habitats.
Mr. President, let me conclude by citing the report issued a few
years ago by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform,
because it goes back to the point about fairness in a very poignant
way. The Commission concluded that ``[i]t makes little sense and is
patently unfair to impose extra taxes on people who choose to pass
their assets on to their children and grandchildren instead of spending
them lavishly on themselves.'' I agree. The Commission went on to
endorse repeal of the death tax.
Mr. President, the Agenda for Economic Growth and Opportunity will
help keep the economy on track--it will help forestall the recession
that some economists predict is on the way. It will help improve the
standard of living for all Americans. I invite my colleagues' support
for this very important initiative.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Robb, and Mr.
Warner):
S. 57. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for
the establishment of a program under which long-term care insurance is
made available to Federal employees and annuitants, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________