[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S501-S550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE INTRODUCTION OF THE KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION 
                              ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise today 
with my distinguished colleague Senator Schumer to introduce the ``Kate 
Mullany National Historic Site Designation Act,'' a bill to designate 
the Troy, New York, home of pioneer labor organizer Kate Mullany as a 
National Historic Site. A similar measure introduced in the House of 
Representatives last year by Congressman Michael R. McNulty engendered 
a great deal of support and was cosponsored by over 100 members.
  Like many Irish immigrants settling in Troy, Kate Mullany found her 
opportunities limited to the most difficult and low-paying of jobs, the 
collar laundry industry. Troy was then known as ``The Collar City''--
the birthplace of the detachable shirt collar. At the age of 19, Kate 
stood up against the often dangerous conditions and meager pay that 
characterized the industry and lead a movement of 200 female 
laundresses demanding just compensation and safe working conditions. 
These protests marked the beginning of the Collar Laundry Union, which 
some have called ``the only bona fide female labor union in the 
country.''
  Kate Mullany's courage and organizing skills did not go unnoticed. 
She later traveled down the Hudson River to lead women workers in the 
sweatshops of New York City and was ultimately appointed Assistant 
Secretary of the then National Labor Union, becoming the first women 
ever appointed to a national labor office.
  On April 1, 1998, Kate Mullany's home was designated as a National 
Historic Landmark by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and on 
July 15 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton presented citizens of Troy 
with the National Historic Landmark plaque in a celebration. By 
conferring National Historic Site status on this important landmark, we 
can ensure that Kate Mullany's contributions to the labor movement and 
the cause of women's equality in the workplace are not soon forgotten.
  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. 66

       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 ``Kate Mullany National 
     Historic Site Designation Act''.

[[Page S502]]

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Kate Mullany House in Troy, New York, is listed on 
     the National Register of Historic Places and has been 
     designated as a National Historic Landmark;
       (2) the National Historic Landmark Theme Study on American 
     Labor History concluded that the Kate Mullany House appears 
     to meet the criteria of national significance, suitability, 
     and feasibility for inclusion in the National Park System;
       (3) the city of Troy, New York--
       (A) played an important role in the development of the 
     collar and cuff industry and the iron industry in the 19th 
     century and in the development of early men's and women's 
     worker and cooperative organizations; and
       (B) was the home of the first women's labor union, led by 
     Irish immigrant Kate Mullany;
       (4) the city of Troy, New York, has entered into a 
     cooperative arrangement with 6 neighboring cities, towns, and 
     villages to create the Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park 
     Commission to manage the valuable historic resources in the 
     area, and the area within those municipalities has been 
     designated by the State of New York as a heritage area to 
     represent industrial development and labor themes in the 
     development of the State;
       (5) the area, known as the ``Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural 
     Park'' or ``RiverSpark'', has been a pioneer in the 
     development of partnership parks in which intergovernmental 
     and public and private partnerships bring about the 
     conservation of the area's heritage and the attainment of 
     goals for preservation, education, recreation, and economic 
     development; and
       (6) establishment of the Kate Mullany National Historic 
     Site and cooperative efforts between the National Park 
     Service and the Hudson-Mohawk Urban Cultural Park Commission 
     will--
       (A) provide opportunities for the illustration and 
     interpretation of important themes of the heritage of the 
     United States; and
       (B) provide unique opportunities for education, public use, 
     and enjoyment.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret the nationally significant 
     home of Kate Mullany for the benefit, inspiration, and 
     education of the people of the United States; and
       (2) to interpret the connection between immigration and the 
     industrialization of the United States, including the history 
     of Irish immigration, women's history, and worker history.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Kate Mullany National Historic Site established by section 4.
       (2) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the general management 
     plan developed under section 6(d).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF KATE MULLANY NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established as a unit of the 
     National Park System the Kate Mullany National Historic Site 
     in the State of New York.
       (b) Description.--The historic site shall consist of the 
     home of Kate Mullany, comprising approximately .05739 acre, 
     located at 350 Eighth Street in Troy, New York, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled __________ and dated 
     ____________.

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.

       (a) Real Property.--The Secretary may acquire land and 
     interests in land within the boundaries of the historic site 
     and ancillary real property for parking or interpretation, as 
     necessary and appropriate for management of the historic 
     site.
       (b) Personal Property.--The Secretary may acquire personal 
     property associated with, and appropriate for, the 
     interpretation of the historic site.
       (c) Means.--An acquisition of real property or personal 
     property may be made by donation, purchase from a willing 
     seller with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historic site in accordance with this Act and the law 
     generally applicable to units of the National Park System, 
     including the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a National 
     Park Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 
     1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     provide for the preservation of historic American sites, 
     buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, 
     and for other purposes'', approved August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 
     461 et seq.).
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary may consult with and enter into cooperative 
     agreements with the State of New York, the Hudson-Mohawk 
     Urban Cultural Park Commission, and other public and private 
     entities to facilitate public understanding and enjoyment of 
     the life and work of Kate Mullany through the development, 
     presentation, and funding of exhibits and other appropriate 
     activities related to the preservation, interpretation, and 
     use of the historic site and related historic resources.
       (c) Exhibits.--The Secretary may display, and accept for 
     the purposes of display, items associated with Kate Mullany, 
     as may be necessary for the interpretation of the historic 
     site.
       (d) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 full fiscal years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) develop a general management plan for the historic 
     site; and
       (B) submit the plan to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Contents.--The plan shall include recommendations for 
     regional wayside exhibits to be carried out through 
     cooperative agreements with the State of New York and other 
     public and private entities.
       (3) Requirements.--The plan shall be prepared in accordance 
     with section 12(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to improve 
     the administration of the national park system by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and to clarify the authorities 
     applicable to the system, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1970 (16 U.S.C 1a et seq.).

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 67. A bill to designate the headquarters building of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, District of 
Columbia, as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


     THE ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING DESIGNATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues, Senators 
Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, and Robb, to introduce legislation to 
name the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) headquarters 
here in Washington after Dr. Robert C. Weaver, adviser to three 
Presidents, director of the NAACP, and the first African-American 
Cabinet Secretary. With Senator Kerry, Senator Moseley-Braun, and 
Senator Kennedy I introduced an identical bill last year. It was passed 
by the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, 1998 but languished in 
the House.
  Bob Weaver was my friend, dating back more than 40 years to our 
service together in the administration of New York Governor Averell 
Harriman. In July of 1997, he died at his home in New York City after 
spending his entire life broadening opportunities for minorities in 
America. I think it is a fitting tribute to name the HUD building after 
this great man.
  Dr. Weaver began his career in government service as part of 
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's ``Black Cabinet,'' an informal 
advisory group promoting educational and job opportunities for blacks. 
The Washington Post called this work his greatest legacy, the 
dismantling of a deeply entrenched system of racial segregation in 
America. Indeed it was.
  Dr. Weaver was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Housing for New York 
State in 1955, and later became State Rent Administrator with Cabinet 
rank. It was during these years, working for Governor Harriman, that I 
first met Bob; I was Assistant to the Secretary to the Governor and 
later, Acting Secretary.
  Our friendship and collaboration continued under the Kennedy and 
Johnson administrations. In 1960, he became the president of the NAACP, 
and shortly thereafter would become a key adviser to President Kennedy 
on civil rights. In 1961, Kennedy appointed Dr. Weaver to head the 
Housing and Home Finance Agency, the precursor to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. In 1966, when President Johnson elevated 
the agency to Cabinet rank, he chose Dr. Weaver to head the department. 
Bob Weaver was, in Johnson's phrase, ``the man for the job.'' He thus 
became its first Secretary, and the first African-American to head a 
Cabinet agency. Later, he and I served together on the Pennsylvania 
Avenue Commission.
  Following his government service, Dr. Weaver was, among various other 
academic pursuits, a professor at Hunter College, a member of the 
School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon, a visiting 
professor at Columbia Teacher's College and New York University's 
School of Education, and the president of Baruch College in Manhattan. 
When I became director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and 
Harvard, he generously agreed to be a member of the Board of Directors.

[[Page S503]]

  Dr. Weaver earned his undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees 
in economics from Harvard; he wrote four books on urban affairs; and 
served as one of the original directors of the Municipal Assistance 
Corporation, which designed the plan to rescue New York City during its 
tumultuous financial crisis in the 1970s.
  When Dr. Weaver died, America--and Washington, in particular (for he 
was a native Washingtonian)--lost one of its innovators, one of its 
creators, one of its true leaders. Dr. Robert C. Weaver led not only 
with his words but with his deeds and I was privileged to know him as a 
friend. He will be missed but properly memorialized, I think, if we can 
pass this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill, my statement, a 
July 21, 1997 editorial in the Washington Post, and a July 19, 1997 
obituary from the New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 67

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT C. WEAVER FEDERAL BUILDING.

       In honor of the first Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the headquarters building of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development located at 451 Seventh Street, 
     SW., in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the building referred 
     to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
     ``Robert C. Weaver Federal Building''.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 19, 1997]

         Robert C. Weaver, 89, First Black Cabinet Member, Dies

                           (By James Barron)

       Dr. Robert C. Weaver, the first Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the first black person appointed to the 
     Cabinet, died on Thursday at his home in Manhattan. He was 
     89.
       Dr. Weaver was also one of the original directors of the 
     Municipal Assistance Corporation, which was formed to rescue 
     New York City from financial crisis in the 1970's.
       ``He was a catalyst with the Kennedys and then with 
     Johnson, forging new initiatives in housing and education,'' 
     said Walter E. Washington, the first elected Mayor of the 
     nation's capital.
       A portly, pedagogical man who wrote four books on urban 
     affairs, Dr. Weaver had made a name for himself in the 1930's 
     and 40's as an expert behind-the-scenes strategist in the 
     civil rights movement. ``Fight hard and legally,'' he said, 
     ``and don't blow your top.''
       As a part of the ``Black Cabinet'' in the administration of 
     President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dr. Weaver was one of a 
     group of blacks who specialized in housing, education and 
     employment. After being hired as race relations advisers in 
     various Federal agencies, they pressured and persuaded the 
     White House to provide more jobs, better educational 
     opportunities and equal rights.
       Dr. Weaver began in 1933 as an aide to Interior Harold L. 
     Ickes. He later served as a special assistant in the housing 
     division of the Works Progress Administration, the National 
     Defense Advisory Commission, the War Production Board and the 
     War Manpower Commission.
       Shortly before the 1940 election, he devised a strategy 
     that defused anger among blacks about Stephen T. Early, 
     President Roosevelt's press secretary. Arriving at 
     Pennsylvania Station in New York, Early lost his temper when 
     a line of police officers blocked his way. Early knocked one 
     of the officers, who happened to be black, to the ground. As 
     word of the incident spread, a White House adviser put 
     through a telephone call to Dr. Weaver in Washington.
       The aide, worried that the incident would cost Roosevelt 
     the black vote, told Dr. Weaver to find the other black 
     advisers and prepare a speech that would appeal to blacks for 
     the President to deliver the speech.
       Dr. Weaver said he doubted that he could find anyone in the 
     middle of the night, even though most of the others in the 
     ``Black Cabinet'' had been playing poker in his basement when 
     the phone rang. ``And anyway,'' he said, ``I don't think a 
     mere speech will do it. What we need right now is something 
     so dramatic that it will make the Negro voters forget all 
     about Steve Early and the Negro cop too.''
       Within 48 hours, Benjamin O. Davis Sr. was the first black 
     general in the Army; William H. Hastie was the first black 
     civilian aide to the Secretary of War, and Campbell C. 
     Johnson was the first high-ranking black aide to the head of 
     the Selective Service.
       Robert Clifton Weaver was born on Dec. 29, 1907, in 
     Washington. His father was a postal worker and his mother--
     who he said influenced his intellectual development--was the 
     daughter of the first black person to graduate from Harvard 
     with a degree in dentistry. When Dr. Weaver joined the 
     Kennedy Administration, whose Harvard connections extended to 
     the occupant of the Oval Office, he held more Harvard 
     degrees--three, including a doctorate in economics--than 
     anyone else in the administration's upper ranks.
       In 1960, after serving as the New York State Rent 
     Commissioner, Dr. Weaver became the national chairman of the 
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
     and President Kennedy sought Dr. Weaver's advice on civil 
     rights. The following year, the President appointed him 
     administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, a loose 
     combination of agencies that included the bureaucratic 
     components of what would eventually become H.U.D., including 
     the Federal Housing Administration to spur construction, the 
     Urban Renewal Administration to oversee slum clearance and 
     the Federal National Mortgage Association to line up money 
     for new housing.
       President Kennedy tried to have the agency raised to 
     Cabinet rank, but Congress balked. Southerners led an attack 
     against the appointment of a black to the Cabinet, and there 
     were charges that Dr. Weaver was an extremist. Kennedy 
     abandoned the idea of creating an urban affairs department.
       Five years later, when President Johnson revived the idea 
     and pushed it through Congress, Senators who had voted 
     against Dr. Weaver the first time around vote for him.
       Past Federal housing programs had largely dealt with 
     bricks-and-mortar policies. Dr. Weaver said Washington needed 
     to take a more philosophical approach. ``Creative federalism 
     stresses local initiative, local solutions to local 
     problems,'' he said.
       But, he added, ``where the obvious needs for action to meet 
     an urban problem are not being fulfilled, the Federal 
     Government has a responsibility at least to generate a 
     thorough awareness of the problem.''
       Dr. Weaver, who said that ``you cannot have physical 
     renewal without human renewal,'' pushed for better-looking 
     public housing by offering awards for design. He also 
     increased the amount of money for small businesses displaced 
     by urban renewal and revived the long-dormant idea of Federal 
     rent subsides for the elderly.
       Later in his life, he was a professor of urban affairs at 
     Hunter College, was a member of the Visiting Committee at the 
     School of Urban and Public Affairs at Carnegie-Mellon 
     University and held visiting professorships at Columbia 
     Teachers' College and the New York University School of 
     Education. He also served as a consultant to the Ford 
     Foundation and was the president of Baruch College in 
     Manhattan in 1969.
       His wife, Ella, died in 1991. Their son, Robert Jr., died 
     in 1962.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 20, 1997]

           Robert C. Weaver Dies; First Black Cabinet Member

                            (By Martin Weil)

       Robert C. Weaver, 89, who as the nation's first secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development was the first black person 
     to head a Cabinet agency, as well as one of the architects of 
     the Great Society, died July 17 at his home in Manhattan.
       He died in his sleep, according to a family friend. The 
     cause of death was not immediately known.
       Dr. Weaver, who was born and raised in Washington, was 
     regarded as an intellectual, both pragmatic and visionary, 
     who worked to improve the lives of blacks and other Americans 
     both by expanding their opportunities and by bettering their 
     communities.
       ``He put the bricks and mortar on President Johnson's 
     blueprint for a Great Society,'' HUD Secretary Andrew M. 
     Cuomo said in a statement.
       ``Robert Weaver got real urban legislation on the books and 
     nurtured our country's first commitment to improve the 
     quality of life in our nation's cities,'' Cuomo said.
       On Jan. 13, 1966, when President Lyndon B. Johnson 
     appointed the Harvard PhD and longtime federal and state 
     housing official to be the first HUD secretary, many 
     recognized that it was a moment both historic and symbolic.
       Johnson said he had considered more than 300 candidates and 
     had concluded that Dr. Weaver was ``the man for the job.''
       In an interview after Dr. Weaver's death, Walter E. 
     Washington, the District's first mayor elected under home 
     rule, who had worked with Dr. Weaver, called him ``a giant'' 
     and ``a man of great vision . . . integrity, passion and 
     commitment.'' Washington said, ``There was never a job that 
     was too large or one that was too small if he saw in it 
     the possibility of helping his fellow man.''
       Dr. Weaver was born Dec. 29, 1907, into the segregated 
     world that was then Washington. He once recalled 45-minute 
     streetcar rides that took him past schools for whites before 
     he reached his for blacks.
       He was descended from a former slave who had bought his 
     freedom in 1830. His father was a postal worker, and his 
     mother was the daughter of Robert Tanner Freeman, who was a 
     Harvard graduate and the first black person in the United 
     States to receive a doctorate in dentistry.
       A multitalented man, Dr. Weaver worked as an electrician 
     while attending Dunbar High School in Washington. After 
     graduation, he went to Harvard, where he majored in 
     economics, won the Boylston speaking prize and received his 
     bachelor's degree in 1929. He received a master's degree two 
     years later and a doctorate in economics in 1934.
       In 1933, after the watershed election of Franklin D. 
     Roosevelt, Dr. Weaver was one

[[Page S504]]

     of the bright young intellectuals who came to the capital to 
     create and run the New Deal. He spent 10 years in housing and 
     labor recruitment and training, detailed for part of that 
     time as an adviser to Interior Secretary Harold Ickes.
       He also worked in the National Defense Advisory Commission 
     and, during World War II, was director of the Negro Manpower 
     Service in the War Manpower Commission. During those years, 
     he also was prominent in what was known as Roosevelt's 
     informal Black Cabinet, working behind the scenes to improve 
     conditions and opportunities for blacks.
       In the closing years of the war, he was executive secretary 
     of the Chicago Mayor's Committee on Race Relations. During 
     the 1940s and early '50s, he taught at universities, worked 
     for philanthropic foundations and held a series of government 
     housing posts in New York.
       At the start of his administration, President John F. 
     Kennedy named him chief of what was then the principal 
     federal agency responsible for housing, the Housing and Home 
     Finance Agency. He was credited with drawing together and 
     unifying the efforts of what was regarded as a loose 
     confederation of offices, bureaus and departments.
       It was not until the Johnson administration that efforts to 
     raise the department to Cabinet level bore fruit.
       But throughout his tenure as the chief federal housing 
     official, it was Dr. Weaver who ``broadened the prespective'' 
     of government policy, said Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, executive 
     director of Black Leadership Forum Inc. and a former New York 
     state housing commissioner. She said Dr. Weaver moved policy 
     from a narrow focus on the living unit itself to include 
     community development, a more expansive view that encompassed 
     both ``housing and the environment around the housing.''
       As Dr. Weaver had expressed it, ``You cannot have physical 
     renewal without human renewal.''
       At the same time, he was known for his work for racial 
     justice and equality. By the 1960s, he had been active in the 
     struggle for decades. At the time of his appointment by 
     Kennedy, he was chairman of the NAACP.
       Once, in the early days of the struggle, he advised that 
     the best way to achieve equality was ``to fight hard--and 
     legally--and don't blow your top.''
       After leaving his Cabinet post at the end of the Johnson 
     administration, Dr. Weaver returned to New York, where he was 
     a teacher and a consultant. He headed Baruch College in 1969 
     and was one of the directors of the Municipal Assistance 
     Corp., which was set up to save the city from fiscal collapse 
     in the 1970s.
       He wrote, or contributed to, several books and held at 
     least 30 honorary degrees.
       His wife, Ella died in 1991, and their son, Robert Jr., 
     died in 1962.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 68. A bill for the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New 
York; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill to 
recognize the immeasurable debt which we owe to a leading Soviet 
dissident. Dr. Yuri F. Orlov, a founding member of the Soviet chapter 
of Amnesty International and founder of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group 
(the first nation-wide organization in Soviet history to question 
government actions), who now lives in Ithaca, New York, is threatened 
by poverty. Yuri Orlov could not be stopped by the sinister forces of 
the Soviet Union and, no doubt, he will not be stopped by poverty. But 
I rise today in hopes that it will not come to that.
  Dr. Orlov's career as a dissident began while he was working at the 
famous Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow. At 
the Institute in 1956 he made a pro-democracy speech which cost him his 
position and forced him to leave Moscow. He was able to return in 1972, 
whereupon he began his most outspoken criticism of the Soviet regime.
  On September 13, 1973, in response to a government orchestrated-
public smear campaign against Andrei Sakharov, Orlov sent ``Thirteen 
Questions to Brezhnev,'' a letter which advocated freedom of the press 
and reform of the Soviet economy. One month later, he became a founding 
member of the Soviet chapter of Amnesty International. His criticism of 
the Soviet Union left him unemployed and under constant KGB 
surveillance, but he would not be silenced.
  In May, 1976 Dr. Orlov founded the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group to 
pressure the Soviet Union to honor the human rights obligations it had 
accepted under the Helsinki Accords signed in 1975. His leadership of 
the Helsinki Watch Group led to his arrest and, eventually, to a show 
trial in 1978. He was condemned to seven years in a labor camp and five 
years in exile.
  After having served his prison sentence, and while still in exile, 
Dr. Orlov was able to immigrate to the United States in 1986 in an 
exchange arranged by the Reagan Administration. A captured Soviet spy 
was returned in exchange for the release of Dr. Orlov and a writer for 
U.S. News & World Report who had been arrested in Moscow, Nicholas 
Daniloff.
  Since then, Dr. Orlov has served as a senior scientist at Cornell 
University in the Newman Laboratory of Nuclear Studies. Now that he is 
74 years old, he is turning his thoughts to retirement. Unfortunately, 
since he has only been in the United States for 12 years, his 
retirement income from the Cornell pension plus Social Security will be 
insufficient: only a fraction of what Cornell faculty of comparable 
distinction now get at retirement.
  His scientific colleagues, Nobel physicist Dr. Hans A. Bethe, Kurt 
Gottfried of Cornell, and Sidney Drell of Stanford, have made concerted 
efforts to raise support for Dr. Orlov's retirement, but they are in 
further need.
  To this end, I have agreed to assist these notable scientists in 
their endeavor to secure a more appropriate recompense for this heroic 
dissident. That is the purpose that brings me here to the Senate floor 
today, on the first day of the 106th Congress, to introduce a bill on 
Dr. Orlov's behalf.
  To understand Dr. Orlov's contributions to ending the Cold War, I 
would draw my colleagues attention to his autobiography, Dangerous 
Thoughts: Memoirs of a Russian Life. It captures the fear extant in 
Soviet society and the courage of men like Orlov, Sakharov, Sharansky, 
Solzhenitsyn, and others who defied the Soviet regime. Dr. Orlov, who 
spent 7 years in a labor camp and two years in Siberian exile, never 
ceased protesting against oppression. Despite deteriorating health and 
the harsh conditions of the camp, Dr. Orlov smuggled out messages in 
support of basic rights and nuclear arms control. His bravery and that 
of his dissident colleagues played no small role in the dissolution of 
the Soviet Union. I am sure many would agree that we owe them a 
tremendous debt. This then is a call to all those who agree with that 
proposition. Dr. Orlov is now in need; please join our endeavor.
  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. 68

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

     SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DR. YURI F. ORLOV OF ITHACA, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York, shall be deemed 
     an annuitant as defined under section 8331(9) of title 5, 
     United States Code, and shall be eligible to receive an 
     annuity.
       (b) Computation.--For purposes of computing the annuity 
     described under subsection (a), Dr. Yuri F. Orlov shall be 
     deemed to--
       (1) have performed 40 years of creditable service as a 
     Federal employee; and
       (2) received pay at the maximum rate payable for a position 
     above GS-15 of the General Schedule (as in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act) for 3 consecutive years of such 
     creditable service.
       (c) Contributions.--No person shall be required to make any 
     contribution with respect to the annuity described under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management shall--
       (1) apply the provisions of chapter 83 of title 5, United 
     States Code (including provisions relating to cost-of-living-
     adjustments and survivor annuity benefits) to the annuity 
     described under subsection (a) to the greatest extent 
     practicable; and
       (2) make the first payment of such annuity no later than 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 69. A bill to make available funds under the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 to provide scholarships for nationals of any of the 
independent states of the former Soviet Union to undertake doctoral 
graduate study in the social sciences; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


                         THE NIS EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the NIS 
Education Act. For 75 years academic freedom was squelched in the 
Soviet Union and the tools to build a democratic society were lost to 
its successor states. Thankfully, that is now passed. The

[[Page S505]]

Russians have the right to claim that they freed their own country from 
the horrors of a decayed Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. The Russian 
people and their leaders have something about which to be proud.
  I rise in that spirit to offer a bill that is simple in both premise 
and purpose: build democratic leaders of the NIS for the future through 
education. The NIS Education Act will partially fund graduate education 
in the social sciences for 500 students from the NIS during the next 
five years. The benefits of education and exposure to the United States 
will be long lasting.
  We want to give these students from the NIS a chance to see American 
democracy and learn the tools to improve their own society. Indeed, for 
many it will be their first chance to visit the world's oldest 
democracy; to see the promise that democracy offers; and to judge its 
fruits for themselves. As one of our most famous visitors, Alexis de 
Tocqueville, wrote:

       Let us look to America, not in order to make a servile copy 
     of the institutions that she has established, but to gain a 
     clearer view of the polity that will be the best for us; let 
     us look there less to find examples than instruction; let us 
     borrow from her the principles, rather than the details, of 
     her laws . . . the principles on which the American 
     constitutions rest, those principles of order, of the balance 
     of powers, of true liberty, of deep and sincere respect for 
     right, are indispensable to all republics. . . .

  In 1948 the United States instituted the now famous Marshall Plan 
which included among its many provisions a fund for technical 
assistance. Part of this fund included the ``productivity campaign'' 
which was designed to bring European businessmen and labor 
representatives here to learn American methods of production. During 
the Plan's three years, over 6,000 Europeans came to the United States 
to study U.S. production. Though the funding for this part of the plan 
was less than one-half of one percent of all the Marshall Plan aid, its 
impact was far greater. The impact of the NIS Education Act may also be 
great.
  We must note here the current state of Russia's affairs: it is 
deplorable. Despite this situation, last spring the United States 
Senate voted to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 
Throughout the elements of the Russian political system NATO expansion 
was viewed as a hostile act they will have to defend against; and they 
have said if they have to defend their territory, they will do so with 
nuclear weapons; that is all they have left.
  The distrust born from NATO expansion will not fade quickly. Let us 
hope that the NIS Education Act will provide individuals from Russia 
and the other NIS the opportunity to see that we Americans do not hope 
for Russia's demise and isolation. Perhaps we can dispel the betrayal 
they may feel as a result of NATO enlargement, and give them the tools 
to further develop their own democracies.
  Beyond that, the importance of training the next generation of social 
scientists in the NIS is immeasurable. It is this generation that will 
revitalize the universities, teaching the next generation economics, 
sociology and other disciplines. It is this generation of social 
scientists who will be prepared to enter their Governments armed with 
new ideas and new ways of thinking different from the status quo; they 
will bring their new knowledge and standards, their linkages to the 
United States back to their own countries, and they will have the best 
opportunity to influence change there.
  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. 69

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

     SECTION 1. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR NATIONALS OF THE INDEPENDENT 
                   STATE OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (b), the President 
     is authorized to provide scholarships under chapter 11 of 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to 
     assistance to the independent states of the former Soviet 
     Union; 22 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.) for 100 nationals of the 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union (as defined in 
     section 3 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801)) who 
     seek to commence graduate study in a six-year program in any 
     field of social science.
       (2) Superseding existing law.--The authority of paragraph 
     (1) shall be exercised without regard to any other provision 
     of law.
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Non-federal share.--The President shall require that 
     not less than 20 percent of the costs of each student's 
     doctoral study be provided from non-Federal sources.
       (2) Requirement of home country services.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, any student supported under this 
     section who does not perform after graduation at least one 
     year of service in the student's home country for each year 
     of study supported under this section shall not be eligible 
     to be issued a visa to be admitted to the United States.
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to assistance to the 
     independent states of the former Soviet Union; 22 U.S.C. 2295 
     et seq.) for fiscal years 2000 through 2009, the following 
     amounts are authorized to be available to carry out 
     subsection (a):
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, $3,500,000 for not to exceed 100 
     scholarships.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, $7,500,000 for not to exceed 200 
     scholarships.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, $10,500,000 for not to exceed 300 
     scholarships.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, $14,000,000 for not to exceed 400 
     scholarships.
       (5) For fiscal year 2004, $17,500,000 for not to exceed 500 
     scholarships.
       (6) For fiscal year 2005, $17,500,000 for not to exceed 500 
     scholarships.
       (7) For fiscal year 2006, $14,000,000 for not to exceed 400 
     scholarships.
       (8) For fiscal year 2007, $10,500,000 for not to exceed 300 
     scholarships.
       (9) For fiscal year 2008, $7,500,000 for not to exceed 200 
     scholarships.
       (10) For fiscal year 2009, $3,500,000 for not to exceed 100 
     scholarships.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 70. A bill to require the establishment of a Federal task force on 
Regional Threats to International Security; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


 the prevention and deterrence of international conflict (predict) act 
                                of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to give the 
administration an incentive for developing a more coherent foreign 
policy by pooling the defense, diplomatic, intelligence, and economic 
resources of the federal government.
  I have labeled this bill the Prevention and Deterrence of 
International Conflict Act--``PREDICT''--because the Clinton 
Administration failed or willfully suspended its ability to anticipate 
a string of foreign calamities last year.
  The 1998 calendar of global surprises for the United States revealed 
the continuing challenge to this administration of analyzing evidence 
adequately for the President to act against the aggressive military 
actions of India, Pakistan, North Korea, Yugoslavia, and Iraq.
  Although we had satellite images and early warning signs, the second 
series of nuclear explosions by India in May eluded the detection of 
the intelligence authorities.
  Although we had the campaign pledges of India's Prime Minister to 
expand the country's nuclear program, no one took them as an omen of 
action.
  Although we had differing agency assessments of whether the export of 
commercial satellite technologies posed the risk of improving China's 
military communications capabilities, the president never saw them.
  Although Pentagon officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee 
on August 24, 1998 that the intelligence community could detect in 
advance any launching of a multiple-stage rocket by North Korea, they 
professed surprise as a Taepo Dong missile soared over Japan seven days 
later.
  And although we had indicators that the simmering conflict in Kosovo 
could unravel into a major Balkan security crisis, we did not know who 
led or supplied the provincial insurgency movement.
  Furthermore, before finally approving military action against Iraq 
last month, the White House had lurched towards two previous strikes 
only to call off the missiles after Saddam Hussein opened his seven-
year old script to repeat the hollow lines that he would cooperate with 
the U.N. on his own terms in his own time.
  These examples highlight a pattern of fragmentation in the decision-
making apparatus of the Executive Branch. Information that could tilt 
the course of a crisis too often remains hidden or undiscovered in the 
flow of advice to the White House.
  Beyond this disjointed process of making policy, the other critical 
issue tying together these episodes of tension centers on the threat of 
weapons

[[Page S506]]

proliferation fueled by unresolved civil conflicts or the ambitions of 
regional tyrants.
  The uncertain political status of the territory of Kashmir, for 
example, served as a convenient excuse for Indian officials to justify 
their nuclear testing last Spring. At the same time, the Pakistanis 
cited national prestige and the need to stabilize the governing 
coalition, rather than any threat of attack, in explaining their 
nuclear response to India's provocation.
  In both of these cases, political judgments overshadowed sober 
considerations of whether the two nations posed immediate military 
risks to one another.
  Yet China's hunger for technology, Mr. President, derives less from 
an ongoing civil conflict than it does from a military establishment 
eager to develop the precision capabilities used by the United States 
during the Persian Gulf War.
  These capabilities, in turn, will gradually advance Beijing's quest 
to displace the United States and Japan as the dominant Asia-Pacific 
power.
  The PREDICT bill, therefore, brings together the broad range of 
foreign policy experts throughout the government into one Federal Task 
Force on Regional Threats to International Security. The Federal Task 
Force would include representatives of the Departments of State, 
Defense, and Commerce, as well as military and foreign intelligence 
organizations, to advise the president in three categories:
  How the United States can foster diplomatic resolutions of regional 
disputes that increase the risk of weapons proliferation;
  Trade and investment programs to promote the market-based development 
of countries that pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction;
  And the implementation of intelligence analysis procedures to ensure 
that the president has all of the data necessary before he makes any 
decision regarding this category of arms.
  The President must establish the Task Force no later than 60 days 
after the effective date of the law, and the panel's authority would 
expire on October 1, 2001 unless an executive order or an act of 
Congress renews the operating charter.
  PREDICT, therefore, outlines a clear and comprehensive process for 
foreign policy development without prejudging what steps the President 
should take. He must create the Task Force. He must consider the 
information that it presents, and he must determine whether to accept 
it. After two years, both the administration and Congress can judge the 
record of the Task Force to decide whether it should continue to 
function.
  What this legislation proposes that does not exist is an integrated 
advisory body to analyze the military, diplomatic, and economic options 
available to the president for controlling regional conflicts and the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction.
  Further more, the Task Force deliberately includes intelligence 
representatives so that policy options reflect the most updated 
information on the intentions of foreign leaders and the capabilities 
of their armed forces.
  A comprehensive perspective remains central to the execution of 
prudent foreign policies. The administration needs to harness the 
talent and expertise of the federal government to ensure that the 
regional civil, military, and political disputes fostering weapons 
proliferation do not present a sustained threat to international 
security. For this compelling reason, I urge Congress to renew 
America's national security organizations by passing the PREDICT Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 71. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a 
presumption of service-connection for certain veterans with Hepatitis 
C, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                   Hepatitis C Veterans' Legislation

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I 
introduced late in the 105th Congress to address a serious health 
concern for veterans--specifically the health threat posed by the 
Hepatitis C virus.
  The legislation I am introducing today would make Hepatitis C a 
service-connected condition so that veterans suffering from this virus 
can be treated by the VA. The bill will establish a presumption of 
service connection for veterans with Hepatitis C, meaning that the 
Department of Veterans Affairs will assume that this condition was 
incurred or aggravated in military service, provided that certain 
conditions are met.
  Under this legislation, veterans who received a transfusion of blood 
during a period of service before December 31, 1992; veterans who were 
exposed to blood during a period of service; veterans who underwent 
hemodyalisis during a period of service; veterans diagnosed with 
unexplained liver disease during a period of service; veterans with an 
unexplained liver dysfunction value or test; or veterans working in a 
health care occupation during service, will be eligible for treatment 
for this condition at VA facilities.
  I have reviewed medical research that suggests many veterans were 
exposed to Hepatitis C in service and are now suffering from liver and 
other diseases caused by exposure to the virus. I am troubled that many 
``Hepatitis C veterans'' are not being treated by the VA because they 
can't prove the virus was service connected, despite the fact that 
Hepatitis C was little known and could not be tested for until 
recently.
  Mr. President, we are learning that those who served in Vietnam and 
other conflicts, tend to have higher than average rates of Hepatitis C. 
In fact, VA data shows that 20 percent of its inpatient population is 
infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and some studies have found that 
10 percent of otherwise healthy Vietnam Veterans are Hepatitis C 
positive.
  Hepatitis C was not isolated until 1989, and the test for the virus 
has only been available since 1990. Hepatitis C is a hidden infection 
with few symptoms. However, most of those infected with the virus will 
develop serious liver disease 10 to 30 years after contracting it. For 
many of those infected, Hepatitis C can lead to liver failure, 
transplants, liver cancer, and death.
  And yet, most people who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and 
often do not get treatment until it's too late. Only five percent of 
the estimated four million Americans with Hepatitis C know they have 
it, yet with new treatments, some estimates indicate that 50 percent 
may have the virus eradicated.
  Vietnam Veterans in particular are just now starting to learn that 
they have liver disease caused by Hepatitis C. Early detection and 
treatment may help head off serious liver disease for many of them. 
However, many veterans with Hepatitis C will not be treated by the VA 
because they must meet a standard that is virtually impossible to meet 
in order to establish a service connection for their condition--this in 
spite of the fact that we now know that many Vietnam-era and other 
veterans got this disease serving their country.
  Many of my colleagues may be interested to know how veterans were 
exposed to this virus. Many veterans received blood transfusions while 
in Vietnam. This is one of the most common ways Hepatitis C is 
transmitted. Medical transmission of the virus through needles and 
other medical equipment is also possible in combat. Medical care 
providers in the services were likely at increased risk as well, and 
may have, in turn, posed a risk to the service members they treated.
  Researchers have discovered that Hepatitis C was widespread in 
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, and that some blood sent from 
the U.S. was also infected with the virus. Researchers and veterans 
organizations, including the Vietnam Veterans of America, with whom I 
worked closely to prepare this legislation, believe that many veterans 
were infected after being injured in combat and getting a transfusion 
or from working as a medic around combat injuries.
  The Hepatitis C infected veteran is essentially in a catch 22 
situation: the VA will not introduce any flexibility into their 
established service connection requirements--and many veterans cannot 
prove that they contracted Hepatitis C in combat because the science to 
detect it did not until recently. Without legislative authority to 
treat these veterans, thousands of veterans infected with Hepatitis C 
in service will not get the VA health care testing or treatment they 
need.
  Mr. President, I believe the government will actually save money in 
the long run by testing and treating this infection early on. 
The alternative is

[[Page S507]]

much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the 
associated complications, or other disorders.s

  Some will argue that further epidemiologic data is needed to resolve 
or prove the issue of service connection. I agree that we have our work 
cut out for us, and further study is required. However, there is 
already a substantial body of research on the relationship between 
Hepatitis C and military service. While further research is being 
conducted, we should not ask those who have already sacrificed so much 
for this country to wait--perhaps for years--for the treatment they 
deserve.
  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, well respected both within 
and outside of the medical profession, has said, ``In some studies of 
veterans entering the Department of Veterans Affairs health facilities, 
half of the veterans have tested positive for HCV. Some of these 
veterans may have left the military with HCV infection, while others 
may have developed it after their military service. In any event, we 
need to detect and treat HCV infection if we are to head off very high 
rates of liver disease and liver transplant in VA facilities over the 
next decade. I believe this effort should include HCV testing as part 
of the discharge physical in the military, and entrance screening for 
veterans entering the VA health system.''
  Veterans have already fought their share of battles--these men and 
women who sacrificed in war so that others could live in peace 
shouldn't have to fight again for the benefits and respect they have 
earned.
  We still have a long way to go before we know how best to confront 
this deadly virus. A comprehensive policy to confront such a monumental 
challenge cannot be written overnight. It will require the long-term 
commitment of Congress and the Administration to a serious effort to 
address this health concern.
  I hope this legislation will be a constructive step in this effort, 
and I look forward to working with the Veterans Affairs Committee, the 
VA-HUD appropriators, Vietnam Veterans of America, and others to meet 
this emerging challenge.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 72. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to restore the 
eligibility of veterans for benefits resulting from injury or disease 
attributable to the use of tobacco products during a period of military 
service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                          va tobacco benefits

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will restore an important benefit for our nation's veterans--disability 
compensation benefits for those with tobacco-related illnesses or 
disabilities.
  The President's budget proposal for FY99 restricted disability 
compensation benefits for tobacco-related illnesses, such as lung 
cancer. I might ask, once we start restricting service-related 
disabilities treated through the VA, where does it end? I am very 
concerned that the VA will become a target for further erosions of 
veterans benefits. The VA is already having difficulty making good on 
its promise to provide essential benefits to veterans. What benefit 
will be repealed next?
  Some may argue that military personnel made the decision to smoke. 
Nobody forced them. But this ignores that fact that these choices were 
facilitated, and perhaps even encouraged, by the inclusion of free 
cigarettes in individual supply kits and discounts on tobacco products. 
Many military personnel may have smoked for the first time while on 
active duty.
  That is why I have fought to restore veterans disability compensation 
for tobacco-related illnesses and disability--because I believe that 
Congress circumvented the process and undermined fairness when it 
repealed this benefit to fund the ISTEA legislation.
  Mr. President, there should have been a full airing of this issue 
before we voted to rescind the benefit. There was little debate on the 
Senate floor on this matter. This is not how those brave Americans who 
sacrificed for freedom should be treated by the government they fought 
to preserve.
  During the Senate's consideration of the FY99 Budget Resolution, I 
opposed efforts to repeal the benefit and voted for an amendment to 
sustain it. In addition, I supported an amendment submitted by Senator 
McCain to the tobacco bill providing $600 million over five years to 
veterans for smoking-related diseases and health care. Finally, during 
the Senate's consideration of the FY99 VA-HUD Appropriations Act, I 
supported an amendment to restore the benefit. Unfortunately, this 
amendment was rejected 54-40. I continue to believe we should debate 
the matter fully, we should have a vote, and we should pass legislation 
that will right this wrong.
  We must not ignore the fact that the military has been one of the 
largest distributors of tobacco products for decades. The military 
glamorized the use of tobacco and distributed free cigarettes during 
World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. We cannot turn a 
blind eye to this lethal legacy. We must not turn our backs on those 
who continue to suffer the consequences of their service. That is why I 
hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort, and 
restore this important benefit.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 73. A bill to make available funds under the Mutual Educational 
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 to provide Fulbright scholarships for 
Cuban nationals to undertake graduate study in the social sciences; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


               FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NATIONALS

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
authorize funding for Cuban nationals for the Fulbright Educational 
Exchange Program so that they may come to the United States for 
graduate study.
  The world is a changed place. The Soviet Union dissolved almost a 
decade ago, and since then democracy has replaced totalitarianism in 
Eastern Europe. Since the demise of its sponsor, the Soviet Union, and 
the disappearance of Soviet subsidies, Cuba has had to change to 
survive. In time, the winds of democracy sweeping the globe will reach 
the shores of Cuba.
  We learned from the cold war that one of the most subversive acts in 
that ideological conflict was exposing communists to the West. In his 
lucid chronicle of the demise of the Soviet Union, Michael Dobbs writes 
in Down with Big Brother: The Fall of the Soviet Empire,

       A turning point in [Boris] Yeltsin's intellectual 
     development occurred during his first visit to the United 
     States in September 1989, more specifically his first visit 
     to an American supermarket, in Houston, Texas. The sight of 
     aisle after aisle of shelves neatly stacked with every 
     conceivable type of foodstuff and household item, each in a 
     dozen varieties, both amazed and depressed him. For Yeltsin, 
     like many other first-time Russian visitors to America, this 
     was infinitely more impressive than tourist attractions like 
     the Statue of Liberty and the Lincoln Memorial. It was 
     impressive precisely because of its ordinariness. A 
     cornucopia of consumer goods beyond the imagination of most 
     Soviets was within the reach of ordinary citizens without 
     standing in line for hours. And it was all so attractively 
     displayed. For someone brought up in the drab conditions of 
     communism, even a member of the relatively privileged elite, 
     a visit to a Western supermarket involved a full-scale 
     assault on the senses.
       What we saw in that supermarket was no less amazing than 
     America itself,'' recalled Lev Sukhanov, who accompanied 
     Yeltsin on his trip to the United States and shared his sense 
     of shock and dismay at the gap in living standards between 
     the two superpowers. ``I think it is quite likely that the 
     last prop of Yeltsin's Bolshevik consciousness finally 
     collapsed after Houston. His decision to leave the party and 
     join the struggle for supreme power in Russia may have 
     ripened irrevocably at that moment of mental confusion.

  The young people of Cuba are that country's future. As such what they 
learn now will help shape a post-Castro Cuba. Since its inception in 
1947, at the suggestion of Senator J. William Fulbright, the Fulbright 
Educational Exchange Program has sent nearly 82,000 Americans abroad 
and provided 138,000 foreign students and professors with the 
opportunity to come to the United States for study--to live here, to 
understand our great country, and return to their own nations so 
enriched. Nearly 50 years ago they sent me off to the London School of 
Economics. I left the United States untouched by war to live in Europe 
as it climbed out of its ruins.

[[Page S508]]

 In London, I learned from experience Seymour Martin Lipset's dictum, 
``He who knows only one country knows no country.'' Use the simple 
analogy of eyesight: it takes two eyes to provide perspective. It was a 
seminal time for the world and for me. This bill will offer that 
opportunity to Cubans to study in the United States, as I studied in 
London.
  Fidel Castro will not live forever--it is time to get ready for an 
end game. Now is the time to start showing the people of Cuba, 
especially the young people, how the United States works and how their 
country might change. So let us bring them here and not act like it's 
the middle of the Cold War. Let us bring them to the United States and 
offer them education and a chance to see the world's oldest democracy 
in action. We need to begin now to expose future leaders of Cuba to the 
United States. For, as Senator Fulbright observed,

       The vital mortar to seal the bricks of world order is 
     education across international boundaries, not with the 
     expectation that knowledge would make us love each other, but 
     in the hope that it would encourage empathy between nations, 
     and foster the emergence of leaders whose sense of other 
     nations and cultures would enable them to shape specific 
     policies based on tolerance and rational restraint.

  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. 73

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

     SECTION 1. FULBRIGHT SCHOLARSHIPS FOR CUBAN NATIONALS.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to provide 
     scholarships under the Fulbright Academic Exchange Program in 
     section 102 of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452) for nationals of Cuba who seek 
     to undertake graduate study in public health, public policy, 
     economics, law, or other field of social science.
       (2) Prohibition.--No official of the Cuban government, or 
     any member of the immediate family of the official, shall be 
     eligible to receive a scholarship under paragraph (1).
       (3) Superseding existing law.--The authority of paragraph 
     (1) shall be exercised without regard to any other provision 
     of law.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2004, the following amounts are authorized 
     to be available to carry out subsection (a):
       (1) For fiscal year 2000, $1,400,000 for not to exceed 20 
     scholarships.
       (2) For fiscal year 2001, $1,750,000 for not to exceed 25 
     scholarships.
       (3) For fiscal year 2002, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35 
     scholarships.
       (4) For fiscal year 2003, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35 
     scholarships.
       (5) For fiscal year 2004, $2,450,000 for not to exceed 35 
     scholarships.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Wellstone, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 74. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                         Paycheck Fairness Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am privileged to join with my colleague 
Senator Tom Daschle to introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Early in the next century, women--for the first time ever--will 
outnumber men in the United States workplace. In 1965, women held 35 
percent of all jobs. That has grown to more than 46 percent today. And 
in a few years, women will make up a majority of the workforce.
  Fortunately, there are more business and career opportunities for 
women today than there were thirty years ago. Unlike 1965, federal, 
state, and private sector programs now offer women many opportunities 
to choose their own futures. Working women also have opportunities to 
gain the knowledge and skills to achieve their own economic security.
  But despite these gains, working women still face a unique 
challenge--achieving pay equity. The average woman earns 74 cents for 
every dollar that the average man earns. This amounts to a woman 
earning $8,434 less than a man over the course of one year and earning 
more than a quarter of a million dollars less over the course of a 
career.
  We must correct this gross inequality, and we must correct it now.
  How is this possible with our federal laws prohibiting 
discrimination? It is possible because we in Congress have failed to 
protect one of the most fundamental human rights--the right to be paid 
fairly for an honest day's work.
  Unfortunately, our laws ignore wage discrimination against women, 
which continues to fester like a cancer in work places across the 
country. The Paycheck Fairness Act of 1999 would close this legal 
loophole by addressing the problem of pay inequality by redressing past 
discrimination and increasing enforcement against future abuses.
  I do not pretend that this Act will solve all the problems women face 
in the work place. But it is an essential piece of the puzzle. Equal 
pay for equal work is often a subtle problem that is difficult to 
combat. Ant it does not stand alone as an issue that woman face in the 
workplace. It is deeply intertwined with the problem of unequal 
opportunity. Closing this loophole is not enough if we fail to provide 
the opportunity for women to reach high paying positions.
  The government, by itself, cannot change the attitudes and 
perceptions of individuals and private businesses in hiring and 
advancing women, but it can set an example. Certainly President Clinton 
has shown great leadership by appointing an unprecedented number of 
women to his administration. In my home state of Vermont, Major General 
Martha Rainville has been appointed Adjutant General of the Vermont 
National Guard--the first woman in the country to hold this prestigious 
position.
  Vermont is also a leader in providing pay equity. According to the 
Institute for Women's Policy Research, Vermont ranks second in 
providing equal pay. Even with this ranking, the average woman in 
Vermont still is making less than 82 cents for every dollar that the 
average man makes in Vermont. We must work in the Senate and in the 
workplace to close this gap.
  We are all familiar with the glass ceiling which prevents women from 
advancing in the workplace. However, woman are also facing a glass 
wall--they are unable to achieve equal pay for equal work. Women cannot 
break the glass ceiling until the wall comes down.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is one step to remedy this problem and 
bring down the glass wall. This Act will strengthen enforcement of the 
Equal Pay Act, increase penalties for violations, and permit employees 
to openly discuss their wages with coworkers without fear of 
retaliation by their employers.
  I understand that this bill will not solve all of the problems of pay 
inequity, but it will close legal loopholes that allow employers to 
routinely underpay women. By closing these loopholes, we will help 
women achieve better economic security and provide them with more 
opportunities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 75. A bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax 
on generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.


                 estate and gift tax repeal act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 76. A bill to phase-out and repeal the Federal estate and gift 
taxes and the tax on generational-skipping transfers; to the Committee 
on Finance.


               Estate and Gift Tax Phase-Out Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 77. A bill to increase the unified estate and gift tax credit to 
exempt small businesses and farmers from estate taxes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


         farmer and entrepreneur estate tax relief act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 78. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 to increase 
the gift

[[Page S509]]

tax exclusion to $25,000; to the Committee on Finance.


                           gift tax exclusion

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of 
myself and Senators Hagel, Helms and Roberts a package of legislation 
intended to minimize or eliminate the burden that estate and gift taxes 
place on our economy. The estate tax hinders entrepreneurial activity 
and job creation in many sectors of our economy. Despite the fact that 
my bills would help all Americans who face this onerous tax, I come to 
the estate tax debate because of my interest in American agriculture.
  As Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have held hearings 
on the impact of the estate tax on farmers and ranchers. The effects of 
inheritance taxes are fare reaching in the agricultural community. 
Citing personal experiences, witnesses described how the estate tax 
discourages savings, capital investment and job formation.
  One such story came from a Hoosier, Mr. Woody Barton. He is a fifth 
generation tree farmer living in the house his great grandparents built 
in 1885. I visited his 300 acres of forested property last October and 
can attest to its beauty. Typical of many farmers, Mr. Barton is over 
65 years old and wants to leave this legacy to his four children. But 
he fears that the estate tax may cause his children to strip the timber 
and then sell the land in order to pay the estate tax bill. His 
grandmother logged a portion of the land in 1939 to pay the debts that 
came from the death of her husband. In essence, each generation must 
buy back the hard work and dedication of their ancestors from the 
federal government. Mr. Barton believes, and I agree, that the actions 
of Congress have more impact on the outcome of his family's land than 
his own planning and investment. This should not be the case.
  The estate and gift tax falls disproportionately hard on our 
agricultural producers. Ninety-five percent of farms and ranch 
operations are sole proprietorships or family partnerships, subjecting 
a vast majority of these businesses to the threat of inheritance taxes. 
According to USDA figures, farmers are six times more likely to face 
inheritance taxes than other Americans. And commercial farm estates--
those core farms that produce 85 percent of our nation's agricultural 
products--are fifteen times more likely to pay inheritance taxes than 
other individuals.
  This hardship will only get worse as the agricultural community gets 
older, with the average farmer about to have a 60th birthday. Many 
farmers will shortly confront estate and gift taxes when they pass 
their farm onto the next generation. Recently, the USDA estimated that 
between 1992 and 2002, more than 500,000 farmers will retire. Only half 
of those positions will be replaced by young farmers. Demographic 
studies indicate that a quarter of all farmers could confront the 
inheritance tax during the next 20 years.
  To combat this problem, today I offer several legislative 
alternatives to provide relief to those impacted by this tax. My first 
bill would repeal the estate and gift taxes outright. My second bill 
would phase out the estate tax over five years by gradually raising the 
unified credit each year until the tax is repealed after the fifth 
year. My third bill would immediately raise the effective unified 
credit to $5 million in an effort to address the disproportionate 
burden that the estate tax places on farmers and small businesses. My 
last bill would raise the gift tax exemption from $10,000 to $25,000.
  I believe the best option is a simple repeal of the estate tax. I am 
hopeful that during this Congress, as members become more aware of the 
effects of this tax, we can eliminate it from the tax code. However, 
even if the estate tax is not repealed, the unified credit must be 
raised significantly. Despite our most recent success in raising the 
exemption level, inflation has caused a growing percentage of estates 
to be subjected to the estate tax. My second bill is intended to 
highlight this point and provide a gradual path to repeal.
  My third bill focuses on relieving the estate tax burden that falls 
disproportionately on farmers and small business owners. By raising the 
exemption amount to $5 million, 96 percent of estates with farm assets 
and 90 percent of estates with non-corporate business assets would not 
have to pay estate taxes, according to the IRS.
  The final bill in this package would raise the gift tax exemption 
from $10,000 to $25,000. This level has not been adjusted since 1982. 
Over the years, the inflation has eroded this exemption amount, and I 
believe this level must be raised to provide Americans with an 
additional tool for passing productive assets to the next generation.
  Despite its modest beginnings in 1916, the estate tax has mushroomed 
into an exorbitant tax on death that discourages savings, economic 
growth and job formation by blocking the accumulation of 
entrepreneurial capital and by breaking up family businesses and farms. 
With the highest marginal rate at 55 percent, more than half of an 
estate can go directly to the government. By the time the inheritance 
tax is levied on families, their assets have already been taxed at 
least once. This form of double taxation violates perceptions of 
fairness in our tax system.

  If we are sincere about boosting economic growth, we must consider 
what effect the estate tax has on a business owner deciding whether to 
invest in new capital goods or hire a new employee. The Heritage 
Foundation estimates that repealing the estate tax would annually boost 
our economic output by $11 billion, create 145,000 new jobs and raise 
personal income by $8 billion. These figures underscore the current 
weight of this tax on our economy.
  One might expect that for all the economic disincentives caused by 
the estate tax, it must at least provide a sizable contribution to the 
U.S. Treasury. But in reality, the estate tax only accounts for about 1 
percent of federal taxes. It cannot be justified as an indispensable 
revenue raiser. Given the blow delivered to job formation and economic 
growth, the estate tax may even cost the Treasury money. Our nation's 
ability to create new jobs, new opportunities and wealth is damaged as 
a result of our insistence on collecting a tax that earns less than 1 
percent of our revenue.
  But this tax affects more than just the national economy. It affects 
how we as a nation think about community, family and work. Small 
businesses and farms represent much more than assets. They represent 
years of toil and entrepreneurial risk taking. They also represent the 
hopes that families have for their children. Part of the American Dream 
has always been to build up a business, farm or ranch so that economic 
opportunities and a way of life can be passed on to one's children and 
grandchildren.
  I know first-hand about the dangers of this tax to agriculture. My 
father died when I was 24, leaving his 604-acre farm in Marion County, 
Indiana, to his family. I helped manage the farm, which had built up 
considerable debts during my father's illness. Fortunately, after a 
number of years, we were successful in working out the financial 
problems and repaying the money. We were lucky. That farm remains in 
our family because I have been practicing active estate planning and 
execution of the plan along with profitable farming for each of the 
last 40 years. But many of today's farmers and small business owners 
are not so fortunate. Only about 30 percent of businesses are 
transferred from parent to child, and only about 12 percent of 
businesses make it to a grandchild.
  Mr. President, these bills I have introduced will provide 
policymakers with a range of options as they seek to mitigate the 
burdens of the estate tax. Doing so will lead to expanded investment 
incentives and job creation and will reinvigorate an important part of 
the American Dream. I am hopeful that Senators will join me in the 
effort to free small businesses, family farms and our economy from this 
counterproductive tax. I ask unanimous consent that my four bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 75

       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 Repeal 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:

[[Page S510]]

       (1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong, 
     sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel 
     productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to 
     lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages, and reduced 
     standards of living.
       (2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily 
     declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the 
     industrialized trading partners of the United States.
       (3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the 
     country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth, 
     which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years 
     but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
       (4) Congress should work toward reforming the entire 
     Federal tax code to end its bias against savings and 
     eliminate double taxation.
       (5) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to 
     the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting 
     entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth. The 
     estate tax is harmful to the economy because of its high 
     marginal rates and its multiple taxation of income.
       (6) Abolishing the estate tax would restore a measure of 
     fairness to the Federal tax system. Families should be able 
     to pass on the fruits of labor to the next generation without 
     realizing a taxable event.
       (7) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the 
     preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and 
     ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships, 
     subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the 
     death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of 
     farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15 
     times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other 
     Americans.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is hereby repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and 
     generation-skipping transfers made, after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall, as soon as 
     practicable but in any event not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any technical 
     and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code the 
     changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this 
     Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 76

       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 Phase-
     Out Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong, 
     sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel 
     productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to 
     lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages, and reduced 
     standards of living.
       (2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily 
     declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the 
     industrialized trading partners of the United States.
       (3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the 
     country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth, 
     which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years 
     but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
       (4) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to 
     the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting 
     entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth.
       (5) Abolishing the estate tax would restore a measure of 
     fairness to the Federal tax system. Families should be able 
     to pass on the fruits of labor to the next generation without 
     realizing a taxable event.
       (6) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the 
     preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and 
     ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships, 
     subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the 
     death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of 
     farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15 
     times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other 
     Americans.

     SEC. 3. PHASE-OUT OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES THROUGH INCREASE 
                   IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--The table in section 2010(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit amount) 
     is amended to read as follows:

The applicable exclusion amount is:ts dying, and gifts made, during:
      2000..................................................$1,000,000 
      2001..................................................$1,500,000 
      2002..................................................$2,000,000 
      2003..................................................$2,500,000 
      2004...............................................$5,000,000.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts 
     made, after December 31, 1997.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is repealed.
       (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and 
     generation-skipping transfers made, after December 31, 2004.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall not later than 90 
     days after the effective date of this section, submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any 
     technical and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code 
     the changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this 
     Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 77

       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 ``Farmer and Entrepreneur 
     Estate Tax Relief Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The economy of the United States cannot achieve strong, 
     sustained growth without adequate levels of savings to fuel 
     productive activity. Inadequate savings have been shown to 
     lead to lower productivity, stagnating wages and reduced 
     standards of living.
       (2) Savings levels in the United States have steadily 
     declined over the past 25 years, and have lagged behind the 
     industrialized trading partners of the United States.
       (3) These anemic savings levels have contributed to the 
     country's long-term downward trend in real economic growth, 
     which averaged close to 3.5 percent over the last 100 years 
     but has slowed to 2.4 percent over the past quarter century.
       (4) Congress should work toward reforming the entire 
     Federal tax code to end its bias against savings.
       (5) Repealing the estate and gift tax would contribute to 
     the goals of expanding savings and investment, boosting 
     entrepreneurial activity, and expanding economic growth. The 
     estate tax is harmful to the economy because of its high 
     marginal rates and its multiple taxation of income.
       (6) The repeal of the estate tax would increase the growth 
     of the small business sector, which creates a majority of new 
     jobs in our Nation. Estimates indicate that as many as 70 
     percent of small businesses do not make it to a second 
     generation and nearly 90 percent do not make it to a third.
       (7) Eliminating the estate tax would lift the compliance 
     burden from farmers and family businesses. On average, 
     family-owned businesses spent over $33,000 on accountants, 
     lawyers, and financial experts in complying with the estate 
     tax laws over a 6.5-year period.
       (8) Abolishing the estate tax would benefit the 
     preservation of family farms. Nearly 95 percent of farms and 
     ranches are owned by sole proprietors or family partnerships, 
     subjecting most of this property to estate taxes upon the 
     death of the owner. Due to the capital intensive nature of 
     farming and its low return on investment, farmers are 15 
     times more likely to be subject to estate taxes than other 
     Americans.
       (9) As the average age of farmers approaches 60 years, it 
     is estimated that a quarter of all farmers could confront the 
     estate tax over the next 20 years. The auctioning of these 
     productive assets to finance tax liabilities destroys jobs 
     and harms the economy.
       (10) Abolishing the estate taxes would restore a measure of 
     fairness to our Federal tax system. Families should be able 
     to pass on the fruits of the labor to the next generation 
     without realizing a taxable event.
       (11) Despite this heavy burden on entrepreneurs, farmers, 
     and our entire economy, estate and gift taxes collect only 
     about 1 percent of our Federal tax revenues. In fact, the 
     estate tax may not raise any revenue at all, because more 
     income tax is lost from individuals attempting to avoid 
     estate taxes than is ultimately collected at death.
       (12) Repealing estate and gift taxes is supported by the 
     White House Conference on Small Business, the Kemp Commission 
     on Tax Reform, and 60 small business advocacy organizations.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--The table in section 2010(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code (relating to applicable credit amount) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2000 and 2001'' and inserting ``2000 or 
     thereafter'',
       (2) by striking ``$675,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000'', 
     and
       (3) by striking all matter beginning with the item relating 
     to 2002 and 2003 through the end of the table.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts 
     made, after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 78

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GIFT TAX EXCLUSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 2503(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to exclusions from gifts) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$25,000'',
       (2) by striking ``1998'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``2000'', and
       (3) by striking ``1997'' in paragraph (2)(B) and inserting 
     ``1999''.

[[Page S511]]

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to gifts made after December 31, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 79. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
require disclosure of certain disbursements made for electioneering 
communications, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


 advancing truth and accountability in campaign communications act of 
                                  1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of 
myself and Mr. Jeffords the Advancing Truth and Accountability in 
Campaign Communications Act of 1999, or ATACC, which represents an 
effort to attack the problem of stealth advocacy advertising in federal 
elections and shine the spotlight of disclosure on those who would 
attempt to fly under the radar screen of our campaign finance laws.
  Before I begin, I want to thank and commend Senator Jeffords for all 
his valuable input and hard work in helping to craft this legislation, 
which was originally introduced as an amendment last year to the 
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. And I want to thank 
Senators McCain and Feingold themselves, who encouraged our efforts.
  In the past several elections, we've seen a proliferation of 
advertisements over the airwaves which cloak themselves in the 
innocuous guise of ``issue advocacy'', or voter education. The sponsors 
of these ads would have us believe that they are performing a public 
service by running these ads, and do not intend for them to affect the 
outcome of federal elections. They claim that because they do not use 
words like ``vote for'', or ``vote against'', they are exempt from 
federal campaign finance laws. They even argue that no one has the 
right simply to know who is sponsoring the ads.
  And yet, these ads say things like: ``Mr. X promised he'd be 
different. But he's just another Washington politician. Why during the 
last year alone, he has taken over $260,000 from corporate special 
interest groups. . . . But is he listening to us anymore?''
  I defy anyone to argue, with a straight face, that that message is 
anything other than a blatant attempt to influence a federal election. 
And yet, under current law, any person, labor union, or corporation, 
has a right to run such ads without even disclosing the most basic 
information, such as who they are, or how much they are spending. And 
that is just plain wrong.
  During the 1996 elections, the Annenberg Public Policy Center 
estimates that anywhere between $135 million and $150 million was spent 
by third party groups not associated with candidates' campaigns on such 
radio and television ads. I say ``estimates'' because we really don't 
know for sure. There is no official record kept, nor is anyone required 
to submit the kind of information needed to keep such records.
  And lest there be any doubt of the real intent of these ads, the 
Annenburg Report found that nearly 87 percent of them mentioned a 
candidate for office by name, and over 41 percent were seen by the 
public as ``pure attack'' ads--that's the highest percentage recorded 
among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free-time 
segments accorded candidates, and news programs.
  If anything, not surprisingly, the problem got worse in the 1997-1998 
election cycle. The Annenberg Center has completed their study of this 
time period, and has determined that issue ad spending in the last 
cycle doubled the amount spent in 1995 through 1996--to total between 
$275 and $340 million. Of those ads, over 53 percent mentioned 
candidates by name during the cycle--a number which rose to over 80 
percent in the final two months. Further, 51.5 percent of issue ads 
aired after September 1, 1998, were pure attack ads in terms of their 
content. At least 77 groups ran broadcast issue ads in 1997 and 1998.
  As Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has stated, 
``(These are) conservative number(s), since there is no disclosure of 
(these) media buys or other spending.'' To put this in perspective, 
1998 was the first billion dollar election--meaning that about a 
quarter of the money spent was on what I call ``stealth advocacy'' 
advertising. One quarter of all the money spent--which the Annenberg 
Center estimates is roughly equivalent to what candidates themselves 
spent on their own campaigns--was unaccounted for, unreportable and 
unregulated in any fashion. And, as Norm Ornstein has pointed out, 1998 
was an ``off-year'', and ``without campaign reform, we can probably 
look forward to the $2 billion or $3 billion election in 2000, with a 
half-billion of it disguised as issue advocacy.''
  Let me explain how this bill will get to the core of this problem; 
how it works; and why it is much more likely to pass court muster than 
previous attempts to get at this issue.
  The premise of this bill was developed in consultation with noted 
constitutional scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein; Josh 
Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU; and 
others. The approach is a straightforward, two tiered one that only 
applies to advertisements that constitute the most blatant form of 
electioneering.
  It only applies to ads run on radio or television, 30 days before a 
primary and 60 days before a general election, that identify a federal 
candidate. And only if over $10,000 is spent on such ads in a year. 
What is required is disclosure of the ads' sponsor and major donors, 
and a prohibition on the direct or indirect use of corporation or union 
money to fund the ads.
  We called this new category ``electioneering ads''. They are the only 
communications addressed, and we define them very narrowly and 
carefully.
  If the ad is not run on television or radio; if the ad is not aired 
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, if the ad 
doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify him clearly, 
if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group 
hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is 
not an electioneering ad.
  If it is an item appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial 
distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an 
electioneering ad. Plain and simple.
  If one does run an electioneering ad, two things happen. First, the 
sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors 
who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1 of the previous 
year. Right now, candidates have to disclose campaign contributions 
over $200. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a business 
corporation or labor union--only voluntary contributions.
  The clear, narrow wording of the bill is important because it passes 
two critical First Amendment doctrines that were at the heart of the 
Supreme Court's landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision: vagueness and 
overbreadth. The rules of this provision are clear. And the 
requirements are strictly limited to ads run near an election that 
identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote 
for or against a particular candidate.
  Nothing in this bill restricts the right of any group to engage in 
issue advocacy. For example, the following ad--which was actually run 
in 1996--would be completely unaffected by this bill. The text of the 
ad--which is a pure issue ad in the true sense of the term--says, 
``This election year, America's children need your vote. Our public 
schools are our children's ticket to the future. But education has 
become just another target for attack by politicians who want huge cuts 
in education programs. They're making the wrong choices. Our children 
deserve leaders who will strengthen public education, not attack it. 
They deserve the best education we can give them. So this year, vote as 
if your children's future depends on it. It does.''

  That is not an electioneering ad, and that conclusion is not simply 
based on perception. It is based on the fact that it does not meet the 
clearly delineated criteria put forth in our bill, and therefore, 
exists completely outside the realm of this legislation.
  For that matter, nothing prohibits groups from running electioneering 
ads, either. Let me be clear on this: if this bill becomes law, any 
group running issues ads today can still run issue ads in the future, 
with no restrictions on content. And any group running electioneering 
ads can still run those ads in the future, again with absolutely zero 
restrictions on content.

[[Page S512]]

  The argument that will no doubt be leveled by opponents to this 
approach--those advocates of secrecy who do not want the public to know 
who is financing these ads, and for how much--is that it is 
inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution. This is 
simply not so, and that's not just my opinion. Constitutional scholars 
from Stanford Law to Georgia Law to Loyola Law to Vanderbilt Law have 
endorsed the approach of this bill.
  The fact is, the only restrictions in the bill--namely, the use of 
union and corporation treasury money to pay for electioneering ads--are 
rooted in well-established case law that has long allowed for the 
regulation of the use of such money for electioneering purposes. 
Further, the threshold for disclosure is more than double what it is 
for candidates who receive contributions, and absolutely no disclosure 
is required whatsoever from any person or entity which spends less than 
$10,000. And it bears repeating that nothing in this bill affects any 
printed communications in any way, shape, or form--so voter guides are 
completely outside the universe of communications that are covered by 
this measure.
  Mr. President, ATACC is a sensible, reasonable approach to attacking 
a burgeoning segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our 
campaign finance system. I would ask my colleagues, how can anyone not 
be for disclosure? How can anyone say that less information for the 
public leads to better elections? Don't the American people have the 
right to know who is paying for these stealth advocacy ads, and how 
much?
  Apparently, the majority of the Senate thought so. Last year, when 
this measure was approved as an amendment and incorporated into the 
McCain-Feingold legislation, the bill garnered 52 votes--bringing the 
majority of the Senate on board. Unfortunately, the will of the 
majority did not ultimately prevail, as we were unable to break the 
sixty votes necessary to end a threatened filibuster and institute 
real, fair and meaningful reform in the way in which American elections 
are financed.
  But we have heard before that it can't be done, only to see the House 
of Representatives do it. Today, we have new members of this body--
members who have seen first hand the effects these electioneering ads 
are having on campaigns and elections in this country, and I invite 
them to join with Senators Jeffords and I in supporting this bill. I 
would say to them that we, as candidates and Senators, are accountable 
to the people. We're required to file disclosure reports as candidates. 
PACs are required to disclose. But hundreds of millions of dollars are 
spent on these ads without one dime being reported. Not one dime.
  Mr. President, I come to this debate as a veteran supporter of 
campaign finance reform. As someone who has served on Capitol Hill for 
twenty years, I understand the realities, and I know that there are 
concerns on both sides of the aisle that whatever measure we may 
ultimately pass, it must be fair, equitable, and constitutional.
  This bill passes all three of these tests. And it represents one, 
significant step we might take to ensure that the first elections of 
the next century--the next millennium--are more open, more fair, and 
more representative of the will of the individual. That's what this 
bill is really all about, Mr. President. It's about putting elections 
back into the hands of individuals by letting them have the facts they 
need to make informed decisions, and by ensuring that electioneering 
ads are paid for by voluntary, individual contributions.
  That's all, Mr. President. No plot to subvert the First Amendment. No 
scheme to silence any group or person. No plan to control what anyone 
says or when they say it. Just an honest, constitutionally sound 
attempt to bring some honesty and accountability back into 
electioneering advertising, and return some sense of confidence to the 
American people that their elections belong to them. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible, incremental 
approach, and join in the fight to attack secrecy and promote honesty 
in campaign advertising.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the 
106th Congress I rise in the Senate Chamber to express my strong 
support for the bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing and urge my 
Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors of this important legislation.
  Throughout the last Congress the Senate spent many legislative hours 
debating campaign finance reform. In fact, since my election to the 
House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I have spent many long 
hours working with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform 
legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a 
constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994 and last year, and I 
believe circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful 
campaign finance reform during this Congress.
  I believe that the irregularities associated with our recent 
campaigns, and especially in the 1996 elections, point out the fact 
that current election laws are not being strongly enforced or working 
to achieve the goals that we all have for campaign finance reform. The 
proof obtained from the hearings in both the House and the Senate on 
campaign finance abuses should alone be enough to motivate my 
colleagues to complete work on this issue in the Senate. Without 
action, these abuses will become more pronounced and widespread as we 
go from election to election.
  The Snowe-Jeffords bill, the Advancing Truth and Accountability of 
Campaign Communications Act (ATACC), will boost disclosure requirements 
and tighten the rule on expenditures of corporate and union treasury 
funds in the weeks preceding a primary and general election.
  I would like to begin with a story that may help my colleagues 
understand the need for this legislation, and that many of my 
colleagues may understand from their own campaigns. Two individuals are 
running for the Senate and have spent the last few months holding 
debates, talking to the voters and traveling around the state. Both 
candidates feel that they have informed the voters of their thoughts, 
views and opinions on the issues, and that the voters can use this 
information to decide on which candidate they will support.
  Two weeks before the day of the election a group called the People 
for the Truth and the American Way, let's say, begins to run television 
advertisements which include the picture of one of the candidates and 
that candidate's name. However, these advertisements do not use the 
express terms of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' These advertisements 
discuss issues such as the candidate's drinking, supposed off-shore 
bank accounts and the failure of the candidate's business.
  The voters do not know who this group is, who are its financial 
backers and why they have an interest in this specific election, and 
under our current election law the voters will not find out. Thus, even 
though the candidates have attempted to provide the voters with all the 
information concerning the candidate's views on the issues, they will 
be casting their vote lacking critical information concerning these 
advertisements.
  Some people may say that voters do not need this information. But as 
James Madison said, ``A popular government without popular information 
is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or perhaps both. Knowledge 
will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own 
governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
  Mr. President, the ATACC act will arm the people with the knowledge 
they need in order to sustain our popular government. And the need to 
arm the people with this knowledge is becoming greater every year. As 
my colleague Senator Snowe has stated, the amount of money spent on 
issue advocacy advertising is increasing over time at an alarming rate. 
In the 1995-1996 election cycle an estimated $135-150 million was spent 
on issue advocacy, while in the recently completed cycle an estimated 
$275-340 million was expended on these types of advertisements. This is 
a doubling of the amount of money spent on issue advocacy ads in one 
election cycle, and I fear entering an election cycle that includes a 
Presidential election that we may see at least another doubling of 
these type of expenditures.
  I have long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, ``Sunlight 
is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' The

[[Page S513]]

disclosure requirements in the ATACC act are narrow and tailored to 
provide the electorate with the important pertinent information they 
will need to make an informed decision. Information included on the 
disclosure statement includes the sponsor of the advertisement, amount 
spent, and the identity of the contributors who donated more than $500. 
Getting the public this information will greatly help the electorate 
evaluate those who are seeking federal office.
  Additionally, this disclosure, or disinfectant as Justice Brandeis 
puts it, will also help deter actual corruption and avoid the 
appearance of corruption that many already feel pervades our campaign 
finance system. This, too, is an important outcome of the disclosure 
requirements of this bill. Getting this information into the public 
purview would enable the press, the FEC and interest groups to help 
ensure that our federal campaign finance laws are obeyed. If the public 
doesn't feel that the laws Congress passes in this area are being 
followed, this will lead to a greater level of disillusionment in their 
elected representatives. Exposure to the light of day of any corruption 
by this required disclosure will help reassure our public that the laws 
will be followed and enforced.
  While our bill focuses on disclosure, it will also prohibit 
corporations and unions from using general treasury monies to fund 
these types of electioneering communications in a defined period close 
to an election. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations from 
engaging in electioneering. In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit 
unions from electioneering as well. The Supreme Court has upheld these 
restrictions in order to avoid the deleterious influences on federal 
elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control 
over large aggregations of capital. By treating both corporations and 
unions similarly we extend current regulation cautiously and fairly. I 
feel that this prohibition, coupled with the disclosure requirements, 
will address many of the concerns my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle have raised with regards to our current campaign finance laws.

  Mr. President, I think it is important to clarify at this time some 
of the things that this bill will not do. It will not prevent grass-
roots lobbying communications, it does not cover printed material, nor 
require the text or a copy of the advertisement to be disclosed. 
Finally, it does not restrict how much money can be spent on ads, nor 
restrict how much money a group raises. These points must be expressed 
early on to ensure that my colleagues can clearly understand what we 
are and are not attempting to do with our legislation.
  We have taken great care with our bill to avoid violating the 
important principles in the First Amendment of our Constitution. This 
has required us to review the seminal cases in this area, including 
Buckley v. Valeo. Limiting corporate and union spending and disclosure 
rules has been in area that the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of 
regulation. We also strove to make the requirements sufficiently clear 
and narrow to over come unconstitutional claims of vagueness and over 
breadth.
  Mr. President, I wish I could guarantee to my colleagues that these 
provisions would be held constitutional, but as we found out with the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even with near unanimous support, it 
is difficult to gauge what the Supreme Court will decide on 
constitutional issues. However, I feel that the provisions we have 
created follow closely the constitutional roadmap established by the 
Supreme Court by the decisions in this area, and that it would be 
upheld.
  I know that campaign finance reform is an areas of diverse viewpoints 
and beliefs. However, I feel that the ATACC act offers a constructive 
and constitutional solution that addresses some of the problems that 
have been expressed concerning our current campaign finance system. The 
American people are watching and hoping that we will have a fair, 
informative and productive debate on campaign finance reform. I know 
that the proposal that Senator Snowe and I have put forward will do 
just that.
  The electorate has grown more and more disappointed with the tenor of 
campaigns over the last few years, and this disappointment is reflected 
in the low number of people that actually participate in what makes 
this country and democracy great, voting. I feel that giving the voters 
the additional information required by our legislation will help dispel 
some of the disillusionment the electorate feel with our campaign 
system and reinvigorate people to participate again in our democratic 
system.
  In conclusion, the very basis of our democracy requires that an 
informed electorate participate by going to the polls and voting. The 
ATACC act will through its disclosure requirements inform our 
electorate and lead people to again participate in our democratic 
system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 80. A bill to establish the position of Assistant United States 
Trade Representative for Small Business, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                     small business enhancement act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
designed to help America's small business. This legislation will assist 
small businesses by requiring an estimate of the cost of a bill on 
small businesses before Congress enacts the legislation, and by 
creating an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business.
  Small business is the driving force behind our economy, and in order 
to create jobs--both in my home State of Maine and across the Nation--
we must encourage small businesses expansion.
  Nationwide, an estimated 13 to 16 million small businesses represent 
over 99 percent of all employers. They also employ 52 percent of the 
workers, and 38 percent of workers in high-tech occupations. Small 
businesses account for virtually all of the net new jobs, and 51 
percent of private sector output.
  In my home State of Maine, of the 36,660 businesses with employees in 
1997, 97.6 percent of the businesses were small businesses. Maine also 
boasts an estimated 71,000 self-employed persons. In terms of job 
growth, small businesses are credited with all of the net new jobs in a 
survey of job growth from 1992 to 1996.
  Small businesses are the most successful tool we have for job 
creation. They provide a substantial majority of the initial job 
opportunities in this country, and are the original--and finest--job 
training program. Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our 
own economy--and the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building 
economic growth, government often gets in the way. Instead of assisting 
small business, Government too often frustrates small business efforts.
  Federal regulations create more than 1 billion hours of paperwork for 
small businesses each year, according to the Small Business 
Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of the largest 
American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often devote 
a disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in corporate 
America rather than in small businesses.

  My legislation will address two problems facing our Nation's small 
businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business expansion 
and fuel job creation.
  One, this legislation will require a cost analysis legislative 
proposals before new requirements are passed on to small businesses. 
Too often, Congress approves well-intended legislation that shifts the 
costs of programs to small businesses. This proposal will help ensure 
that these unintended consequences are not passed along to small 
businesses.
  According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business 
owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year filling out government 
paperwork, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place 
yet another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we 
should understand the costs our proposals will impose on small 
businesses.
  This bill will require the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small 
businesses that would be incurred in carrying out provisions contained 
in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of 
costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year 
period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would 
be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully 
consider the impact of

[[Page S514]]

our actions on small businesses--and through careful planning, we may 
succeed in avoiding unintended costs.
  Two, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to 
establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small 
Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is overburdened, 
and too often overlooks the needs of small business. The new Assistant 
U.S. Trade Representative will promote exports by small businesses and 
work to remove foreign impediments to these exports.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist 
small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial 
opportunities but also in new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Allard, and Mr. 
        Akaka):
  S. 81. A bill to authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish rules governing park overflights; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                     National Parks Overflights Act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Parks Overflights Act. This legislation intends to promote air safety 
and protect natural quiet in our national parks by providing a process 
for developing air tour management plans (ATMP) at those parks. An ATMP 
at a national park would manage commercial air tour flights over and 
around that park, and over any Native American lands within or adjacent 
to the park.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that this is the same 
legislation that was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate last 
September, as part of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation 
System Improvement Act, or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
reauthorization bill. Today I reintroduced the FAA reauthorization bill 
that was approved by the Senate last year. Title VI of the bill deals 
with national parks overflights.
  Mr. President, the National Parks Overflights Act was developed at 
the recommendation of the National Parks Overflights Working Group. The 
working group was established to develop a plan for instituting flight 
restrictions over national parks because of the noise and environmental 
consequences associated with commercial air tours of the parks. 
Environmentalists, as well as general aviation and air tour industry 
representatives, constituted the membership of the working group. The 
group recommended a consensus proposal on overflights, which is 
embodied in the National Parks Overflights Act.
  Visitors to our national parks, whether by air or through the 
entrance gate, deserve a safe and quality visitor experience. The 
number of air tour flights across the country is on the rise. As 
additional aircraft operate in concentrated airspace, the risk of an 
accident increases. We have a responsibility to manage park airspace to 
provide for the safe and orderly flow of traffic.
  ``Natural quiet,'' or the ambient sounds of the environment without 
the intrusion of manmade noise, is a highly valued resource for 
visitors to our national parks. As commercial air tour flights 
increase, their noise also increases, which can impair the opportunity 
for park visitors on the ground to enjoy the natural quiet that they 
seek and deserve.
  The National Parks Overflights Act seeks to promote both safety and 
natural quiet by providing a fair and balanced process for the 
development of Air Tour Management Plans at individual parks. The FAA 
Administrator and the Director of the National Park Service are to work 
cooperatively to develop an ATMP through a public process.
  The development of an ATMP will include the environmental 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill would 
also require that commercial air tour operators increase their safety 
standards, specifically by meeting FAA Part 135 or Part 121 safety 
criteria.
  Certain parks have been dealt with individually in the bill because 
of their unique circumstances. Since Grand Canyon overflights are 
governed by legislation that has already been enacted into law, the 
Grand Canyon National Park has been exempted from the legislation. 
Alaska is also exempt from the legislation given the vast expanse of 
park land and the unique nature of aviation in the state. The 
legislation would prohibit commercial air tours of the Rocky Mountain 
National Park.
  Let me conclude by saying that commercial air tours provide a 
legitimate means of experiencing national parks. They are particularly 
important for providing access to the elderly and the disabled. I 
believe that this legislation appropriately balances the rights of all 
park visitors. I hope and expect that we can work together toward its 
swift enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 82. A bill to authorize appropriations for Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                 The Air Transportation Improvement Act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Air 
Transportation Improvement Act, which would reauthorize the programs of 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP). This legislation includes numerous 
provisions that will help sustain and enhance safety, security, 
efficiency, and competition in the national aviation system. The bill 
also would establish a widely-endorsed system for managing the 
environmental consequences of commercial air tour flights over national 
parks.
  As most of my colleagues know, the Commerce Committee worked hard 
last year to develop a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill. Following a 
bipartisan, inclusive, and constructive process, we developed a package 
that among other things would have authorized important airport 
construction grants. The legislation also would have instituted a host 
of safety and security enhancements.
  One of the key elements of last year's Senate-passed FAA bill was the 
aviation competition and service title. It would have modestly enhanced 
the capacity at the four slot-controlled airports in the country--
LaGuardia and JFK in New York, Chicago O'Hare, and Reagan National. New 
entrant, low fare carriers have been effectively shut out of these key 
markets, which are critical to sustaining a healthy network and giving 
consumers new low cost choices.
  Senator Frist and Majority Leader Lott were instrumental in 
developing these proposals. Senator Frist in particular has been out in 
front in the effort to bolster the role that regional jets play in the 
overall aviation system. As everyone who cares about the quality of air 
service knows, regional jets will be integral to expanding and 
improving service to small and medium-sized communities in the years to 
come.
  Unfortunately, special interests worked to thwart our efforts and 
killed these provisions to encourage airline competition. Instead of 
delivering pro-consumer aviation legislation to the traveling public, 
Congress failed to act after some of the major airlines applied 
pressure against these proposals that threatened their lock on the 
market.
  On the same day that the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 92 to 
one, we also appointed conferees. Although the House approved its own 
FAA reauthorization bill in August of last year, the leadership failed 
to appoint conferees. As a result, the two chambers were never given an 
opportunity to reconcile the two bills. Congress was then forced to 
include a short-term reauthorization of the AIP in the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. This was a clear failure on 
the part of the 105th Congress.
  The text of the bill I am introducing today is nearly identical to 
the FAA reauthorization bill that the Senate approved overwhelmingly 
last year. The only changes that have been made involve a few purely 
technical corrections and removal of provisions that have already been 
enacted into law.

[[Page S515]]

  In last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act, we reauthorized the AIP 
for six months so that this Congress would have to act immediately to 
complete the work of the last Congress. The AIP is set to expire on 
March 31, 1999. With the introduction of this bill, I am fulfilling my 
commitment to continue the reauthorization process where the last 
Congress left off in a time frame that ensures the continuation of the 
federal airport grant program.
  I plan to hold a hearing on this bill and to mark it up as soon as 
possible. The heavy lifting has already been done. The bill may undergo 
some revisions, especially considering our good fortune to have Senator 
Rockefeller appointed as the new ranking member on the Aviation 
Subcommittee. Even so, it will not be necessary for us to start from 
scratch. As the Commerce Committee begins this effort, I look forward 
to working again with Senators Gorton, Hollings, and Rockefeller, as 
well as the rest of my colleagues, on a reauthorization package that 
all Senators can support.
  Mr. President, we must work over the next few months to finish the 
job we started last year. It is vital that we push forward with the 
important pro-consumer provisions that are included in this bill. Last 
year, consumers lost out to special interests. This year, I will use 
all means at my disposal to ensure that does not happen again.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator McCain, 
Senator Hollings and others in introducing legislation to authorize 
spending for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal 
year 2000. As we embark on this new session of a new Congress, it is 
critical that we begin immediately the process of putting together a 
comprehensive aviation bill--to ensure that the FAA is fully 
authorized, to facilitate continued critical airport development, and 
to address a number of broad aviation policy matters.
  I want to make clear at the outset that I join as a cosponsor of this 
bill as a starting point. Senator McCain plans to pursue vigorously a 
comprehensive bill, and that will be our first order of business, but 
haste may not allow us to do all that we want and have a responsibility 
to do, particularly if the House continues to pursue its own clean, 6-
month reauthorization bill, and then a long-term bill. I am hopeful 
that we will accomplish our objectives expeditiously, but I see any 
number of hurdles in our path and believe that in the Senate, too, we 
may need to pursue a short-term extension and then give this 
legislation the consideration it is due.
  As my colleagues know, I have the honor in this Congress of following 
in the great foot steps of Wendell Ford, who served this body for 24 
years, and served as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Aviation 
Subcommittee for as long as any of us can remember. In fact, the bill 
being introduced today, essentially the same bill that passed the 
Senate last year, honored the Senator by naming it the Wendell H. Ford 
Air Transportation Safety Improvement Act, at the unanimously-endorsed 
suggestion of Senator Ted Stevens.
  In stepping into Senator Ford's shoes, I aim to ensure not only that 
the aviation needs of West Virginia and other rural states and 
communities are secured, but also that the needs of the nation and of 
my colleagues' constituents are addressed. Certainly there will be 
competing interests and sometimes conflicts, but we all must and share 
in the fundamental responsibility to maintain safety in the skies, to 
support fully the needs of the aviation system and modernization 
effort, to ensure that the industry provides the service our 
constituents demand and deserve, to facilitate stable funding sources 
for our airports, and to be vigilant in opening up markets for our air 
carriers worldwide. These are all daunting tasks but we are up to the 
challenge, and I look forward to working with the Chairman, and members 
of the Committee in crafting an aviation bill that we can all take 
pride in.
  The bill before you is a place to begin our discussion.
  Last year, the Congress was able to pass only a six-month extension 
of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), effectively freezing half of 
the $1.95 billion allocated to the program. Absent a reauthorization, 
our airports and our constituents may lose the ability to upgrade a 
runway or start an expansion project that facilitates new business 
opportunities for our communities--all because we're having trouble 
figuring out a way out of the box we are in. Senator McCain's resolve 
notwithstanding, our House counterparts have already favorably reported 
a clean, 6-month extension of the program. Even if we can reach 
agreement about our immediate needs, I do not want the Senate to pass a 
bill only to see the program lapse because our House colleagues refuse 
to consider anything other than a clean, short-term extension, before 
the March deadline, saving the major issues and a long-term bill for 
later in the year. The blame-game that would ensue would only harm the 
citizens who sent us here. We can get more slots, we can work to 
improve service to small communities, we can make sure the FAA has the 
ability to move forward with its modernization plans, but it will not 
happen overnight.
  Let me give you but one example. Senator Gorton last year offered an 
amendment in the Commerce Committee that would have raised the 
passenger facility charge (PFC) from $3 per enplanement to $4. I 
supported Senator Gorton. I expect that he will again try to raise the 
PFC, and the Administration has indicated that they will propose an 
increase as well. This is a tough issue, pitting the carriers against 
the airports, and letting some claim that it is a new tax. However, 
another dollar could get us a lot more capacity at our nation's 
airports.
  In front of us are the daunting future needs of the aviation system. 
All of the projections show that we will have 300 million more 
passengers by the year 2009. As much as I would like them all to flow 
through West Virginia, I know that all of our airports will face 
constraints--money is tight, and a PFC increase will help. How the PEC 
is structured, the types of controls possible, and what they are used 
for, are all difficult choices, and I want to work with the airports 
and the carriers to try to carriers to try to resolve this issue in a 
balanced way.
  The air traffic control system also needs to be revamped. It is a 
complex system and each new system requires changes in the cockpit, new 
procedures and new avionics--change, therefore, that cannot happen 
overnight. GAO recently reported that the FAA is making progress, 
changing the way it does business and working with the industry to 
figure out what is needed. GAO also reports that the FAA will need $17 
billion to complete the modernization effort. Without that degree of 
funding, we may not be able to get all we want--new computers, new ways 
to move aircraft, and more capacity to make the system safer. According 
to the National Civil Aviation Review Commission, unless we address 
this problem, we are facing gridlock in the skies.
  So, funding of the FAA is a critical, critical matter. I know 
Congressman Shuster wants to take the Airport and Airways Trust Fund 
off budget, but what I found last year is that the offset for taking 
trust funds can be devastating to totally unrelated programs. Right 
now, I know that the FAA is supported not only by the Trust Fund 
revenues, but also a large contribution from the general fund, which 
should be continued in recognition of the important public benefits 
provided by aviation.
  Finally, I know that the administration will be submitting its 
legislative proposal to us within the next few weeks. We need to take a 
careful look at those recommendations, and sit down with Secretary 
Slater and Administrator Garvey to develop a blue print for the future. 
We have an opportunity this year to make some real changes. I do not 
want it to pass us by.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Gorton, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 82. A bill to authorize appropriation for Federal Aviation 
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                   air transportation improvement act

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President: As the 106th Congress begins, we have to 
address unfinished business first. As many Senators know, the vitally 
important legislation to reauthorize the

[[Page S516]]

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) passed in September by a vote of 92-1. For a variety of 
reasons negotiations between the House and Senate unfortunately 
resulted in only a 6-month extension, expiring at the end of March of 
this year.
  The bill being introduced today is an effort to reauthorize the 
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration for two years. In 
today's global economy, adequate airport facilities are a critical 
component of any economic development program. The FAA's Airport 
Improvement Program plays a central role in ensuring that communities 
have adequate airport facilities. For FY 1998, the FAA received $1.9 
billion. For FY 1999, the FAA would have received $1.95 billion. 
Instead, the agency will receive only half of that amount, unless we 
pass either a short term bill or a long term extension of the program. 
One course we know can work quickly. The other course is more 
challenging.
  While it is critically important that we work together to pass this 
vital legislation, I do want to raise an issue of fundamental 
importance. That is truth in budgeting. I have supported taking trust 
funds out of the unified Federal budget for many years. This year, 
there may be an opportunity to actually make it happen. What is good 
for highways is good for aviation. At the end of FY 1998, the Airport 
and Airway Trust Fund uncommitted surplus was $4.339 billion, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. It is projected to rise to $13.419 
billion by the end of FY 2000 and to $79.325 billion by FY 2008. We are 
collecting the taxes, but are not giving people what they expect, what 
they paid for, or what they deserve.
  We know that the FAA needs money to buy new computers and to use 
satellite technology. We can take it from the existing revenues, while 
continuing the general fund contribution, or we can limp along, giving 
the FAA a portion of what we all know it needs. If we do that there are 
consequences, and the fault is ours, not the agency's. It is that 
simple.
  There are difficult problems facing the 106th Congress. Our 
constituents are demanding reasonable fares. Competition can work well 
to give us reasonable fares, but it has also created unfortunate 
anomalies. Look around the country--in the 1980's, the Department of 
Transportation approved every single merger that was proposed. Now we 
have a consolidated industry, with the big 3 air carriers accounting 
for nearly 55-60% of the market, and the Northwest-Continental alliance 
accounting for another 16-17%.
  Over the years, I have asked the General Accounting Office to look at 
fares at small and medium hubs, places like Charleston, S.C. They 
reported that fares were in fact higher, on average at Charleston, at 
Greenville, and many other small communities. Last week, the Department 
of Transportation reported that Charleston had the 5th highest air 
fares in the country. I did not realize we were 5th, a dubious honor, 
but I knew they were high. We have a deregulated air transportation 
system, dependent upon mega-carriers for service, and beholden to them 
on fares. Without a hub system aggregating traffic, small communities 
would not receive the service they do today. Yet, the same ability 
allows the carriers to place the small towns at their mercy. Our 
economy and ability to grow, to attract new businesses, are now highly 
dependent upon those same carriers. A low cost carrier may come into a 
market, cause a ripple in lowering the fares, and then be driven out. 
We had that with Air South. Getting service to one of the four slot-
controlled airports, while important for that route, will not result in 
lower air fares for the rest of the markets. The average may drop 
overall, but the statistics do not then tell the real story. 
Determining how we address this problem will be difficult, but it must 
be done.
  There also are a number of issues important to aviation employees and 
others that must be addressed as we move through the legislative 
process. For example, issues involving foreign repair stations must be 
examined, and the bill includes a task force to address this issue. FAA 
employees must once again be granted access to the Merit System 
Protection Board and a Universal Access System must be authorized. 
Whistle-blower protection is another important issue. I look forward to 
working with Chairman McCain, Chairman Gorton, and Ranking Member 
Rockefeller toward meeting these objectives and ensuring that our final 
product is a bill that enjoys the broad support of the aviation 
community.
  The comprehensive bill I am co-sponsoring today may not be completed 
for many months, and we may have to pass a short term extension to make 
sure that the money for airports does not get tied up. Nevertheless, I 
know that the Chairman is anxious to get us all moving, so let the 
debate begin and let us move forward expeditiously in order to fund 
these critically important programs.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman McCain today 
as a cosponsor of the Air Transportation Improvement Act. As Senator 
McCain has indicated, this legislation is exactly the same as 
legislation approved by the Senate last year by a vote of 99-1.
  Passing legislation to extend the Airport Improvement Program needs 
to be among our highest priorities for early action in this Congress. 
While I do not support every provision of this legislation, it was a 
reasonable compromise, which enjoyed nearly unanimous support in the 
Senate last year. As pressure continues to increase on our national 
aviation system, and with the looming Y2K problem, we need to act 
quickly to ensure continued improvements in air safety and efficiency.
  One provision of this legislation of particular interest to me, and 
many others, is the provision related to the Reagan Washington National 
Airport ``perimeter rule.''
  Codified in 1986, the National ``perimeter rule'' limits non-stop 
flights serving National to destinations within 1250 miles of the 
airport. Originally enacted to promote the development of Dulles 
Airport as the region's long-haul carrier, the ``perimeter rule'' has 
long outlived its original justification, and remains today a 
significant barrier to competition in a very competitive aviation 
industry.
  While the justification for the ``perimeter rule'' has long since 
faded, it continues to unfairly limit service to communities outside of 
the 1250 mile perimeter. Communities like Las Vegas, a community that 
desperately needs additional air service, are denied access to a very 
significant airport. In addition, air carriers which happen to operate 
hubs located outside of the perimeter face a very serious competitive 
disadvantage. On numerous occasions, the General Accounting Office has 
identified the ``perimeter rule'' as a barrier to entry in the 
Washington, DC air service market.
  Simply put, the ``perimeter rule'' should be repealed. Nevadans, and 
other Westerners, deserve the same access to our nation's capital city 
as those in the East. Continuing this discriminatory, artificial 
barrier to competition creates major inequities in our national 
transportation system.
  The legislation we are introducing today, unfortunately, does not 
repeal the ``perimeter rule.'' Instead, like the legislation passed 
last year by the Senate, the legislation grants limited exemptions from 
the perimeter rule for up to 12 additional slots a day at Washington 
National. Last year, in the interest of compromise, I supported this 
approach. I continue to be concerned, however, that the 12 new, outside 
the perimeter slots, if enacted, will be insufficient to truly address 
the competitive problems created by the ``perimeter rule.'' While I 
support Chairman McCain's attempt to reach consensus on this issue, I 
am hopeful that last year's approach can be further refined to create 
additional opportunities for Washington National service from beyond 
the 1250 mile perimeter, while at the same time recognizing the 
interests of those communities within the current perimeter, as well as 
Northern Virginia.
  I look forward to working with the Chairman, and other members of the 
Commerce Committee, on this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 90. A bill to establish reform criteria to permit payment of 
United States arrearages in assessed contributions to the United 
Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:

[[Page S517]]

  S. 91. A bill to restrict intelligence sharing with the United 
Nations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                   united nations reform legislation

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am submitting two pieces of 
legislation to address some of the most critical issues affecting our 
relations with the United Nations--the U.S. arrearage in financial 
contributions to the United Nations, and sharing of intelligence 
information with the U.N.
  The first bill, the United Nations Reform Act is a bill that I have 
been working on for several years beginning in my former capacity as 
chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International 
Operations. With the United Nations now entering its second half-
century, the question being raised is not whether the United Nations 
can continue its growth for another 50 years, but whether it can 
survive as an important international institution in the short term.
  I believe we must genuinely restore a bipartisan consensus on the 
United Nations within Congress and among the American people. That is 
the intent of this legislation, which sets reasonable and achievable 
reform criteria for the United Nations, linked to a 5-year repayment 
plan for the arrearages that have build up on the U.N. system.
  The plan would set up a five-step/five-year process under which the 
President would each year have to certify that specific reform 
guideposts have been met at the United Nations, permitting payment each 
year of one-fifth of outstanding U.S. arrearages.
  In the first year, the President would have to certify that a hard 
freeze zero nominal growth budget at the United Nations had been 
maintained and that budgetary transparency at the world body had been 
enhanced through opening up the United Nations to member State auditing 
and fully funding the new U.N. inspector general office.
  In the second year, the President would have to certify that U.S. 
representation had been restored to a key U.N. budgetary oversight body 
the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
[ACABQ].
  In the third year, the President would have to certify that a long-
standing U.N. peacekeeping reform goal had been achieved. This reform 
would ensure that the United States receives full credit or 
reimbursement for the very substantial logistical and in-kind support 
our military provides to assessed U.N. peacekeeping missions.
  In the fourth year, the President would have to certify that a 
significant reform in the United Nations' budget process had been 
achieved. This reform would be to divide the U.N. regular budget into 
an assessed core budget and a voluntary program budget. The source of 
much of the United Nations' problems stems from the fact that the 
United Nations' assessed budget is increasingly used for development 
programs and other activities that should not be included in our 
mandatory dues for membership. This reform can be achieved without a 
revision in the U.N. Charter.
  Finally, in the fifth year the President would have to certify that a 
major U.N. consolidation plan has been approved and implemented. This 
plan must entail a significant reduction in staff and an elimination of 
the rampant duplication, overlap, and lack of coordination that exists 
throughout the U.N. system.

  Clearly, there is an urgent need to turn around the United Nations' 
dangerous slide into constant crisis, which could ultimately threaten 
the organization's usefulness as an important tool for addressing world 
problems. I am convinced that this can only be achieved through the 
kind of bold reform agenda that is set forth in this legislation.
  Mr. President, I believe it is useful for us to look back on the 
original purpose of the United Nations, as it was envisioned 51 years 
ago. The United Nations was created from the ashes of World War II, 
with the hope of avoiding future world-wide conflagrations through 
international cooperation. The main focus for this mission was the 
Security Council, the only entity empowered under the U.N. Charger to 
act on the great questions of world peace. The General Assembly was 
intended to be a forum for debate on any issue that any nation wanted 
to bring before the assembled nations of the world. The U.N. 
Secretariat was to be a small professional staff needed to support the 
activities of the Security Council and General Assembly.
  The U.N. system was also to conduct specific activities in technical 
cooperation, such as those undertaken by the International Civil 
Aviation Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. 
Finally, the United Nations was to have an important roe in responding 
to international humanitarian crises. Most critical is the work of the 
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, who today protects millions of the 
world's most vulnerable men, women, and children--particularly women 
and children, who comprise 80 percent of the world's refugees.
  Regrettably, the United Nations system that exists today falls short 
of the intentions of its founders. There are two interrelated, 
fundamental problems with U.N. system. One is that there are those who 
attempted to use the world organization to advance agendas that frankly 
do not reflect world realities. The more the United Nations is used to 
transcend what some see as the harsh realities of the world and its 
Nation-State system, the less relevant the United Nations becomes to 
the real world in which we all live.
  Closely related has been the massive and uncoordinated growth of the 
United Nations and its specialized agencies. The U.N. General Assembly 
and its related bodies in the specialized agencies have used the tool 
of the budget to grow the U.N. bureaucracy far beyond what is needed to 
respond to real world problems. The small professional staff of the 
U.N. Secretariat now approaches 18,000--counting the proliferation of 
consultants and contract employees--and the staff of the U.N. system 
worldwide now exceeds 53,000.
  Too many nations simply do not find a compelling need for efficiency 
and budgetary restraint in the U.N. system. Of the U.N.'s 185 member 
nations, a near-majority are assessed at the minimum .01 percent rate, 
paying essentially nothing toward U.N. budget. The top ten assessed 
countries--United States, Japan, Germany, France, Russia, Britain, 
Italy, Canada, Spain and Brazil--are billed for almost 80 percent of 
the U.N. budget, with the United States paying more than any other 
country. In just 10 years of supposed zero-growth budgets, the U.N.'s 
budget doubled. Over the last two decades, the U.N.'s budget has 
tripled.

  There are those who argue that all of the U.N.'s problems come from 
the United States. But the United Nation's difficulties with the United 
States arise from these deeply rooted problems within the U.N. 
structure itself. Even many supporters of the United Nations have 
characterized today's U.N. system as bloated, inefficient, duplicative, 
and disorganized. For instance, Canadian businessman and six-time U.N. 
Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong has stated that the United 
Nations could work better than it does today with less than half as 
many people.
  The surprising thing is that among serious analysts of the United 
Nations there is remarkable agreement on what needs to be done. The 
U.N. system needs to be significantly reduced in size and needs true 
consolidation among its far-flung, duplicative elements. The budget 
process needs similarly dramatic reform. The United Nations needs to 
concentrate on a few key achievable missions--security, humanitarian 
relief, purely technical cooperation--and refrain from its 
proliferating exercises in internal nation-building and grandiose 
missions of global norm-setting. All of these basic reform needs have 
been addressed in the U.N. reform legislation I am introducing today.
  This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward setting a new 
course in our relations with the United Nations. If we in Congress fail 
to rise to the challenge; if the U.N. attempts to defend an 
unsustainable status quo; if the Administration's new foreign policy 
team does not reach out to Congress to achieve a genuine bipartisan 
consensus on the need for U.N. reform; if the U.N.'s dangerous slide to 
expensive irrelevance continues, then we will have lost a unique 
opportunity for reform. If this should happen, it is not at all clear 
to me whether such an opportunity will soon return.
  As a complement to my U.N. reform bill, I am also introducing this 
U.N.-related bill which I sponsored in the last

[[Page S518]]

two Congresses to protect U.S. intelligence information which is shared 
with the United Nations or any of its affiliated organizations by 
requiring that procedures for protecting intelligence sources and 
methods are in place at the United Nations that are at least as 
stringent as those maintained by countries with which the United States 
regularly shares similar types of information. This requirement may be 
waived by the President for national security purposes but only on a 
case by case basis and only when all possible measures for protecting 
the information have been taken.
  This legislation grew out of my concern about reports of breaches of 
U.S. classified material by the United Nations in 1993, 1994, and in 
1995 when the United Nations pulled out of Somalia. I am pleased to 
note that some attention has been paid by this body to the problems 
that can result when U.S. intelligence information is shared with 
international bodies. Condition 5 of the resolution of ratification for 
the Chemical Weapons Convention, which protects U.S. intelligence 
shared with the Organization for the Protection of Chemical Weapons, 
was based on my intelligence-sharing legislation.
  This legislation, I believe, will go a long way toward addressing the 
problems we have witnessed in the past concerning intelligence 
information sharing with the U.N.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider the legislation I am 
introducing today as the best course for restoring the bipartisan 
consensus in this country on the United Nations. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Thomas, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roth, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith or 
        Oregon, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 92. A bill to provide for biennial budget process and a biennial 
appropriations process and to enhance oversight and the performance of 
the Federal Government; 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.


               BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator 
Lieberman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and 13 other Senators, I rise to introduce the ``Biennial 
Budget and Appropriations Act,'' a bill to convert the budget and 
appropriations process to a two-year cycle and to enhance oversight of 
federal programs.
  Mr. President, our most recent experience with the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act shows the 
need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill 
clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, 
authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis. That 4,000 
paged bill contained 8 of the regular appropriations bills, $9 billion 
in revenue provisions, $21.4 billion in ``emergency'' spending, and 40 
miscellaneous funding and authorization provisions.
  Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a two-
year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we 
can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more 
deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable 
to the American people.
  Mr. President, moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process 
enjoys very broad support. President Clinton supports this bill. 
Presidents Reagan and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and 
budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, 
OMB Director, and House Budget Committee Chairman, has advocated a 
biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice 
Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Both of 
the Senate Leaders support this legislation. And, at the end of last 
year, 37 Senators wrote our two Senate Leaders calling for quick action 
to pass legislation to convert the budget and appropriations process to 
a two-year cycle.
  The most recent comprehensive studies of the federal government and 
the Congress have recommended this reform. The Vice President's 
National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the 
Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations 
and budget cycle.
  A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget 
process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, 
and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to 
complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget 
process consumes three years: one year for the Administration to 
prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put 
the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.
  Today, I want to focus just on the Congressional budget process, the 
process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization 
legislation, and 13 appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that 
last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we 
consistently fail to complete action on the 13 appropriations bills, to 
authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.
  Since 1950 Congress has only twice met the fiscal year deadline for 
completion of all thirteen individual appropriations bills to fully 
fund the government.
  The Congressional Budget Office's recent report on unauthorized 
appropriations shows that for fiscal year 1999, 118 laws authorizing 
appropriations have expired. These laws cover over one-third or $102.1 
billion of appropriations for non-defense programs. Another 10 laws 
authorizing non-defense appropriations will expire at the end of fiscal 
year 1997, representing $10.4 billion more in unauthorized non-defense 
programs.
  We have met the statutory deadline to complete a budget resolution 
only three times since 1974. In 1995, we broke the Senate record for 
the most roll call votes cast in a day on a budget reconciliation bill. 
The Senate conducted 39 consecutive roll call votes that day, beginning 
at 9:29 in the morning and finishing up at 11:59 that night.
  While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, 
the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has 
the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four 
times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization 
bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.
  I recently asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to update 
and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the 
budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, 
reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. 
CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget 
Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 
1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. 
In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the 
budget.
  If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly 
debating the budget in the authorization, budget, and appropriations 
process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we 
are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we 
are doing and it breeds cynicism about our government.
  Under the legislation I am introducing today, the President would 
submit a two-year budget and Congress would consider a two-year budget 
resolution and 13 two-year appropriation bills during the first session 
of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to 
consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of government 
agencies.
  Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come 
from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a two year basis. For 
most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our 
entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law and Congress does 
not change these law on an annual basis. The only component of the 
budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or 
discretionary, accounts.

[[Page S519]]

  Mr. President, the most predictable category of the budget are these 
appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the federal government. I 
recently asked CBO to update an analysis of discretionary spending to 
determine those programs that had unpredictable or volatile funding 
needs. CBO found that only 4 percent of total discretionary funding 
fell into this category. Most of this spending is associated with 
international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding 
cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less 
deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude 
supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or 
unanticipated requirements.
  Mr. President, in 1993 I had the honor to serve as co-Chairman on a 
Joint Committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator 
Byrd testified before that Committee that the increasing demands put on 
us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are 
too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation 
is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with 
respect to the oversight of federal programs and activities.
  Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it 
should be. We have a total of 34 House and Senate standing authorizing 
committees and these committees are increasingly crowded out of the 
legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the 
biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining federal programs and 
developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the 
budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and 
opportunity to provide oversight, review and legislate changes to 
federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing 
process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater 
opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in 
the second year.
  We also build on the oversight process by incorporating the new 
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 into 
the biennial budget process. The primary objective of this law is to 
force the federal government to produce budgets focused on outcomes, 
not just dollars spent.
  Mr. President, a biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions 
that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary 
to make much better decisions. But, under the current annual budget 
process we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of 
focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the 
taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, 
budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and 
watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the 
Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act be made a part of the Record 
along with a copy of the bill.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 92

       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 ``Biennial Budgeting and 
     Appropriations Act''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

       Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:


                              ``timetable

       ``Sec. 300. (a) In General.--Except as provided by 
     subsection (b), the timetable with respect to the 
     congressional budget process for any Congress (beginning with 
     the One Hundred Seventh Congress) is as follows:


 
 
 
 
                             ``First Session
 
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
First Monday in February..................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
February 15...............................  Congressional Budget Office
                                             submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget         Committees submit views and
 submission.                                 estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
April 1...................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
June 10...................................  House Appropriations
                                             Committee reports last
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bill.
June 30...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.
                            ``Second Session
 
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
February 15...............................  President submits budget
                                             review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President      Congressional Budget Office
 submits budget review.                      submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
The last day of the session...............  Congress completes action on
                                             bills and resolutions
                                             authorizing new budget
                                             authority for the
                                             succeeding biennium.
 

       ``(b) Special Rule.--In the case of any first session of 
     Congress that begins in any year immediately following a leap 
     year and during which the term of a President (except a 
     President who succeeds himself) begins, the following dates 
     shall supersede those set forth in subsection (a):


 
 
 
 
                             ``First Session
 
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
First Monday in April.....................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
April 20..................................  Committees submit views and
                                             estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
May 15....................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
June 1....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
July 1....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
July 20...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.''.
 

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND 
                   IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Declaration of Purpose.--Section 2(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621(2)) is amended by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``biennially''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Budget resolution.--Section 3(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     622(4)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Biennium.--Section 3 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 622) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) The term `biennium' means the period of 2 
     consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-
     numbered year.''.
       (c) Biennial Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       (1) Contents of resolution.--Section 301(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (i) striking ``April 15 of each year'' and inserting ``May 
     15 of each odd-numbered year'';
       (ii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the first place it appears and inserting ``the 
     biennium beginning on October 1 of such year''; and
       (iii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the second place it appears and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in such period'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``for the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the 
     biennium''.
       (2) Additional matters.--Section 301(b)(3) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``for such fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year in such 
     biennium''.
       (3) Views of other committees.--Section 301(d) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b))'' after ``United 
     States Code''.
       (4) Hearings.--Section 301(e)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     632(e)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) inserting after the second sentence the following: ``On 
     or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b)), the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House shall report to its House the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection 
     (a) for the biennium beginning on October 1 of that year.''.
       (5) Goals for reducing unemployment.--Section 301(f) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year'' each place it appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (6) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
       (7) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``ANNUAL'' and inserting 
     ``BIENNIAL''.
       (8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in 
     the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act 
     is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
       (d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year of the resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year in the biennium, for at least each of 4 ensuing fiscal 
     years,'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for a biennium'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennum'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (5) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and 
     inserting ``May''.

[[Page S520]]

       (e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     634(a)) is amended by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''.
       (2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''.
       (3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     of that biennium''.
       (f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the 
     Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium'';
       (2) by striking ``for such fiscal year''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period ``for such biennium''.
       (g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
     Section 305(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(b)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year''.
       (i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year'' 
     after ``July'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by 
     such resolution''.
       (k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
       (1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     642(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``for either fiscal year of the biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act 
     is amended by--
       (A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal 
     year''.

     SEC. 4. PAY-AS-YOU-GO IN THE SENATE.

       Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 202(b)(2) of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress) are amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) The period of the biennium covered by the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       ``(B) The period of the first six fiscal years covered by 
     the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       ``(C) The period of the four fiscal years following the 
     first six fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

       (a) Definition.--Section 1101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) `biennium' has the meaning given to such term in 
     paragraph (11) of section 3 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(11)).''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to the Congress.--
       (1) Schedule.--The matter preceding paragraph (1) in 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) On or before the first Monday in February of each 
     odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by section 
     300(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), beginning 
     with the One Hundred Seventh Congress, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress, the budget for the biennium 
     beginning on October 1 of such calendar year. The budget 
     transmitted under this subsection shall include a budget 
     message and summary and supporting information. The President 
     shall include in each budget the following:''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (3) Receipts.--Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (4) Balance statements.--Section 1105(a)(9)(C) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (5) Functions and activities.--Section 1105(a)(12) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (6) Allowances.--Section 1105(a)(13) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (7) Allowances for uncontrolled expenditures.--Section 
     1105(a)(14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in 
     the biennium for which the budget is submitted''.
       (8) Tax expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(16) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (9) Future years.--Section 1105(a)(17) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     following the biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``that following fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each such fiscal year''; and
       (C) by striking ``fiscal year before the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium before the biennium''.
       (10) Prior year outlays.--Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years,'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' and inserting ``in those 
     fiscal years''.
       (11) Prior year receipts.--Section 1105(a)(19) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``in those fiscal years''.
       (c) Estimated Expenditures of Legislative and Judicial 
     Branches.--Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each 
     even-numbered year''.
       (d) Recommendations To Meet Estimated Deficiencies.--
     Section 1105(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for'';
       (2) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium, as 
     the case may be,''; and
       (3) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``for each year 
     of the biennium''.
       (e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which 
     such budget relates''.
       (f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (i) striking ``Before July 16 of each year,'' and inserting 
     ``Before February 15 of each even numbered year,''; and
       (ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``4 fiscal years 
     following the fiscal year'' and inserting ``4 fiscal years 
     following the biennium''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (B) striking ``April 11 and July 16 of each year'' and 
     inserting ``February 15 of each even-numbered year''; and
       (C) striking ``July 16'' and inserting ``February 15 of 
     each even-numbered year.''.

[[Page S521]]

       (g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after 
     January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)'' 
     and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by 
     section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year of such period''.
       (2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each 
     year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's 
     budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
       (h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
     Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
       (2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal 
     year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

     SEC. 6. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

       Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

       ``(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations 
     for the support of the Government shall be as follows: `An 
     Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for each 
     fiscal year in the biennium of fiscal years (here insert the 
     fiscal years of the biennium).'.
       ``(b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the 
     support of the Government shall be enacted for a biennium and 
     shall specify the amount of appropriations provided for each 
     fiscal year in such period.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `biennium' has 
     the same meaning as in section 3(11) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     622(11)).''.

     SEC. 7. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


                   ``authorizations of appropriations

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order 
     in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider--
       ``(1) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that authorizes appropriations for a period 
     of less than 2 fiscal years, unless the program, project, or 
     activity for which the appropriations are authorized will 
     require no further appropriations and will be completed or 
     terminated after the appropriations have been expended; and
       ``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or 
     revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes 
     action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular 
     biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
       ``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration 
     pursuant to a rule or statute;
       ``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
       ``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 8. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

       (a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``at least every three years'' and 
     inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
       (B) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and adding 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph 
     (28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a'' 
     and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2002, a 
     biennial''.
       (c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a 
     biennial'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon,
       (D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted 
     semicolon; and
       (E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
       (d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section 
     9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial 
     accountability, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)'';
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before 
     ``years'';
       (B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent 
     year'' and inserting ``for a subsequent 2-year period''; and
       (C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and 
     inserting ``four''.
       (e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''.
       (f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) is subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three 
     years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years'';
       (3) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an 
     annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
       (h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended 
     by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives shall review the strategic plans, 
     performance plans, and performance reports, required under 
     section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and sections 1115 
     and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of all agencies 
     under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each committee may 
     provide its views on such plans or reports to the Committee 
     on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
       (i) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on March 1, 2000.
       (2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each agency shall take such actions as 
     necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in 
     accordance with the amendments made by this Act.

     SEC. 9. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:


            ``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

       ``Sec. 317. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate in any odd-numbered year to 
     consider any regular bill providing new budget authority or a 
     limitation on obligations under the jurisdiction of any of 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations for 
     only the first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program, 
     project, or activity for which the new budget authority or 
     obligation limitation is provided will require no additional 
     authority beyond 1 year and will be completed or terminated 
     after the amount provided has been expended.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

     SEC. 10. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of OMB shall--
       (1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the 
     definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on 
     that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial 
     budget process based on the 2-year period; and
       (2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

[[Page S522]]

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 8 and 10 
     and subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect on January 1, 2001, and shall apply to 
     budget resolutions and appropriations for the biennium 
     beginning with fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of 
     authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year 
     2002, the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act relating to 2-year authorizations shall take effect 
     January 1, 2000.
                                  ____


      Description of the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act

       The Domenici bill would convert the annual budget, 
     appropriations, and authorization process to a biennial, or 
     two-year, cycle.


                 First Year: Budget and Appropriations

       Requires the President to submit a two-year budget at the 
     beginning of the first session of a Congress. The President's 
     budget would cover each year in the biennium and planning 
     levels for the four out-years. Converts the ``Mid-session 
     Review'' into a ``Mid-biennium review''. The President would 
     submit his ``mid-biennium review'' at the beginning of the 
     second year.
       Requires Congress to adopt a two-year budget resolution and 
     a reconciliation bill (if necessary). Instead of enforcing 
     the first fiscal year and the sum of the five years set out 
     in the budget resolution, the bill provides that the budget 
     resolution establish binding levels for each year in the 
     biennium and the sum of the six-year period. The bill 
     modifies the time frames in the Senate ten-year pay-as-you-go 
     point of order to provide that legislation could not increase 
     the deficit for the biennium, the sum of the first six years, 
     and the sum of the last 4 years.
       Requires Congress to enact a two-year appropriations bills 
     during the first session of Congress. Requires Congress to 
     enact 13 appropriations bills covering a two-year period and 
     provides a new majority point of order against appropriations 
     bills that fail to cover two years.
       Makes budgeting and appropriating the priority for the 
     first session of a Congress. The bill provides a majority 
     point of order against consideration of authorization and 
     revenue legislation until the completion of the biennial 
     budget resolution, reconciliation legislation (if necessary) 
     and the thirteen biennial appropriations bills. An exception 
     is made for certain ``must-do'' measures.


     Second Year: Authorization Legislation and Enhanced Oversight

       Devotes the second session of a Congress to consideration 
     of biennial authorization bills and oversight of federal 
     programs. The bill provides a majority point of order against 
     authorization and revenue legislation that cover less than 
     two years except those measures limited to temporary programs 
     or activities lasting less than two years.
       Modifies the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
     to incorporate the government performance planning and 
     reporting process into the two-year budget cycle to enhance 
     oversight of federal programs.
       The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the 
     Results Act) requires federal agencies to develop strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports. The law 
     requires agencies to establish performance goals and to 
     report on their actual performance in meeting these goals. 
     The Results Act requires federal agencies to consult with 
     congressional committees as they develop their plans. 
     Beginning in 1997, the law will require all federal agencies 
     to submit their strategic plans to the Office of Management 
     and Budget, along with their budget submissions, by September 
     30 of each year. Finally, the Results Act requires the 
     President to include a performance plan for the entire 
     government as part of the budget submission, beginning with 
     the FY 1999 budget.
       The Domenici bill modifies the Results Act to place it on a 
     two-year cycle along with the budget process. The bill also 
     requires the authorizing committees to review the strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports of federal 
     agencies and to submit their views, if any, on these plans 
     and reports as part of their views and estimates submissions 
     to the budget committees.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is great for us to get started 
with our work on the floor. We have been working, of course, in 
organizing our committees, drafting our bills, getting prepared--as a 
matter of fact, probably earlier than usual, despite the trial that is 
going on here. So it is good to get started.
  I am pleased that our party has also an agenda. We will be talking 
about Social Security, of course. I think a great many changes need to 
be made there to ensure that this program continues, not only for those 
now drawing benefits but for those who will in the future.
  We will be talking about education, seeking to get Federal help 
directly to the classrooms.
  We will be talking about strengthening the military, which I think is 
very important and must be done.
  I think tax reduction and tax reform is very high on our list of 
priorities. Certainly, we will be working on that.
  Health care, of course, will be part of what we talk about.
  And each of us, in addition to those, will have other issues.
  So I rise to talk a moment this morning about biannual budgeting. It 
is a real pleasure for me to join the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenici, and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
Senator Thompson, to introduce a bill that will create a 2-year 
budgeting appropriations process. We worked long and hard on that 
issue. I have been working on it for some time, largely because it is 
my belief that the current budgeting process is broken.
  After last year's massive omnibus appropriations bill, which was a 
debacle, of course, I argue that the budget process needs to be 
changed. We spend entirely too much time, both in the Congress and in 
the executive branch, on budget issues.
  Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, Congress has 
consistently failed to complete action on the budget by the time of the 
start of the fiscal year and, as a result, have increasingly relied on 
omnibus measures that come in at the end.
  Last year's experience ought to ensure that we do, in fact, need a 
change. In fact, only 4 of the 13 regular appropriations bills were 
passed for funding for 10 cabinet-level departments, and the rest was 
crammed into a 24-hour budget session, which does not work well. Not a 
new idea. As a matter of fact, since 1950, Congress has failed on the 
13 individual appropriations bills to be funded in every year except 
2--only 2 years did we succeed in doing that. We routinely fund 
unauthorized expenditures and appropriations. The idea is to have an 
Authorization Committee and an Appropriations Committee. The 
authorization is made and then it is funded. That has not been the 
case. We need to change that.
  In response to that, I introduced, in the 104th Congress, legislation 
that would create a biannual budget, and I am very pleased to join in 
with Senators Domenici and Thompson in offering this bill this year. 
This legislation does not eliminate the budgeting process. Each step 
serves an important role and will continue to do that. However, 
basically, we would simply be doing it for 2 years rather than 1, 
having the off year for oversight.
  I happen to think that one of the principal obligations of the 
Congress is oversight of the kinds of programs that have been funded by 
this Congress. We have not had the opportunity to do that. We have 
extended debate on appropriations throughout almost the entire year in 
each year of the 2-year periods. Almost all of us come from States 
where a 2-year cycle program is used and is successful. It is not a 
brand new idea and it can be done. I am sure there will be resistance, 
largely from the appropriators, who rather enjoy the power plays that 
go on each year through the appropriations process. But I believe in 
the old saying that we have often heard that ``if you expect different 
results, you have to change the process.''
  The results we have had are not the kinds of results that most people 
would like to have. I think that it is high time for us to change the 
process, and I look forward very much to that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an honor to once again join the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the Chairman of 
the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson in introducing 
legislation to create a two year budget and appropriations process. 
We've all worked long and hard on this issue and I am hopeful that we 
can finally enact this common sense reform this year.
  I've been saying for awhile that the current budget process is 
breaking down. After last year's debacle with the massive omnibus 
appropriations bill, I'd argue that the budget process is broken. 
Congress and the executive branch spend entirely too much time on 
budget issues. Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, 
Congress has consistently failed to complete action on the Federal 
budget before the start of the fiscal year and, as a result, has 
increasingly relied on omnibus spending measures to fund the Federal 
Government. Last year's experience should dispel any lingering doubts 
about whether the current process is broken. In fact, only four of the 
13 regular appropriations bills were passed

[[Page S523]]

before funding for 10 Cabinet-level departments was crammed into one 
bill debated over just a 24 hour period.
  The budget resolution, reconciliation bill and appropriations bill 
continue to become more time-consuming. In the process, authorizing 
committees are being squeezed out of the schedule. There are too many 
votes on the same issues and too much duplication. In the end, this 
time could be better spent conducting vigorous oversight of Federal 
programs which currently go unchecked.
  In response to these problems, in the 104th Congress I introduced 
legislation that would create a biennial budget process. I am pleased 
to continue this effort by joining Senator Domenici and Senator 
Thompson in offering this bill. It will rectify many of the problems 
regarding the current process by promoting timely action on budget 
legislation. In addition, it will eliminate much of the redundancy in 
the current budget process. This legislation does not eliminate any of 
the current budget processes--each step serves an important role in 
congressional deliberations. However, by making decisions once every 2 
years instead of annually, the burden should be significantly reduced.
  Perhaps most importantly, biennial budgeting will provide more time 
for effective congressional oversight, which will help reduce the size 
and scope of the Federal Government. Congress simply needs more time to 
review existing Federal programs in order to determine priorities in 
our drive to balance the budget.
  Another benefit of a 2 year budget cycle is its effect on long term 
planning. A biennial budget will allow the executive branch and State 
and local governments, all of which depend on congressional 
appropriations, to do a better job making plans for long term projects.
  Two year budgets are not a novel idea. Nor will biennial budgeting 
cure all of the Federal Government's ills. However, separating the 
budget session from the oversight session works well across the country 
in our state legislatures.
  This legislation is a solid first step toward reforming the 
congressional budget process. This concept enjoys strong bipartisan 
support. It is supported by the Clinton administration, Majority Leader 
Lott and Minority Leader Daschle. In addition, 36 other Senators joined 
Senators Domenici, Thompson and I in sending a letter last year to 
Senate leaders calling for quick action on this bipartisan reform early 
this year. I am hopeful that effort and this bill will be a catalyst 
for swift action on this common sense, good government reform.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, 
        and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 93. A bill to improve and strengthen the budget process; 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.


                     BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1999. The time has come to conform our budget laws 
and procedures to a new fiscal environment. The Congressional Budget 
and Impoundment Control Act was enacted 25 years ago. Amendments to the 
Act, including the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation in 1985, 
established new enforcement procedures that were further expanded and 
modified in the 1990 budget agreement. Those laws and procedures have 
served us well. In combination with a strong economy and robust revenue 
growth, not only have we balanced the Federal budget, we will shortly 
produce a surplus even excluding the current balances generated by 
Social Security program.
  Laws and procedures developed over the last 25 years for a fiscal 
environment of deficits, cannot be appropriate for a fiscal environment 
of surpluses.
  As an example, while the President a year ago in his State of the 
Union Address pledged to reserve ``every penny'' of the Social Security 
surpluses for the reform of that program, he and the Congress did not 
live up to that pledge last year. In one piece of legislation last 
fall, we spent $21.4 billion of these surpluses for so-called 
``emergencies''. Moreover, in order to get appropriations bills signed 
into law, we relied on innovative financing mechanisms, a charitable 
characterization, to meet the spending limits. The fact that we will 
have difficulty meeting these limits in the coming year is not the 
fault of the limits that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in 1997, it 
will be largely due to the reluctance to face the hard choices in 
appropriations last year.
  This is not to say we have not accomplished a great deal in recent 
years. Since 1994, we curbed the rate of growth in spending through the 
enactment of legislation such as Freedom to Farm, welfare reform, and 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. While I am very proud that we have 
stemmed the growth rate in federal spending, we did not balance the 
budget by actually cutting spending. We did stop the explosive and 
unsustainable rate of growth in spending that begun in the 1960's with 
the help of the budget laws and amendments of the past 25 years. But 
even so, it should be clear that the current balanced budget is largely 
due to an unexpected growth in federal revenues due to our robust 
economy.
  Beginning in 1990, we enjoyed the peace dividend with the end of the 
Cold War. The taxpayer did not see a dollar of that dividend. In 1998, 
we saw the balanced budget dividend, and we should produce a balanced 
budget dividend excluding the transactions of the Social Security trust 
fund in the very near future. It is time for the American taxpayer to 
collect a dividend.
  In my view, the current budget process allows us to spend the 
taxpayer's money more easily than it is to let the American taxpayer 
keep what he has earned. We will collect more in taxes this year as a 
percentage of the economy than we have in any year since World War II.
  We need to find a way to change our budget process in such a manner 
to stop the erosion on the spending side, while finding a way to return 
at least something to the American taxpayer.
  Some will argue that we should abandon all of our budget laws and 
find a way to cut taxes at any cost. Others will demagogue Social 
Security and hope it can stop any tax relief and fight any changes to 
tighten controls on spending. We need to find a way to steer the middle 
course. We should reduce taxes, but in a way that ensures we set aside 
the entire Social Security surplus for legislation that restores the 
long-term solvency of this program.
  With these objectives in mind, I am introducing today the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1999. This bill would:
  (1) streamline the budget process and enhance the oversight of 
Federal programs;
  (2) curb the abuse of emergency spending;
  (3) set aside and protect the Social Security surplus until we can 
ensure that Social Security will be there for every generation;
  (4) make way for tax relief that does not tap Social Security 
surpluses;
  (5) provide that we never again incur a government shutdown because 
of our failure to enact appropriations.
  Title I contains the text of the Biennial Budgeting and 
Appropriations Act, which I am also introducing as separate legislation 
today. My remarks on that bill go into some detail on the need for this 
reform. In my view a biennial appropriations and budget process will 
streamline the budget process, enhance oversight, and allow Congress to 
review the budget and federal programs in a more deliberative and 
efficient manner.
  Title II would reform the manner in which we treat emergency 
spending. In 1990, we devised the current system of caps on 
appropriated spending and the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirement for all 
other legislation. When we were developing these procedures, the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, had the 
foresight to recognize that we needed an exception for emergency 
legislation.
  Since President Clinton made his pledge last January that every penny 
of the surplus should be reserved for Social Security reform, $27 
billion in ``emergency'' spending has come out of the surplus. We could 
not find $1 dollar out of the budget surplus to return to the American 
taxpayer, but we found $27 billion of ``emergency'' spending in

[[Page S524]]

one year to take out of the surplus for a host of programs, many of 
which are difficult to classify as an emergency.

  Senator Byrd was correct in 1990. We need an exception for emergency 
spending and the bill I introduced today retains that exception. 
However, this bill says if something is truly an emergency, it should 
have the support of 60 Senators. Remember, the President said that 
every penny of the surplus--without exception--should be reserved for 
Social Security. I feel there should be a means to use a portion of the 
surplus for emergency spending, but only in extraordinary 
circumstances. Sixty votes in the Senate is not too much to ask.
  Title III modifies the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements to make clear 
that on-budget surpluses can be used to offset the cost of legislation. 
Current law is vague with respect to the application of the pay-as-you-
go procedures when there is an on-budget surplus. Title III modifies 
the law and the Senate rule to make clear that the surpluses generated 
by Social Security are not available for tax or direct spending 
legislation. However, the on-budget surplus, the surplus excluding 
Social Security, would be available for such legislation.
  Title IV contains Senator McCain's legislation, the Government 
Shutdown Prevention Act, frequently referred to as an automatic 
continuing resolution (CR). This title provides that agencies will be 
automatically funded at the lower of the previous year's level or the 
level proposed by the President.
  Title V is designated to end what has been characterized as the 
``vote-athon'' on budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. This 
title is very similar to an amendment that Senator Byrd offered to the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which was later dropped during conference.
  The manner in which the Senate currently considers budget resolutions 
and reconciliation bills is demeaning because of two loopholes in the 
current law regarding the consideration of budget resolutions and 
reconciliation bills. The first loophole is that the time limitation on 
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills is for debate only. 
Senators can continue to offer amendments after the time has expired. 
This loophole has been exploited in recent years where there is this 
mad rush in the Senate at the end of the process to vote on 
amendments--a demeaning process for what is supposed to be the 
``world's greatest deliberative body.'' On October 27, 1995, the Senate 
broke a record by holding 39 consecutive roll call votes on a 
reconciliation bill, with the first vote beginning at 9:29 in the 
morning and the last vote ending at 11:59 that night.
  The second loophole pertains to sense of the Senate amendments on 
budget resolutions. In the Senate, amendments to budget resolution must 
be germane. However, sense of the Senate amendments that are in the 
Budget Committee's jurisdiction are considered germane. By adding the 
words, ``the funding levels in this resolution assume that'', a Senator 
can make any sense of the Senate amendment germane. Instead of debating 
spending, revenue, and debt levels, the Senate now spends most of its 
time debating non-binding language on budget resolutions. For example, 
last year's Senate-passed budget resolution contained 65 separate sense 
of the Senate provisions. Ninety-nine of the 139 pages in that budget 
resolution were devoted to sense of the Senate provisions, ranging from 
agricultural trade policy to the Ten Commandments.
  Title V makes two basic changes to Senate's procedures for 
consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. First, it 
provides a procedure similar to post-cloture for the consideration of 
budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. Second, it prohibits the 
inclusion of sense of the Senate language in budget resolutions and 
makes any sense of the Senate amendment not germane and subject to a 60 
vote point of order under the Budget Act.
  Mr. President, I have a more detailed description of this legislation 
and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed, with the text of the 
bill, in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 93

       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 ``Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

             TITLE I--BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Revision of timetable.
Sec. 103. Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
              Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 104. Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.
Sec. 105. Amendments to title 31, United States Code.
Sec. 106. Two-year appropriations; title and style of appropriations 
              Acts.
Sec. 107. Multiyear authorizations.
Sec. 108. Government plans on a biennial basis.
Sec. 109. Biennial appropriations bills.
Sec. 110. Report on two-year fiscal period.
Sec. 111. Effective date.

                  TITLE II--EMERGENCY SPENDING REFORMS

Sec. 201. Emergency designation guidance.

             TITLE III--CLARIFYING CHANGES TO PAY-AS-YOU-GO

Sec. 301. Clarification on the application of section 202 of H. Con. 
              Res. 67.
Sec. 302. Clarification of pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 303. Clarifications regarding extraneous matter.

TITLE IV--REFORM OF THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, 
              BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Amendment to title 31.
Sec. 403. Effective date and sunset.

TITLE V--BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF 
               BUDGET RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

Sec. 501. Consideration of budget measures in the Senate.
Sec. 502. Definition.
Sec. 503. Conforming the compensation of the director and deputy 
              director of the Congressional Budget Office with other 
              legislative branch support agencies.
             TITLE I--BIENNIAL BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Biennial Budgeting and 
     Appropriations Act''.

     SEC. 102. REVISION OF TIMETABLE.

       Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 631) is amended to read as follows:


                              ``timetable

       ``Sec. 300. (a) In General.--Except as provided by 
     subsection (b), the timetable with respect to the 
     congressional budget process for any Congress (beginning with 
     the One Hundred Seventh Congress) is as follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ``First Session
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
First Monday in February..................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
February 15...............................  Congressional Budget Office
                                             submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
Not later than 6 weeks after budget         Committees submit views and
 submission.                                 estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
April 1...................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
May 15....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
June 10...................................  House Appropriations
                                             Committee reports last
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bill.
June 30...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.
 
                            ``Second Session
 
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
February 15...............................  President submits budget
                                             review.
Not later than 6 weeks after President      Congressional Budget Office
 submits budget review.                      submits report to Budget
                                             Committees.
The last day of the session...............  Congress completes action on
                                             bills and resolutions
                                             authorizing new budget
                                             authority for the
                                             succeeding biennium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(b) Special Rule.--In the case of any first session of 
     Congress that begins in any year immediately following a leap 
     year and during which the term of a President (except a 
     President who succeeds himself) begins, the following dates 
     shall supersede those set forth in subsection (a):


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             ``First Session
 
``On or before:                             Action to be completed:
 
First Monday in April.....................  President submits budget
                                             recommendations.
 April 20.................................  Committees submit views and
                                             estimates to Budget
                                             Committees.
May 15....................................  Budget Committees report
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
June 1....................................  Congress completes action on
                                             concurrent resolution on
                                             the biennial budget.
July 1....................................  Biennial appropriation bills
                                             may be considered in the
                                             House.
July 20...................................  House completes action on
                                             biennial appropriation
                                             bills.
August 1..................................  Congress completes action on
                                             reconciliation legislation.
October 1.................................  Biennium begins.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S525]]

     SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND 
                   IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Declaration of Purpose.--Section 2(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621(2)) is amended by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``biennially''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Budget resolution.--Section 3(4) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     622(4)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Biennium.--Section 3 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 622) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(11) The term `biennium' means the period of 2 
     consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-
     numbered year.''.
       (c) Biennial Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       (1) Contents of resolution.--Section 301(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (i) striking ``April 15 of each year'' and inserting ``May 
     15 of each odd-numbered year'';
       (ii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the first place it appears and inserting ``the 
     biennium beginning on October 1 of such year''; and
       (iii) striking ``the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of 
     such year'' the second place it appears and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in such period'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``for the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for each fiscal year in the 
     biennium''.
       (2) Additional matters.--Section 301(b)(3) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(b)) is amended by striking ``for such fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for either fiscal year in such 
     biennium''.
       (3) Views of other committees.--Section 301(d) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is amended by inserting ``(or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b))'' after ``United 
     States Code''.
       (4) Hearings.--Section 301(e)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     632(e)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) inserting after the second sentence the following: ``On 
     or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b)), the Committee on 
     the Budget of each House shall report to its House the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget referred to in subsection 
     (a) for the biennium beginning on October 1 of that year.''.
       (5) Goals for reducing unemployment.--Section 301(f) of 
     such Act (2 U.S.C. 632(f)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
     year'' each place it appears and inserting ``biennium''.
       (6) Economic assumptions.--Section 301(g)(1) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 632(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``for a fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``for a biennium''.
       (7) Section heading.--The section heading of section 301 of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``ANNUAL'' and inserting 
     ``BIENNIAL''.
       (8) Table of contents.--The item relating to section 301 in 
     the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of such Act 
     is amended by striking ``Annual'' and inserting ``Biennial''.
       (d) Committee Allocations.--Section 302 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``for the first fiscal 
     year of the resolution,'' and inserting ``for each fiscal 
     year in the biennium, for at least each of 4 ensuing fiscal 
     years,'';
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``for a fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``for a biennium'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennum'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``first fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (5) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``April'' and 
     inserting ``May''.
       (e) Section 303 Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     634(a)) is amended by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium''.
       (2) Exceptions in the house.--Section 303(b)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 634(b)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the budget year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``the biennium''.
       (3) Application to the senate.--Section 303(c)(1) of such 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 634(c)) is amended by--
       (A) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (B) striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     of that biennium''.
       (f) Permissible Revisions of Concurrent Resolutions on the 
     Budget.--Section 304(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 635) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal year'' the first two places it 
     appears and inserting ``biennium'';
       (2) by striking ``for such fiscal year''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period ``for such biennium''.
       (g) Procedures for Consideration of Budget Resolutions.--
     Section 305(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 636(b)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (h) Completion of House Action on Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 307 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial'';
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''; 
     and
       (4) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each odd-
     numbered year''.
       (i) Completion of Action on Regular Appropriation Bills.--
     Section 309 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 640) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``of any odd-numbered calendar year'' 
     after ``July'';
       (2) by striking ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (3) by striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium''.
       (j) Reconciliation Process.--Section 310(a) of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 641(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``any fiscal year'' and inserting ``any biennium''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``such fiscal year'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``any fiscal year covered by 
     such resolution''.
       (k) Section 311 Point of Order.--
       (1) In the house.--Section 311(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     642(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``the first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``either fiscal year of the biennium''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (2) In the senate.--Section 311(a)(2) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``for either fiscal year of the biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``that first fiscal year'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (3) Social security levels.--Section 311(a)(3) of such Act 
     is amended by--
       (A) striking ``for the first fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (B) striking ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (l) MDA Point of Order.--Section 312(c) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 643) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for a 
     biennium'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``first fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``either fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (4) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``that fiscal year'' and inserting ``the applicable fiscal 
     year''.

     SEC. 104. PAY-AS-YOU-GO IN THE SENATE.

       Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 202(b)(2) of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress) are amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) The period of the biennium covered by the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       ``(B) The period of the first six fiscal years covered by 
     the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       ``(C) The period of the four fiscal years following the 
     first six fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

     SEC. 105. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE.

       (a) Definition.--Section 1101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) `biennium' has the meaning given to such term in 
     paragraph (11) of section 3 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 622(11)).''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to the Congress.--
       (1) Schedule.--The matter preceding paragraph (1) in 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) On or before the first Monday in February of each 
     odd-numbered year (or, if applicable, as provided by section 
     300(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974), beginning 
     with the One Hundred Seventh Congress, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress, the budget for the biennium 
     beginning on October 1 of such calendar year. The budget 
     transmitted under this subsection shall include a budget 
     message and summary and supporting information. The President 
     shall include in each budget the following:''.
       (2) Expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(5) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (3) Receipts.--Section 1105(a)(6) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal year for 
     which the budget is submitted and the 4 fiscal years after 
     that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for which the budget is submitted and in the succeeding 4 
     years''.
       (4) Balance statements.--Section 1105(a)(9)(C) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (5) Functions and activities.--Section 1105(a)(12) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the fiscal year'' 
     and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''; and
       (6) Allowances.--Section 1105(a)(13) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by

[[Page S526]]

     striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year 
     in the biennium''.
       (7) Allowances for uncontrolled expenditures.--Section 
     1105(a)(14) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``that year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in 
     the biennium for which the budget is submitted''.
       (8) Tax expenditures.--Section 1105(a)(16) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium''.
       (9) Future years.--Section 1105(a)(17) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year'' and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     following the biennium'';
       (B) by striking ``that following fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each such fiscal year''; and
       (C) by striking ``fiscal year before the fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium before the biennium''.
       (10) Prior year outlays.--Section 1105(a)(18) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years,'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' and inserting ``in those 
     fiscal years''.
       (11) Prior year receipts.--Section 1105(a)(19) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the prior fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each of the 2 most recently completed fiscal years'';
       (B) by striking ``for that year'' and inserting ``with 
     respect to those fiscal years''; and
       (C) by striking ``in that year'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``in those fiscal years''.
       (c) Estimated Expenditures of Legislative and Judicial 
     Branches.--Section 1105(b) of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``each year'' and inserting ``each 
     even-numbered year''.
       (d) Recommendations To Meet Estimated Deficiencies.--
     Section 1105(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year in the biennium 
     for'';
       (2) by striking ``the fiscal year for'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``each fiscal year of the biennium, as 
     the case may be,''; and
       (3) by striking ``that year'' and inserting ``for each year 
     of the biennium''.
       (e) Capital Investment Analysis.--Section 1105(e)(1) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``ensuing fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium to which 
     such budget relates''.
       (f) Supplemental Budget Estimates and Changes.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1106(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
       (i) striking ``Before July 16 of each year,'' and inserting 
     ``Before February 15 of each even numbered year,''; and
       (ii) striking ``fiscal year'' and inserting ``biennium'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``that fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``each fiscal year in such biennium'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``4 fiscal years 
     following the fiscal year'' and inserting ``4 fiscal years 
     following the biennium''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``fiscal year'' and 
     inserting ``biennium''.
       (2) Changes.--Section 1106(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (A) striking ``the fiscal year'' and inserting ``each 
     fiscal year in the biennium'';
       (B) striking ``April 11 and July 16 of each year'' and 
     inserting ``February 15 of each even-numbered year''; and
       (C) striking ``July 16'' and inserting ``February 15 of 
     each even-numbered year.''.
       (g) Current Programs and Activities Estimates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1109(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``On or before the first Monday after 
     January 3 of each year (on or before February 5 in 1986)'' 
     and inserting ``At the same time the budget required by 
     section 1105 is submitted for a biennium''; and
       (B) by striking ``the following fiscal year'' and inserting 
     ``each fiscal year of such period''.
       (2) Joint economic committee.--Section 1109(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 1 of each 
     year'' and inserting ``within 6 weeks of the President's 
     budget submission for each odd-numbered year (or, if 
     applicable, as provided by section 300(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974)''.
       (h) Year-Ahead Requests for Authorizing Legislation.--
     Section 1110 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``May 16'' and inserting ``March 31''; and
       (2) striking ``year before the year in which the fiscal 
     year begins'' and inserting ``calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the biennium begins''.

     SEC. 106. TWO-YEAR APPROPRIATIONS; TITLE AND STYLE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACTS.

       Section 105 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 105. Title and style of appropriations Acts

       ``(a) The style and title of all Acts making appropriations 
     for the support of the Government shall be as follows: `An 
     Act making appropriations (here insert the object) for each 
     fiscal year in the biennium of fiscal years (here insert the 
     fiscal years of the biennium).'.
       ``(b) All Acts making regular appropriations for the 
     support of the Government shall be enacted for a biennium and 
     shall specify the amount of appropriations provided for each 
     fiscal year in such period.
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `biennium' has 
     the same meaning as in section 3(11) of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     622(11)).''.

     SEC. 107. MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following:


                   ``authorizations of appropriations

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order 
     in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider--
       ``(1) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that authorizes appropriations for a period 
     of less than 2 fiscal years, unless the program, project, or 
     activity for which the appropriations are authorized will 
     require no further appropriations and will be completed or 
     terminated after the appropriations have been expended; and
       ``(2) in any odd-numbered year, any authorization or 
     revenue bill or joint resolution until Congress completes 
     action on the biennial budget resolution, all regular 
     biennial appropriations bills, and all reconciliation bills.
       ``(b) Applicability.--In the Senate, subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(1) any measure that is privileged for consideration 
     pursuant to a rule or statute;
       ``(2) any matter considered in Executive Session; or
       ``(3) an appropriations measure or reconciliation bill.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

     SEC. 108. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

       (a) Strategic Plans.--Section 306 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``at least every three years'' and 
     inserting ``at least every 4 years''; and
       (B) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and adding 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (b) Budget Contents and Submission to Congress.--Paragraph 
     (28) of section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``beginning with fiscal year 1999, a'' 
     and inserting ``beginning with fiscal year 2002, a 
     biennial''.
       (c) Performance Plans.--Section 1115 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``an annual'' and inserting ``a 
     biennial'';
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (C) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon,
       (D) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting a 
     semicolon; and inserting ``and'' after the inserted 
     semicolon; and
       (E) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.'';
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''; and
       (3) in paragraph (6) of subsection (f) by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''.
       (d) Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.--Section 
     9703 of title 31, United States Code, relating to managerial 
     accountability, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``annual''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 1105(a)(29)'' and inserting 
     ``section 1105(a)(28)'';
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking ``one or'' before 
     ``years'';
       (B) in the second sentence by striking ``a subsequent 
     year'' and inserting ``for a subsequent 2-year period''; and
       (C) in the third sentence by striking ``three'' and 
     inserting ``four''.
       (e) Pilot Projects for Performance Budgeting.--Section 1119 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``annual'' and inserting ``biennial''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``annual'' and inserting 
     ``biennial''.
       (f) Strategic Plans.--Section 2802 of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--

[[Page S527]]

       (1) is subsection (a), by striking ``September 30, 1997'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2000'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``at least every three 
     years'' and inserting ``at least every 4 years'';
       (3) by striking ``five years forward'' and inserting ``six 
     years forward''; and
       (4) in subsection (c), by inserting a comma after 
     ``section'' the second place it appears and inserting 
     ``including a strategic plan submitted by September 30, 1997 
     meeting the requirements of subsection (a)''.
       (g) Performance Plans.--Section 2803(a) of title 39, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``an 
     annual'' and inserting ``a biennial'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``program 
     activity'' the following: ``for both years 1 and 2 of the 
     biennial plan'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (4) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) cover a 2-year period beginning with the first fiscal 
     year of the next biennial budget cycle.''.
       (h) Committee Views of Plans and Reports.--Section 301(d) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 632(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end ``Each committee of the Senate 
     or the House of Representatives shall review the strategic 
     plans, performance plans, and performance reports, required 
     under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     sections 1115 and 1116 of title 31, United States Code, of 
     all agencies under the jurisdiction of the committee. Each 
     committee may provide its views on such plans or reports to 
     the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House.''.
       (i) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on March 1, 2000.
       (2) Agency actions.--Effective on and after the date of 
     enactment of this title, each agency shall take such actions 
     as necessary to prepare and submit any plan or report in 
     accordance with the amendments made by this title.

     SEC. 109. BIENNIAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:


            ``consideration of biennial appropriations bills

       ``Sec. 317. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate in any odd-numbered year to 
     consider any regular bill providing new budget authority or a 
     limitation on obligations under the jurisdiction of any of 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations for 
     only the first fiscal year of a biennium, unless the program, 
     project, or activity for which the new budget authority or 
     obligation limitation is provided will require no additional 
     authority beyond 1 year and will be completed or terminated 
     after the amount provided has been expended.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table of Contents.--The table of contents 
     set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 317. Consideration of biennial appropriations bills.''.

     SEC. 110. REPORT ON TWO-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     title, the Director of OMB shall--
       (1) determine the impact and feasibility of changing the 
     definition of a fiscal year and the budget process based on 
     that definition to a 2-year fiscal period with a biennial 
     budget process based on the 2-year period; and
       (2) report the findings of the study to the Committees on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 111. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 108 and 110 
     and subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by 
     this title shall take effect on January 1, 2001, and shall 
     apply to budget resolutions and appropriations for the 
     biennium beginning with fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Authorizations for the Biennium.--For purposes of 
     authorizations for the biennium beginning with fiscal year 
     2002, the provisions of this title and the amendments made by 
     this title relating to 2-year authorizations shall take 
     effect January 1, 2000.
                  TITLE II--EMERGENCY SPENDING REFORMS

     SEC. 201. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION GUIDANCE.

       The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended--
       (1) by adding the following new section at the end of title 
     III:

     ``SEC. 318. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

       ``(a) Designations.--
       ``(1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of 
     legislation as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985--
       ``(A) the President shall submit a message to the Congress 
     analyzing whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all 
     the criteria in paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) the committee report, if any, accompanying that 
     legislation shall analyze whether a proposed emergency 
     requirement meets all the criteria in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--A proposed expenditure or tax change is 
     an emergency requirement if it is--
       ``(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or 
     beneficial);
       ``(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building 
     up over time;
       ``(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       ``(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, 
     unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       ``(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       ``(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an 
     aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when 
     normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       ``(3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the 
     proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria 
     set forth in paragraph (2), the President or the committee 
     report, as the case may be, shall provide a written 
     justification of why the requirement is an emergency.
       ``(b) Point of Order.--
       ``(1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, upon a 
     point of order being made by a Senator against any provision 
     in that measure designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the 
     Presiding Officer sustains that point of order, that 
     provision along with the language making the designation 
     shall be stricken from the measure and may not be offered as 
     an amendment from the floor.
       ``(2) Emergency legislation.--When the Senate is 
     considering an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, an 
     amendment thereto, a motion thereto, or a conference report 
     therefrom, upon a point of order being made by a Senator 
     against any provision in that measure that is not designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and the Presiding Officer sustains that 
     point of order, that provision shall be stricken from the 
     measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the 
     floor.
       ``(3) Conference reports.--A point of order sustained under 
     this subsection against a conference report shall be disposed 
     of as provided in section 313(d).
       ``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, an 
     emergency supplemental appropriations bill is a bill or joint 
     resolution that--
       ``(1) includes a provision designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985;
       ``(2) includes in the long title or short title of that 
     bill or joint resolution any of the following words: 
     emergency, urgent, or disaster; and
       ``(3) appropriates funds in addition to those enacted in 
     the regular appropriations Act for that year as defined in 
     section 1311 of title 31, United States Code.'';
       (2) in subsections (c)(2) and (d)(2) of section 904, by 
     striking ``and 312(c)'' and inserting ``312(c), and 316''; 
     and
       (3) in the table of contents in section 1(a), by adding 
     after the item for section 317 the following:

``318. Emergency legislation.''.
             TITLE III--CLARIFYING CHANGES TO PAY-AS-YOU-GO

     SEC. 301. CLARIFICATION ON THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 202 OF 
                   H. CON. RES. 67.

       Section 202(b) of H. Con. Res. 67 (104th Congress) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the deficit'' and 
     inserting ``the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by--
       (A) striking ``increases the deficit'' and inserting 
     ``increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget 
     deficit''; and
       (B) striking ``increase the deficit'' and inserting 
     ``increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit''.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

       (a) In General.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the deficit'' and 
     inserting ``the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget 
     deficit'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) the estimate of the on-budget surplus for the budget 
     year determined under section 254(c)(3)(D).''.
       (b) Baseline.--Section 254(c)(3) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) The estimated excess of on-budget receipts over on-
     budget outlays for the budget year assuming compliance with 
     the discretionary spending limits and that the full 
     adjustments are made under subparagraphs (C), (E), and (F) of 
     section 251(b)(2).''.

     SEC. 303. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING EXTRANEOUS MATTER.

       Section 313(b)(1)(E) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by striking ``such year;'' and inserting 
     ``such year or such increases or decreases, when taken with 
     other provisions in such bill, would cause an on-budget 
     deficit in such year;''.

[[Page S528]]

TITLE IV--REFORM OF THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, 
              BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 402. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1310 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1311. Continuing appropriations

       ``(a)(1) If any regular appropriation bill for a fiscal 
     year does not become law prior to the beginning of such 
     fiscal year or a joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and 
     out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and 
     funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any project 
     or activity for which funds were provided in the preceding 
     fiscal year--
       ``(A) in the corresponding regular appropriation Act for 
     such preceding fiscal year; or
       ``(B) if the corresponding regular appropriation bill for 
     such preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a 
     joint resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate of 
     operations not in excess of the lower of--
       ``(A) the rate of operations provided for in the regular 
     appropriation Act providing for such project or activity for 
     the preceding fiscal year;
       ``(B) in the absence of such an Act, the rate of operations 
     provided for such project or activity pursuant to a joint 
     resolution making continuing appropriations for such 
     preceding fiscal year;
       ``(C) the rate provided in the budget submission of the 
     President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, for the fiscal year in question; or
       ``(D) the annualized rate of operations provided for in the 
     most recently enacted joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for part of that fiscal year or any funding 
     levels established under the provisions of this Act.
       ``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this 
     section for a project or activity shall be available for the 
     period beginning with the first day of a lapse in 
     appropriations and ending with the earlier of--
       ``(A) the date on which the applicable regular 
     appropriation bill for such fiscal year becomes law (whether 
     or not such law provides for such project or activity) or a 
     continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as 
     the case may be; or
       ``(B) the last day of such fiscal year.
       ``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or 
     authority granted, for a project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms 
     and conditions imposed with respect to the appropriation made 
     or funds made available for the preceding fiscal year, or 
     authority granted for such project or activity under current 
     law.
       ``(c) Appropriations and funds made available, and 
     authority granted, for any project or activity for any fiscal 
     year pursuant to this section shall cover all obligations or 
     expenditures incurred for such project or activity during the 
     portion of such fiscal year for which this section applies to 
     such project or activity.
       ``(d) Expenditures made for a project or activity for any 
     fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged to the 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever a 
     regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making 
     continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal year 
     providing for such project or activity for such period 
     becomes law.
       ``(e) This section shall not apply to a project or activity 
     during a fiscal year if any other provision of law (other 
     than an authorization of appropriations)--
       ``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or 
     grants authority for such project or activity to continue for 
     such period; or
       ``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be 
     made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall 
     be granted for such project or activity to continue for such 
     period.
       ``(f) In this section, the term `regular appropriation 
     bill' means any annual appropriation bill making 
     appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or granting 
     authority, for any of the following categories of projects 
     and activities:
       ``(1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies 
     programs.
       ``(2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     judiciary, and related agencies.
       ``(3) The Department of Defense.
       ``(4) The government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
     revenues of the District.
       ``(5) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and related agencies.
       ``(6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices.
       ``(7) Energy and water development.
       ``(8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
       ``(9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
       ``(10) Military construction.
       ``(11) The Department of Transportation and related 
     agencies.
       ``(12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, 
     the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
     independent agencies.
       ``(13) The legislative branch.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis of chapter 13 of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 1310 the following new item:

``1311. Continuing appropriations.''.

       (c) Protection of Other Obligations.--Nothing in the 
     amendments made by this section shall be construed to effect 
     Government obligations mandated by other law, including 
     obligations with respect to Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid.

     SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET.

       (a) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this title 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning with 
     fiscal year 2000.
       (b) Sunset.--The amendments made by this title shall sunset 
     and have no force or effect after fiscal year 2001.
TITLE V--BUDGET ACT AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF 
               BUDGET RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION BILLS

     SEC. 501. CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET MEASURES IN THE SENATE.

       (a) Prohibition Against Inclusion of Precatory Language in 
     a Budget Resolution.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include 
     precatory language.''.
       (b) Procedure.--Section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Procedure in Senate for the Consideration of a 
     Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
       ``(1) Legislation available.--It shall not be in order to 
     proceed to the consideration of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget unless the text of that resolution has been 
     available to Members for at least 1 calendar day (excluding 
     Sundays and legal holidays unless the Senate is in session) 
     prior to the consideration of the measure.
       ``(2) Time for debate.--
       ``(A) In general.--Debate in the Senate on any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, and all amendments thereto and 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall 
     be limited to not more than 30 hours, except that with 
     respect to any concurrent resolution referred to in section 
     304(a) all such debate shall be limited to not more than 10 
     hours. Of this 30 hours, 10 hours shall be reserved for 
     general debate on the resolution (including debate on 
     economic goals and policies) and 20 hours shall be reserved 
     for debate of amendments, motions, and appeals. The time for 
     general debate shall be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their designees.
       ``(B) Disposition of amendments and other matters.--After 
     no more than 30 hours of debate on the concurrent resolution 
     on the budget, the Senate shall, except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), proceed, without any further action or 
     debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition 
     thereof.
       ``(C) Action permitted after 30 hours.--After no more than 
     30 hours of debate on the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget, the only further action in order shall be disposition 
     of--
       ``(i) all amendments then pending before the Senate;
       ``(ii) all points of order arising under this Act which 
     have been previously raised; and
       ``(iii) motions to reconsider and 1 quorum call on demand 
     to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required 
     to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote 
     begins.
     Disposition shall include raising points of order against 
     pending amendments, motions to table, and motions to waive.
       ``(3) Amendments.--
       ``(A) Debate.--Debate in the Senate on any amendment to a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget shall be limited to 1 
     hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the 
     mover and the manager of the concurrent resolution, and 
     debate on any amendment to an amendment, debatable motion, or 
     appeal shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, except that in the event the manager 
     of the concurrent resolution is in favor of any such 
     amendment, motion, or appeal, the time in opposition thereto 
     shall be controlled by the Minority Leader or his designee. 
     No amendment that is not germane to the provisions of that 
     concurrent resolution shall be received. An amendment that 
     includes precatory language shall not be considered germane. 
     Such leaders, or either of them, may, from the time for 
     general debate under their control on the adoption of the 
     concurrent resolution, allot additional time to any Senator 
     during the consideration of any amendment, debatable motion, 
     or appeal.
       ``(B) Filing of amendments.--Except by unanimous consent, 
     no amendment shall be proposed after 15 hours of debate of a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget have elapsed,

[[Page S529]]

     unless it has been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk 
     by the 15th hour if an amendment in the first degree (or if a 
     complete substitute for the underlying measure), and unless 
     it has been so submitted by the 20th hour if an amendment to 
     an amendment (or an amendment to the language proposed to be 
     stricken).
       ``(C) Recognition.--For the purpose of providing an 
     opportunity for the offering amendments in the first degree 
     (or amendments which are a complete substitute for the 
     underlying measure), the Presiding Officer of the Senate 
     shall alternate recognition between members of the majority 
     party and the minority party. No Senator shall call up more 
     than a total of 2 amendments until every other Senator shall 
     have had the opportunity to do likewise.
       ``(D) Limitation on number of second degree amendments.--No 
     more than a total of 2 consecutive amendments to any 
     amendment may be offered by either the majority or minority 
     party.
       ``(4) Debate.--General debate time may only be yielded back 
     by unanimous consent and a motion to further limit the time 
     for general debate shall be debatable for 30 minutes. A 
     motion to recommit (except a motion to recommit with 
     instructions to report back within a specified number of 
     days, not to exceed 3, not counting any day on which the 
     Senate is not in session) is not in order. Debate on any such 
     motion to recommit shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally 
     divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager 
     of the concurrent resolution.
       ``(5) Mathematical consistency.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule, and 
     except as provided in subparagraph (B), an amendment or 
     series of amendments to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     proposed in the Senate shall always be in order if such 
     amendment or series of amendments proposes to change any 
     figure or figures then contained in such concurrent 
     resolution so as to make such concurrent resolution 
     mathematically consistent or so as to maintain such 
     consistency.
       ``(B) Effect of adoption of substitute amendments.--Once an 
     amendment to an amendment (which is a complete substitute for 
     the underlying amendment) has been agreed to, no further 
     amendments to the underlying amendment shall be in order.''.
       (c) Conference Reports in the Senate.--Section 305(c) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Action on Conference Reports in the Senate.--
       ``(1) Motion to proceed.--A motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of the conference report on any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget (or a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution) may be made even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to.
       ``(2) Consideration.--
       ``(A) In general.--During the consideration in the Senate 
     of the conference report (or a message between Houses) on any 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, and all amendments in 
     disagreement, and all amendments thereto, and debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith, debate shall be 
     limited to 10 hours, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their designees. Debate on any debatable motion or appeal 
     related to the conference report (or a message between 
     Houses) shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the 
     conference report (or a message between Houses).
       ``(B) Disposition.--After no more than 10 hours of debate 
     on the conference report (or message between Houses) 
     accompanying a concurrent resolution on the budget, and all 
     amendments in disagreement, and all amendments thereto, the 
     Senate shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     proceed, without any further action or debate on any 
     question, to vote on the final disposition thereof.
       ``(C) Action permitted after 10 hours.--After no more than 
     10 hours of debate on the conference report (or message 
     between the Houses) accompanying a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget, and all amendments in disagreement, and all 
     amendments thereto, the only further action in order shall be 
     disposition of: all amendments then pending before the 
     Senate; all points of order arising under this Act which have 
     been previously raised; and motions to reconsider and 1 
     quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum 
     (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately 
     before the final vote begins. Disposition shall include 
     raising points of order against pending amendments, motions 
     to table, and motions to waive.
       ``(3) Conference report defeated.--Should the conference 
     report be defeated, debate on any request for a new 
     conference and the appointment of conferees shall be limited 
     to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, 
     the manager of the conference report and the Minority Leader 
     or his designee, and should any motion be made to instruct 
     the conferees before the conferees are named, debate on that 
     motion shall be limited to one-half hour, to be equally 
     divided between, and controlled by, the mover and the manager 
     of the conference report. Debate on any amendment to any such 
     instructions shall be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally 
     divided between and controlled by the mover and the manager 
     of the conference report. In all cases when the manager of 
     the conference report is in favor of any motion, appeal, or 
     amendment, the time in opposition shall be under the control 
     of the minority leader or his designee.
       ``(4) Amendments in disagreement.--In any case in which 
     there are amendments in disagreement, time on each amendment 
     shall be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided 
     between, and controlled by, the manager of the conference 
     report and the Minority Leader or his designee. No amendment 
     that is not germane to the provisions of such amendments 
     shall be received.''.
       (c) Reconciliation.--Section 310(e) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Procedure in the Senate.--The provisions of section 
     305 for the consideration in the Senate of concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget and conference reports thereon, 
     except for the provisions of subsection (b)(5) of that 
     section, shall also apply to the consideration in the Senate 
     of reconciliation bills considered under subsection (b) and 
     conference reports thereon.''.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITION.

       Section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) The term `major functional category' means the 
     allocation of budget authority and outlays separated into the 
     following subtotals:
       ``(A) Defense discretionary.
       ``(B) Nondefense discretionary.
       ``(C) Direct spending.
       ``(D) If deemed necessary, other subsets of discretionary 
     and direct spending.''.

     SEC. 503. CONFORMING THE COMPENSATION OF THE DIRECTOR AND 
                   DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
                   OFFICE WITH OTHER LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUPPORT 
                   AGENCIES.

       Section 201(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``(III)'' and 
     inserting ``(II)''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``(IV)'' and 
     inserting ``(III)''.
                                  ____


           Description of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1999


             Title I: Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations

       Requires the President to submit a two-year budget at the 
     beginning of the first session of a Congress.
       Requires Congress to adopt a two-year budget resolution and 
     a reconciliation bill (if necessary) during the first session 
     of a Congress.
       Requires Congress to enact 13 appropriations bills covering 
     a two-year period during the first session of a Congress and 
     provides a new majority point of order against appropriations 
     bills that fail to cover two years.
       Makes budgeting and appropriating the priority for the 
     first session of a Congress by providing a new majority point 
     of order against consideration of authorization and revenue 
     legislation until the completion of the biennial budget 
     resolution, reconciliation legislation (if necessary) and the 
     thirteen biennial appropriations bills.
       Devotes the second session of a Congress to consideration 
     of biennial authorization bills and oversight of federal 
     programs and provides a majority point of order against 
     authorization and revenue legislation that cover less than 
     two years except those measures limited to temporary programs 
     or activities lasting less than two years.
       Modifies the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
     (the Results Act) to incorporate the government performance 
     planning and reporting process into the two-year budget cycle 
     to enhance oversight of federal programs.


                  title ii: emergency spending reforms

       Makes any emergency spending in any bill subject to a 60 
     vote point of order in the Senate. If this point of order is 
     sustained against any emergency provision, the emergency 
     spending would be extracted from the bill under a Byrd rule 
     procedure.
       Provides a reporting requirement for the President and 
     Congress to justify proposed emergencies spending and to 
     document whether proposed emergencies meet five criteria: 
     necessary, sudden, urgent, unforseen, and not permanent.
       Makes any non-emergency provision in an emergency 
     supplemental appropriations bill subject to a 60 vote point 
     of order in the Senate. If this point of order was sustained, 
     the non-emergency provision would be extracted from the bill 
     under a Byrd rule procedure.


             title iii: clarifying changes to pay-as-you-go

       Amends the Senate's 10-year pay-as-you-go rule to make 
     clear that an on-budget surplus can be used to offset the 
     cost of tax reductions or direct spending increases.
       Amends the statutory pay-go system (enforced by OMB) to 
     make clear that an on-budget surplus can be used to offset 
     the cost of tax reductions or direct spending increases.
       Amends the Byrd rule to allow revenue losing provisions in 
     reconciliation bills to be made permanent as long as they do 
     not cause an on-budget deficit in the future.


              title iv: government shutdown prevention act

       Provide for an automatic continuing resolution (CR) at the 
     lower of the President's requested level or the previous 
     year's appropriated level.


                title v: streamlining the budget process

       Eliminates the ``vote-athon'' at the end of the process by 
     adopting procedures similar to a post-cloture process for 
     budget resolutions and reconciliation bills:

[[Page S530]]

       Reduce time on a budget resolution from 50 to 30 hours (10 
     hours of which would be reserved for amendments);
       Reduce time on amendments from 2 hours to 1 hour;
       Establish filing deadlines (1st degree amendments must be 
     filed by 15th hour; 2nd degree amendments must be filed by 
     20th hour);
       After all time expires, require vote on any pending 
     amendments and then final passage;
       Make sense of the Senate amendments on budget resolutions 
     and reconciliation bills nongermane; and,
       Adopt same procedures for reconciliation bills.
       Modifies the scope of the budget resolution to be major 
     categories of spending instead of 20 individual functions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 94. A bill to repeal the telephone excise tax; to the Committee on 
Finance.


               Repeal of Three Percent Federal Excise Tax

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to repeal the 
three percent federal excise tax that all Americans pay every time they 
use a telephone.
  Under current law, the federal government taxes you three percent of 
your monthly phone bill for the so-called ``privilege'' of using your 
phone lines. This tax was first imposed one hundred years ago. To help 
finance the Spanish-American War, the federal government taxed 
telephone service, which in 1898 was a luxury service enjoyed by 
relatively few. The tax reappeared as a means of raising revenue for 
World War I, and continued as a revenue-raiser during the Great 
Depression, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and the chronic 
federal budget deficits of the last twenty years.
  Fortunately for telephone subscribers, we are enjoying some long-
overdue good news: thanks to the Balanced Budget Act enacted by the 
Congress in 1997, we are now expecting budget surpluses for the next 
decade, perhaps as much as $700 billion. Mr. President, just as it did 
in the 105th Congress, that announcement should mean the end of the 
federal phone excise tax.
  Here's why. First of all, the telephone is a modern-day necessity, 
not like alcohol, or furs, or jewelry, or other items of the sort that 
the government taxes this way. The Congress specifically recognized the 
need for all Americans to have affordable telephone service when it 
enacted the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The universal service 
provisions of the Act are intended to assure that all Americans, 
regardless of where they live or how much money they make, have access 
to affordable telephone service. The telephone excise tax, which bears 
no relationship to any government service received by the consumer, is 
flatly inconsistent with the goal of universal telephone service.
  It's also a highly regressive and unfair tax that hurts low-income 
and rural Americans even more than other Americans. Low-income families 
spend a higher percentage of their income than medium- or high-income 
families on telephone service, and that means the telephone tax hits 
low-income families much harder. For that reason the Congressional 
Budget Office has concluded that increases in the telephone tax would 
have a greater impact on low-income families than tax increases on 
alcohol or tobacco products. And a study by the American Agriculture 
Movement concluded that excise taxes like the telephone tax impose a 
disproportionately large tax burden on rural customers, too, who rely 
on telephone service in isolated areas.
  But, in addition to being unfair and unnecessary, there is another 
reason why we should eliminate the telephone excise tax. Implementation 
of the Telecom Act of 1996 requires all telecommunications carriers--
local, long-distance, and wireless--to incur new costs in order to 
produce a new, more competitive market for telecommunications services 
of all kinds.
  Unfortunately, the cost increases are arriving far more quickly than 
the new, more competitive market. The Telecom Act created a new subsidy 
program for wiring schools and libraries to the Internet, and the cost 
of funding that subsidy has increased bills for business and 
residential users of long-distance telephone service and for consumers 
of wireless services.
  Mr. President, the fact that the Telecom Act has imposed new charges 
on consumers' bills makes it absolutely incumbent upon us to strip away 
any unnecessary old charges. And that means the telephone excise tax.
  Mr. President, the telephone excise tax isn't a harmless artifact 
from bygone days. It collects money for wars that are already over, and 
for budget deficits that no longer exist, from people who can least 
afford to spend it now and from people who are footing higher bills as 
a result of the 1996 Telecom Act implementation. That's unfair, that's 
wrong, and that must be stopped.
  San Juan Hill and Pork Chop Hill have now gone down in history, and 
so should this tax.
  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. 94

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

     SEC. 1. REPEAL OF TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX.

       (a) In General.--Effective with respect to amounts paid 
     pursuant to bills first rendered on or after January 1, 1999, 
     subchapter B of chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251 et seq.) is repealed. For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, in the case of communications 
     services rendered before December 1, 1998, for which a bill 
     has not been rendered before January 1, 1999, a bill shall be 
     treated as having been first rendered on December 31, 1998.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Effective January 1, 1999, the 
     table of subchapters for such chapter is amended by striking 
     out the item relating to subchapter B.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 95. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure that 
public availability of information concerning stocks traded on an 
established stock exchange continues to be freely and readily available 
to the public through all media of mass communication; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                      the trading information act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Trading 
Information Act. In 1998, Americans continued to discover the Internet 
for the increased access to information and entertainment it provides, 
and as a more convenient means of purchasing goods. Americans also 
continued to discover the Internet as a more direct means of making and 
managing investments.
  Online stock trading is growing at a phenomenal pace. According to 
Forrester Research, there are more than 3 million online accounts, and 
that number is expected to exceed 14 million by 2002. In fact, the 
number of online traders in 1998 doubled from 1997, as it did from 
1996.
  Trading over the Internet is providing more Americans with the 
opportunity to increase their personal wealth, and to participate in 
the current growth in the market. New discount brokerages, high-speed 
Internet access, and ``real time'' market updates are all contributing 
to the growth of online trading. The Trading Information Act will help 
to preserve this growing trend.
  The Trading Information Act will ensure that online traders will 
continue to have access to information relating to financial markets 
which they rely on to properly manage their assets. Whether watching a 
stock ticker on television, receiving up-to-date information over a 
cell phone or pager, or logging on with an online brokerage firm, 
Americans must continue to have unfettered access to this vital 
information, and this bill will ensure they continue to have it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 96. A bill to regulate commerce between and among the several 
States by providing for the orderly resolution of disputes arising out 
of computer-based problems related to processing data that includes a 
2-digit expression of that year's date; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                                y2k act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to 
limit and prevent needless and costly litigation which is arising as a 
result of the computer programming problem commonly known as Y2K. Even 
before December 31 arrives lawsuits are beginning to be filed. This is 
an unfortunate reflection on our overly litigious society, and a 
situation which needs to be

[[Page S531]]

remedied. The Y2K Act takes a step toward encouraging technology 
producers to work with technology users and consumers to ensure a 
seamless transition for the 1990's to the year 2000.
  The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we look to solving 
the technology glitch known as Y2K rather than clog our courts with 
years of costly litigation. The legislation is designed to compensate 
actual losses, but to assure that the courts do not punish defendants 
who have made good faith efforts to remedy the technology failure. My 
goal is to provide incentives for fixing the potential Y2K failures 
before they happen, rather than create windfalls for those who 
litigate.
  The bill would also encourage efficient resolution of failures by 
requiring plaintiffs to afford their potential defendants an 
opportunity to remedy the failure and make things right before facing a 
lawsuit. We should encourage people to talk to each other, to try to 
address and remedy problems in a timely and professional manner.
  Physical injuries are not covered by the limitations on litigation 
and damages in this bill. In those instances where a computer date 
failure is responsible for personal physical injury, it is best to 
leave the remedy to existing state laws. Further, it would be imprudent 
policy to offer any ``safe harbor'' in such situations because to do so 
might have the undesired result of discouraging proactive remediation.
  This bill is a starting point. It provides an opportunity to begin 
discussion. It is my intention to hold a hearing in the near future, 
and to bring this bill to mark-up as quickly as full discussion will 
permit. I know many of my colleagues are interested in addressing this 
issue as well, and I look forward to working with them, and with 
affected industries and consumers to arrive at an acceptable piece of 
legislation which will benefit industry and consumers alike.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 97. A bill to require the installation and use by schools and 
libraries of a technology for filtering or blocking material on the 
Internet on computers with Internet access to be eligible to receive or 
retain universal service assistance; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                   children's internet protection act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Children's 
Internet Protection Act, which is designed to protect children from 
exposure to sexually explicit and other harmful material when they 
access the Internet in school and in the library. This legislation is 
substantially similar to the Internet School Filtering Act, which I 
introduced in the last session of Congress.
  This legislation, like its predecessor, comes to grips with one of 
the more unfortunate aspects of modern life: that the problems modern 
life don't stop at the schoolhouse door. Societal problems like 
violence and drugs have become part of the curriculum of life at many 
schools.
  Now, however, we are adding another problem to the list. And this 
particular wolf of a problem will walk into our schools disguised in 
the worthiest of sheeps' clothing: the Internet.
  Today, pornography is widely available on the Internet. According to 
``Wired'' magazine, today there are approximately 28,000 adult Web 
sites promoting hard and soft-core pornography. Together, these sites 
register many millions of ``hits'' by websurfers per day.
  Mr. President, there is no question that some of the websurfers who 
are accessing these sites are children. Some, unfortunately, are 
actively searching for these sites. But many others literally and 
unintentionally stumble across them.
  Anyone who uses seemingly innocuous terms while searching the World 
Wide Web for educational or harmless recreational purposes can 
inadvertently run into adult sites. For example, when the term ``H20'' 
was typed recently into a search engine, one of the first of over 
36,000 sites retrieved led to another site titled 
``www.hardcoresex.com.'' This site provided the typical warning to 
those under 18 not to enter--and then proceeded to offer a free, 
uncensored preview of the pornographic material on the site. And when 
the searcher attempted to escape from the site, new porn-oriented sites 
immediately opened.
  Parents wishing to protect their children from exposure to this kind 
of material can monitor their children's Internet use at home. This is 
a parent's proper role, and no amount of governmental assistance or 
industry self-regulation will ever be as effective in protecting 
children as parental supervision. But parents can't supervise how their 
children use the Internet outside the home, in schools and libraries.

  Mr. President, the billions of dollars per year the federal 
government will be giving schools and libraries to enable them to bring 
advanced Internet learning technology to the classroom will bring in 
the Internet's explicit online content as well. These billions of 
dollars will ultimately be paid for by the American people. So it is 
only right that if schools and libraries accept these federally-
provided subsidies for Internet access, they have an absolute 
responsibility to their communities to assure that children are 
protected from online content that can harm them.
  And this harm can be prevented. The prevention lies, not in censoring 
what goes onto the Internet, but rather in filtering what comes out of 
it onto the computers our children use outside the home.
  Mr. President, Internet filtering system work, and they need not be 
blunt instruments that unduly constrain the availability of 
legitimately instructional material. Today they are adaptable, capable 
of being fine-tuned to accommodate changes in websites as well as the 
evolving needs of individual schools and even individual lesson-plans. 
Best of all, their use will channel explicit material away from 
children while they are not under parental supervision, while not in 
any way inhibiting the rights of adults who may wish to post indecent 
material on the Web or have access to it outside school environs.
  Mr. President, it boils down to this: The same Internet that can 
benefit our children is also capable of inflicting terrible damage on 
them. For this reason, school and library administers who accept 
universal service support to provide students with its intended 
benefits must also safeguard them against its unintended harm. I 
commend the efforts of those who have recognized this responsibility by 
providing filtering systems in the many educational facilities that 
have already have Internet capability. This legislation assures that 
this responsibility is extended to all other institutions as they 
implement advanced technologies funded by federally-mandated universal 
service funds.
  Mr. President, this bill takes a sensible approach. It requires 
schools receiving universal service discounts to use a filtering system 
on their computers so that objectionable online materials will not be 
accessible to students. Libraries with more than one computer are 
required to use a filtering system on at least one computer used by 
minors. Filtering technology is itself eligible to be subsidized by the 
E-rate discount. Schools and libraries must install and use filtering 
or blocking technology to be eligible to receive universal service fund 
subsidies for Internet access. If schools and libraries do not do so, 
they will not be eligible to receive universal service fund-subsidized 
discounts and will have to refund any E-rate subsidy funds already paid 
out.
  Some have argued that the use of filtering technology in public 
schools and libraries would amount to censorship under the First 
Amendment. The Supreme Court has found, however, that obscenity is not 
protected by the First Amendment. And insofar as other sexually-
explicit material is concerned, the bill will not affect an adult's 
ability to access this information on the Internet, and it will in no 
way impose any filtering requirement on Internet use in the home.
  Perhaps most important, the bill prohibits the federal government 
from prescribing any particular filtering system, or from imposing a 
different filtering system than the one selected by the certifying 
educational authority. It thus places the prerogative for determining 
which filtering system best reflects the community's standards 
precisely where it should be: on the community itself.

[[Page S532]]

  Mr. President, more and more people are using the Internet each day. 
Currently, there may be as many as 50 million Americans online, and 
that number is expected to at least double by the millennium. As 
Internet use in our schools and libraries continues to grow, children's 
potential exposure to harmful online content will only increase. This 
bill simply assures that universal service subsidies will be used to 
defend them from the very dangers that these same subsidies are 
otherwise going to increase. This is a rational response to what could 
otherwise be a terrible and unintended problem.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 97

       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 ``Childrens' Internet 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES THAT 
                   FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING 
                   TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(l) Implementation of an Internet Filtering or Blocking 
     Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--An elementary school, secondary school, 
     or library that fails to provide the certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to 
     receive or retain universal service assistance provided under 
     subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(2) Certification for schools.--To be eligible to receive 
     universal service assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), an 
     elementary or secondary school (or the school board or other 
     authority with responsibility for administration of that 
     school) shall certify to the Commission that it has--
       ``(A) selected a technology for computers with Internet 
     access to filter or block material deemed to be harmful to 
     minors; and
       ``(B) installed, or will install, and uses or will use, as 
     soon as it obtains computers with Internet access, a 
     technology to filter or block such material.
       ``(3) Certification for libraries.--
       ``(A) Libraries with more than 1 internet-accessing 
     computer.--To be eligible to receive universal service 
     assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), a library that has 
     more than 1 computer with Internet access intended for use by 
     the public (including minors) shall certify to the Commission 
     that it has installed and uses a technology to filter or 
     block material deemed to be harmful to minors on one or more 
     of its computers with Internet access.
       ``(B) Libraries with only 1 internet-accessing computer.--A 
     library that has only 1 computer with Internet access 
     intended for use by the public (including minors) is eligible 
     to receive universal service assistance under subsection 
     (h)(1)(B) even if it does not use a technology to filter or 
     block material deemed to be harmful to minors on that 
     computer if it certifies to the Commission that it employs a 
     reasonably effective alternative means to keep minors from 
     accessing material on the Internet that is deemed to be 
     harmful to minors.
       ``(4) Time for certification.--The certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made within 30 days of the 
     date of enactment of the Childrens' Internet Protection Act, 
     or, if later, within 10 days of the date on which any 
     computer with access to the Internet is first made available 
     in the school or library for its intended use.
       ``(5) Notification of cessation; additional internet-
     accessing computer.--
       ``(A) Cessation.--A library that has filed the 
     certification required by paragraph (3)(A) shall notify the 
     Commission within 10 days after the date on which it ceases 
     to use the filtering or blocking technology to which the 
     certification related.
       ``(B) Additional internet-accessing computer.--A library 
     that has filed the certification required by paragraph (3)(B) 
     that adds another computer with Internet access intended for 
     use by the public (including minors) shall make the 
     certification required by paragraph (3)(A) within 10 days 
     after that computer is made available for use by the public.
       ``(6) Penalty for failure to comply.--A school or library 
     that fails to meet the requirements of this subsection is 
     liable to repay immediately the full amount of all universal 
     service assistance it received under subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(7) Local determination of material to be filtered.--For 
     purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3), the determination of what 
     material is to be deemed harmful to minors shall be made by 
     the school, school board, library or other authority 
     responsible for making the required certification. No agency 
     or instrumentality of the United States Government may--
       ``(A) establish criteria for making that determination;
       ``(B) review the determination made by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority; or
       ``(C) consider the criteria employed by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority in the 
     administration of subsection (h)(1)(B).''.
       (b) Conforming Change.--Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``All telecommunications'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided by subsection (l), all 
     telecommunications''.

     SEC. 3. FCC TO ADOPT RULES WITHIN 4 MONTHS.

       The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt rules 
     implementing section 254(l) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 98. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Surface 
Transportation Board for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


        surface transportation board reauthorization act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Surface 
Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 1999. I am pleased 
Senator Hollings, the Ranking member of Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and Majority Leader Lott, also a 
distinguished member of our Committee, have joined me in sponsoring 
this important legislation.
  The introduction of this bill on this, the first day in the 106th 
Congress for introducing legislation, is intended to demonstrate the 
firm commitment of the bill's sponsors to enact multi-year legislation 
extending the Board's authorization. Many of us worked toward enacting 
a reauthorization measure last year, but those efforts were 
unsuccessful due to matters generally unrelated to the Board itself. 
While those rail-related issues remain for some, I do not believe we 
should hold the STB's reauthorization hostage and believe we could 
consider dual-track measures--this reauthorization on the one hand and 
proposals for statutory changes on another. Although the dual-track did 
not succeed last Congress, I am hopeful that it can in the 106th 
Congress.
  The Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 1999 is 
straight forward. First, it proposes to reauthorize the STB for the 
current fiscal year through 2002 and provide sufficient resources to 
ensure the Board is able to continue to carry out its very serious 
responsibilities and duties. Second, it proposes that the Board's 
Chairmanship be subject to Senate confirmation like a host of other 
Boards and Commissions throughout the Federal governmental, including 
the National Transportation Safety Board, the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, the Export-Import Bank, and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to name a few.
  Mr. President, I want to inform my colleagues that the Senate 
Commerce Committee intends to fully explore the resource needs of the 
Board and also consider limited proposals for statutory changes 
advocated by some members. I know the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, Senator Hutchison, 
plans to hold hearings on the STB and continue the examination of STB 
actions affecting rail service and rail shipper problems which were 
initiated during the 105th Congress.
  As I have stated on numerous occasions, rail service and rail shipper 
issues warrant serious consideration. These matters have received 
extensive and comprehensive examination under Subcommittee Chairman 
Hutchison's able leadership and will continue as important oversight 
issues under the Committee's jurisdiction. I strongly believe, however, 
specific rail service and rail shipper problems and cases are best 
resolved by the Board. That is why Congress must provide the Board with 
the resources and legal authority necessary for it to continue to carry 
out its statutory duties fully and fairly, and on a timely basis.
  The STB is one of our smallest Federal entities and it has very 
limited resources. It is imperative that we reauthorize the Board so 
that it can continue to produce the vast workload it has achieved since 
its inception in 1996. We must do our part to assist the Board in 
fulfilling its statutory duties responsibly and independently. The 
Administration and Congress must also take necessary action to ensure a 
fully constituted Board.

[[Page S533]]

  I look forward to working on this important transportation 
legislation and hope my colleagues will agree to join with me and the 
other sponsors in expeditiously moving this necessary reauthorization 
through the legislative process.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the 
reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). As I have 
said many times before, the Board performs a vital role regulating the 
interests of our railroad and other surface transportation industries. 
Under the able and forward-looking leadership of Linda Morgan, the 
Board's Chairman, who was with us on the Commerce Committee for many 
years, the Board with its small staff has put out more work, and higher 
quality work, than much larger agencies. Most significantly, unlike 
many other agencies, the Board is not afraid to tackle the hard issues, 
and to put out decisions that are fair, well-reasoned, and independent 
of political expediency. For example, the Board's unprecedented and 
focused actions in handling the recent rail service crisis in the West 
provided the appropriate mix of government intervention and private-
sector initiative.
  More recently, at the end of 1998, at the request of Chairman McCain 
and Senator Hutchison, the Board reviewed rail competition and issued 
several decisions in controversial cases, and made several 
recommendations to Congress, that reflect a balanced and comprehensive 
view of the transportation industry and the fundamental issues that 
confront it. The Board recently released its findings. In rendering 
these decisions, the Board, which is accountable to Congress, has acted 
responsibly and has provided a valuable service in resolving issues 
within its jurisdiction such as the determination of market dominance, 
and in raising others, such as open access, more appropriately 
addressed by Congress.
  As anyone who has read the comprehensive letter from Chairman Morgan 
to Senators McCain and Hutchison reporting on the Board's rail access 
and competition proceeding knows, the Board has acted creatively, 
aggressively, and decisively in tackling hard issues within its 
jurisdiction, and in making suggestions to Congress as to how to 
address remaining issues of contention between railroads and their 
shippers, and between railroads and their employees. One of its 
decisions finalized rules that for the first time provide various 
specific avenues for relief in cases of localized poor rail service, 
and another decision took steps to facilitate the review of rail rate 
reasonableness cases by eliminating certain evidentiary thresholds.
  Linda Morgan as Board Chairman pressed the railroad industry to be 
more directly accountable to the needs of their customers, and has 
requested them to reach out directly to their shippers and employees. 
This has allowed the railroads to reach more settlements with their 
customers and employees than they have in many years. I commend the 
Board for initiating government action that results in private sector 
settlements. Ultimately this sort of settlement has greater chance of 
realistic dispute resolution. Congress should feel fortunate to have an 
agency with the competence and credibility to move issues forward in 
such a positive direction.

  Because we need the Board, and because the Board has done a fine job, 
I am here today supporting the introduction of a reauthorization bill. 
I know that some tough legislative issues regarding transportation 
regulation may come our way this session, and I look forward to working 
with the Board and my colleagues on those matters. Whatever the 
resolution of those matters, we need the stability and continuity in 
addressing these issues that reauthorization legislation for the Board 
will provide.
  The Board, working with the law we gave it, has done its job. I want 
to thank the Board in general, and Chairman Morgan in particular, who 
has my unqualified support, for a job well done. The Board has been 
confronted with some of the most difficult and fundamental issues to 
challenge rail transportation in many years. The agency has met these 
issues head on with forthrightness and resolve, taking into account the 
interests of all parties. However, I am concerned for the Board's 
future; the Board has not had the opportunity to bring in new personnel 
to replace personnel that will be of retirement age. It is incumbent on 
us that we provide this agency the necessary resources to adequately 
train new personnel, and prepare them to address the rail and other 
surface issues of the future.
  I think that much credit is due the Board for facilitating more 
private-sector dialogue, initiative, and resolution than has ever been 
undertaken before, and for raising and tackling issues in ways that 
have never been undertaken before. Once again, I commend the Board on a 
job well done. The Nation needs agencies like the Board, and I 
enthusiastically support the reauthorization bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Ashcroft):
  S. 99. A bill to provide for continuing in the absence of regular 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000; to the Committee on 
Appropriations.


                    government shutdown act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I and Senator Hutchison, Senator 
Stevens, Senator Craig, Senator Warner, and Senator Ashcroft are 
introducing the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 1999. This bill 
creates a statutory continuing resolution as sort of a safety net 
funding mechanism, which would be triggered only if the Fiscal Year 
2000 appropriation acts do not become law or if there is no governing 
continuing resolution in place after the start of Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. President, this legislation is important. It must be done soon, 
and I intend to seek early action on this bill. I believe the lesson of 
the last 4 years is that we cannot allow the Government to be shut down 
again, nor can we allow the threat of a Government shutdown to be so 
imminent that we fiscal conservatives are forced to acquiesce to the 
appropriation of billions of dollars for projects that do not serve our 
nation's best interests.
  What this legislation does is ensure that the Government will not 
shut down and that Government shutdowns cannot be used for political 
gain. This safety net continuing resolution basically would set 
spending for fiscal year 2000 at 98 percent of 1999 funding levels. The 
resolution would take effect only if the Congress and the President 
have not completed their work on time.
  Mr. President, let me make it clear that this bill only applies to 
the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations. I believe that it should be 
expanded to make the statutory continuing resolution a permanent safety 
net to prevent disruptive government shutdowns.
  We all saw the effects of gridlock in the past. No one wins when the 
Government shuts down. Shutdowns only confirm the American people's 
suspicions that we are more interested in political gain than doing the 
nation's business. The American people are tired of gridlock. They want 
the Government to work for them, not against them.
  Our Founding Fathers would have been ashamed of our inability to 
execute the power of the purse in a responsible fashion. I am sure they 
would have been quite shocked by the 27 days in late 1995 that the 
Government was shut down, the 13 continuing resolutions that had to be 
passed to provide temporary spending authority, and the almost $6 
billion in blackmail money that was given to the Administration to 
ensure that the Government did not shut down a third time in Fiscal 
Year 1966.
  Although Republicans shouldered the blame for the 1995 Government 
shutdown, President Clinton and his colleagues were equally at fault 
for using it for their political gain. Republicans were outmaneuvered 
by President Clinton because we did not realize that he was willing to 
use the budget process for his own political purposes.
  We also cannot let the threat of another Government shutdown force us 
to adopt another fiscal debacle like the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations 
Bill. The political finagling that led to the extra $20 billion in 
pork-barrel spending in that bill made mockery of the budget process 
and insulted the intention of the framers to give Congress the power of 
the purse. The only reason the Congress passed such a monstrosity was 
the ever-present specter of another government shutdown and Washington 
gridlock in an election year.

[[Page S534]]

  The Government Shutdown Act of 1999 does not erode the power of the 
appropriators. It gives them ample opportunity to do their job. It is 
only if the appropriations process is not completed by the beginning of 
the fiscal year, that the safety net continuing resolution will go into 
effect. In addition, I emphasize that entitlements are fully protected 
in this legislation. The bill specifically states that entitlements 
such as Social Security--as obligated by law--will be paid regardless 
of what appropriations bills are passed or not passed.
  We saw in 1995 how politically motivated government shutdowns hit all 
Americans hard. In my State of Arizona, during the Government shutdown 
the Grand Canyon was closed for the first time in 76 years. I heard 
from people who worked close to the Grand Canyon. These were not 
Government employees. These were independent small business men and 
women. They told me that the shutdown cost them thousands of dollars 
because people could not go to the park. According to a CRS report, 
local communities near national parks alone lost an estimated $14.2 
million per day in tourism revenues as a direct result of the 
Government shutdown, for a total of nearly $400 million over the course 
of the shutdown.
  The cost of the last Government shutdown cannot be measured in just 
dollars and cents. During the 1995 shutdown, millions of Americans 
could not get crucial social services. For example, 10,000 new Medicare 
applications, 212,000 Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual 
office visits and 800,000 toll-free calls for information and 
assistance were turned away each day. There were even more delays in 
services for some of the most vulnerable in our society, including 13 
million recipients of AFDC, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 
children receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head 
Start children--not to mention the new patients that were not accepted 
into clinical research centers, the 7 million visitors who could not 
attend national parks, or the 2 million visitors turned away at museums 
and monuments. And the list goes on and on.
  In addition, our Federal employees were left in fear wondering 
whether they would be paid, would they have to go to work, would they 
be able to pay their bills on time. In my State of Arizona, for 
example, of the 40,383 Federal employees, over 15,000 of them were 
furloughed in the 1995 Government shutdown.
  As bad as the 1995 government shutdown was, the fiscal nightmare 
known as the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, was equally 
repulsive. This 4,000-page, 40-pound, nonamendable, budget-busting bill 
provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal 
departments. To make matters worse, this bill exceeded the budget 
ceiling by $20 billion for what is euphemistically called emergency 
spending. Much of this so-called ``emergency spending'' is really 
everyday, garden-variety, special interest, pork-barrel spending paid 
for by robbing billions from the budget surplus.

  This monstrous bill passed because Congress was forced to either pass 
it, or face another government shutdown. The Government Shutdown 
Prevention Act of 1999 would make it more difficult for opportunistic 
politicians to put the American public at risk by threatening to 
shutdown essential government functions if Congress cannot agree on 
spending priorities and policies.
  A 1991 GAO report confirmed that permanent funding lapse legislation 
is a necessity. In their report they stated, ``Shutting down the 
Government during temporary funding gaps is an inappropriate way to 
encourage compromise on the budget.''
  Let us show the American people that we have learned our lessons from 
the 1995 Government shutdown and the 1998 fiscal debacle. Passing this 
preventive measure will go a long way to restore America's faith that 
politics or stalled negotiations will not stop Government operations. 
It will show our constituents that we will never again allow a 
Government shutdown or threat of a Government shutdown to be used for 
political gain.
  We anticipate strong support from the Leadership, and urge them to 
move this legislation forward as soon as possible. This is must-pass 
legislation. Neither party can afford another breach of faith with the 
American people. Our constituents are tired of constantly being 
disappointed by the actions of Congress and the President. That is why 
this legislation is so important. Never again, should the American 
public's hard-earned dollars be used as ransom to prevent a politically 
motivated government shutdown.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 100. A bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget 
authority; 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.


                  the separate enrollment act of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I will reintroduce the Separate 
Enrollment Act of 1999. This bil requires each targeted tax benefit or 
spending item in legislation to be enrolled as a separate bill before 
it is sent to the President. If the President chooses to veto one of 
these items, each of these vetoes would be returned to Congress 
separately for an override vote.
  Last year, the Supreme Court struck down the line item vote on 
Constitutional grounds in a 6-3 decision. I was very saddened by this 
decision. Polls from previous years indicate that 83 percent of the 
American people support giving the President the line-item veto 
authority. We need the line-item veto to restore balance to the federal 
budget process.
  The Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Line-Item Veto Act on the 
basis that the Constitution requires every bill to be presented to the 
President for his approval or disapproval. In other words, the decision 
was not based on the concept that transferring power to the President 
of the United States lacked constitutionally, but the fact that bills 
are to be sent to the President for approval in their entirety.
  Separate enrollment as a line-item veto tool is not a new concept. 
This concept is not controversial. The Senate adopted S. 4, a separate 
enrollment bill in the 104th Congress, by a vote of 69 to 29.
  Legal scholars contend that the separate enrollment concept is 
constitutional. Congress has the right to present a bill to the 
President of the United States. Separate enrollment merely addresses 
the question of what constitutes a bill. It does not erode or interfere 
with the presentment of the bill to the President. Under the rulemaking 
clause, Congress alone can determine the procedures for defining and 
enrolling a bill. Separate enrollment is constitutional and will 
clearly work.
  Separate enrollment, as a line-item veto tool, will be a vital force 
in eliminating wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel spending. 
Unfortunately, as we saw last year, pork-barrel spending is alive and 
well.
  On October 21, 1998, Congress passed the FY 1999 Omnibus 
Appropriations Bill--the worst example of pork-barrel spending in my 
memory. This was a 4,000 page, 40-pound, non-amendable, budget-busting 
bill which provided over a half-trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-
level federal departments. The bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20 
billion for what is euphemistically called emergency spending, much of 
which is really everyday, garden-variety, special-interest, pork-barrel 
spending, paid for by robbing billions from the budget surplus.
  The omnibus spending bill made a mockery of the Congress' role in 
fiscal matters. It was a betrayal of our responsibility to spend the 
taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that reflect the 
best interests of all Americans, rather than the special interests of a 
few.
  We cannot afford this magnitude of park-barrel spending when we have 
accumulated a multi-trillion dollar national debt. Right now, today, we 
use a huge portion of our federal budget to make the interest payments 
on the national debt. In fact, the annual interest payment almost 
equals the entire budget for national defense. We should be paying down 
the national debt, saving Social Security, and providing tax cuts for 
hard-working middle class Americans, not indulging in wasteful, 
unnecessary spending.
  The objective of the Separate Enrollment bill, and the Line-Item Veto 
before it, is to curb wasteful pork-barrel

[[Page S535]]

spending by giving the President the authority to eliminate individual 
spending items. The Separate Enrollment Act of 1999 will be our new 
tool to restore fiscal responsibility to the way we spend Americans' 
hard-earned dollars.
  This is not a partisan issue. The issue is fiscal responsibility. We 
have a President, we have 100 Senators, and we have 435 
Representatives. It is hard to place responsibility upon any one person 
for profligate spending. Thus, no one is accountable for our runaway 
budget process.
  Past Presidents have sought the line-time veto. Congress finally 
agreed in 1996, when we passed the Line-Item Veto Act, to give the 
President the ability to surgically remove wasteful spending for 
appropriations and authorization bills. It would also establish greater 
accountability in the Executive branch for fiscal decisions and provide 
much-needed checks and balances on Congressional spending sprees.
  Unfortunately when given the Line-Item Veto authority in 1997, the 
President failed to exercise the authority in a meaningful fashion. Of 
over $8 billion in wasteful spending, he excised $491 million from the 
annual appropriations bills. And then the Supreme Court struck the 
Line-Item Veto Act down.
  Restoring this power this year in the form of the Separate Enrollment 
Act would if exercised responsibly by the President, reduce the 
excesses of the congressional budget process that focus on locality-
specific earmarking and cater to special interests, not the national 
interest.
  Mr. President, I simply ask my colleagues to be fair and reasonable 
when addressing the issue of fiscal responsibility. The line-item veto, 
in the form of separate enrollment, is vital to curbing wasteful pork-
barrel spending and restoring the American people's respect for their 
elected representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Fitzgerald, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 101. A bill to promote trade in United States agricultural 
commodities, livestock, and value-added products, and to prepare for 
future bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations; to the Committee 
on Finance.


              UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL TRADE ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
open foreign markets for U.S. agricultural exports and raise the 
profile of agriculture in our nation's trade agenda. By enacting the 
1996 FAIR Act, commonly known as Freedom to Farm, we gave farmers the 
right to make planting decisions themselves, free from government 
controls. But the FAIR Act is a compact. Freedom to Farm means freedom 
to sell. In exchange for phasing out subsidies, Congress promised its 
efforts to secure free, fair, and open markets for U.S. agricultural 
products. The importance of exports to U.S. agriculture has never been 
greater. This legislation will improve opportunities, allowing us to 
take advantage of our dominant position in world food trade.
  Each year, agricultural products make a positive contribution to our 
international balance of payments. No sector of the U.S. economy is 
more critically tied to international trade than agriculture. 
Approximately three out of ten acres of our agricultural production is 
exported. Farmers are reliant on the ability to export. We can only 
secure our farmers' and ranchers' future opportunities by removing 
trade barriers--those we impose on ourselves and those imposed by 
others.
  Mr. President, this bill addresses several items, none of which is 
more important than sanctions reform. Unilateral economic sanctions 
often keep our farmers out of major markets. Such sanctions do not 
preclude the targeted country from buying agricultural commodities 
elsewhere. Rather, sanctions often have a more profound effect on our 
own country. U.S. competitors are often quick to offset the effect of 
our sanctions, in the process harming U.S. commercial interests. 
Contracts are lost and our status as a reliable business partner 
suffers. A cardinal test of foreign policy is to determine that, when 
we use sanctions internationally, our actions do less harm to ourselves 
than to others. Unilateral food sanctions fail that test.
  Bans on food exports strike at the most basic human need, the 
availability of food. Authoritarian regimes can survive food sanctions. 
It is the people of these nations that suffer. The use of food as a 
weapon should, in most cases, be abandoned. This legislation exempts 
from unilateral economic sanctions humanitarian and commercial farm 
exports and gives the President the authority to waive the food 
exemption.
  Mr. President, sanctions reform is only one aspect of improving 
market access. Significant tariff and non-tariff barriers still inhibit 
the free flow of agricultural goods. The World Trade Organization will 
hold an important meeting later this year in our own country. The talks 
which will commence at this meeting offer an important opportunity to 
expand overseas markets for our agricultural exports. One goal of this 
legislation is to achieve more fair and open conditions of trade, and 
the bill I introduce today provides important guidelines for these 
upcoming negotiations. It aims to open foreign markets and eliminate 
unfair and negative trade policy. Furthermore, a ``special 301'' 
provision for agriculture is included in this bill. This language is 
similar to S.219 which was introduced by Senator Daschle and Senator 
Grassley in the 105th Congress and generated bi-partisan support within 
agriculture. It provides for an investigative process specifically 
tailored to agricultural trade. The U.S. Trade Representative will use 
this process to identify those countries which employ unfair trade 
practices against U.S. agricultural commodities and value-added 
products. Once in place, remedies which level the playing field are 
provided. This authority is important as we strive to break down trade 
barriers and eliminate practices which foreign countries use to bar 
U.S. agricultural exports.
  The most important thing we can give to farmers is the ability to 
export their products abroad. We can give to our farmers the enhanced 
ability to sell their products in existing and untapped markets. Mr. 
President, U.S. agriculture is the most productive in the world. This 
legislation will allow us to take advantage of that position. I ask 
unanimous consent that the legislation and a summary be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 101

       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 ``United States Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. OBJECTIVES FOR AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the principal agricultural 
     trade negotiating objectives of the United States for future 
     multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, including the 
     World Trade Organization, shall be to achieve, on an 
     expedited basis, and to the maximum extent feasible, more 
     open and fair conditions for trade in agricultural 
     commodities by--
       (1) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules for 
     agricultural trade, including disciplines on restrictive or 
     trade-distorting import and export practices, including--
       (A) enhancing the operation and effectiveness of the 
     relevant Uruguay Round Agreements designed to define, deter, 
     and discourage the persistent use of unfair trade practices; 
     and
       (B) enforcing and strengthening rules of the World Trade 
     Organization regarding--
       (i) trade-distorting practices of state trading 
     enterprises; and
       (ii) the acts, practices, or policies of a foreign 
     government which unreasonably--
       (I) require that substantial direct investment in the 
     foreign country be made as a condition for carrying on 
     business in the foreign country;
       (II) require that intellectual property be licensed to the 
     foreign country or to any firm of the foreign country; or
       (III) delay or preclude implementation of a report of a 
     dispute panel of the World Trade Organization;
       (2) increasing United States agricultural exports by 
     eliminating barriers to trade (including transparent and 
     nontransparent barriers);
       (3) eliminating other specific constraints to fair trade 
     and more open market access in foreign markets, such as 
     export subsidies, quotas, and other nontariff import 
     barriers;
       (4) developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules that 
     address practices that unfairly limit United States market 
     access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the 
     detriment of the United States, including--
       (A) unfair or trade-distorting activities of state trading 
     enterprises and other administrative mechanisms that result 
     in inadequate price transparency;

[[Page S536]]

       (B) unjustified restrictions or commercial requirements 
     affecting new technologies, including biotechnology;
       (C) unjustified sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions; and
       (D) restrictive rules in the establishment and 
     administration of tariff-rate quotas;
       (5) ensuring that there are reliable suppliers of 
     agricultural commodities in international commerce by 
     encouraging countries to treat foreign buyers no less 
     favorably than domestic buyers of the commodity or product 
     involved; and
       (6) eliminating barriers for meeting the food needs of an 
     increasing world population through the use of biotechnology 
     by ensuring market access to United States commodities 
     derived from biotechnology that is scientifically defensible, 
     opposing the establishment of protectionist trade measures 
     disguised as health standards, and protesting continual 
     delays by other countries in their approval processes--which 
     constitute non-tariff trade barriers.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act, the terms ``agricultural commodity'' 
     and ``United States agricultural commodity'' have the 
     meanings provided in section 102 (1) and (7) of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, respectively.

     SEC. 4. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, LIVESTOCK, AND PRODUCTS 
                   EXEMPT FROM SANCTIONS.

       (a) Definition--Unilateral Economic Sanction.--The term 
     ``unilateral economic sanction'' means any prohibition, 
     restriction, or condition on economic activity, including 
     economic assistance, with respect to a foreign country or 
     foreign entity that is imposed by the United States for 
     reasons of foreign policy or national security, except in a 
     case in which the United States imposes the measure pursuant 
     to a multilateral regime and the other members of that regime 
     have agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
       (b) Exemption.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of a 
     unilateral economic sanction imposed by the United States on 
     another country, the following shall be exempt from the 
     unilateral economic sanction--
       (A) programs administered through Public Law 480 (7 U.S.C. 
     1701 et. seq.);
       (B) programs administered through section 416 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
       (C) the program administered through section 1113 of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736-1); and
       (D) commercial sales and humanitarian assistance involving 
     agricultural commodities.
       (2) Determination by President.-- If the President 
     determines that the exemption under paragraph (1) should not 
     apply to the unilateral economic sanction for reasons of 
     foreign policy or national security, the President may 
     include the activities described in paragraph (1) in the 
     unilateral economic sanction.
       (c) Current Sanctions.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the exemption 
     under subsection (b) shall apply to unilateral economic 
     sanctions that are in effect as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Presidential review.--The President shall, within 90 
     days of the date of enactment of this Act, review all 
     unilateral economic sanctions under this subsection to 
     determine whether the exemption under subsection (b) should 
     apply to the sanction.
       (3) Effective date.--The exemption under subsection (b) 
     shall become effective for unilateral economic sanctions that 
     are in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act unless the President 
     has determined that the exemption should not apply to the 
     sanction.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--If the President determines that the 
     exemption under subsection (b) should not apply to a 
     unilateral economic sanction, the President shall provide a 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture in the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry in the Senate--
       (A) in the case of a unilateral economic sanction reviewed 
     under subsection (c), within 15 days from the date of the 
     determination in paragraph (2) of that subsection; and
       (B) in the case of a unilateral economic sanction that is 
     imposed after the date of enactment of this Act, at the time 
     of the imposition of the sanction.
       (2) Contents of report.--The report shall contain--
       (A) an explanation why, because of reasons of foreign 
     policy or national security, the exemption should not apply 
     to the unilateral economic sanction; and
       (B) an assessment by the Secretary of Agriculture--
       (i) regarding export sales--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whether markets in the sanctioned 
     country or countries present a substantial trade opportunity 
     for export sales of a United States agricultural commodity; 
     or
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the extent to which 
     any country or countries to be sanctioned or likely to be 
     sanctioned are markets that accounted for, in the preceding 
     calendar year, more than 3 percent of all export sales from 
     the United States of an agricultural commodity;
       (ii) regarding the effect on United States agricultural 
     commodities--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the potential for exports of United 
     states commodities in the sanctioned country or countries; 
     and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the likelihood that 
     exports of agricultural commodities from the United States 
     will be affected by the unilateral economic sanction or by 
     retaliation by any country to be sanctioned or likely to be 
     sanctioned, and specific commodities which are most likely to 
     be affected;
       (iii) regarding producer income--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the potential for increasing the 
     income of producers of the commodities involved; and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the likely effect 
     on incomes of producers of the commodities involved;
       (iv) regarding displacement of United States suppliers--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the potential for increased 
     competition for United States suppliers of the agricultural 
     commodity in countries that are not subject to a sanction; 
     and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the extent to which 
     the unilateral economic sanction would permit foreign 
     suppliers to replace United States suppliers; and
       (v) regarding the reputation of United States farmers as 
     reliable suppliers--
       (I) in the case of a sanction in effect as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act, whether removing the sanction would 
     increase the reputation of United States farmers as reliable 
     suppliers of agricultural commodities in general, and of 
     specific commodities identified by the Secretary; and
       (II) in the case of any other sanction, the likely effect 
     of the proposed sanction on the reputation of United States 
     farmers as reliable suppliers of agricultural commodities in 
     general, and of specific commodities identified by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Effective Date.-- Except as provided in subsection 
     (c)(3), this section shall become effective upon the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND CONSULTATION FOR 
                   AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS.

       Section 161 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2211) is 
     amended by adding at the end a new subsection (d) that reads 
     as follows--
       ``(d) Congressional Oversight Group for Agricultural 
     Negotiations.--
       ``(1) There is established a Congressional Oversight Group 
     for Agricultural Negotiations (Oversight Group) that shall 
     provide oversight and guidance with respect to agricultural 
     trade policy and negotiation of agricultural trade issues.

       ``(A) Subject to clauses (i) and (ii), the Oversight Group 
     shall consist of 3 members of the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate and 3 members of the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
       ``(i) The President pro tempore of the Senate, upon the 
     recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, shall select two 
     members from the majority party, and one member from the 
     minority party, of the Senate.
       ``(ii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives, upon 
     the recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Agriculture, shall select 2 members from the majority party, 
     and one member from the minority party, of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(B) Members of the House and Senate who are selected as 
     members of the Oversight Group shall be accredited by the 
     United States Trade Representative as official advisers to 
     the United States delegations to international conferences, 
     meetings, and negotiating sessions relating to agricultural 
     trade policy and negotiation of agricultural trade issues.
       ``(2) All negotiating proposals by the United States and 
     negotiations that affect agricultural trade shall be reviewed 
     by the Oversight Group prior to an agreement being initialed 
     by the President.
       ``(3) All information about negotiating proposals by the 
     United States and foreign countries affecting agricultural 
     trade negotiations shall be made available to the Oversight 
     Group by the United States Trade Representative.
       ``(4) Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the United 
     States Trade Representative shall establish guidelines for 
     ensuring the useful and timely supply of information to the 
     Oversight Group and the communication of the oversight and 
     guidance by the Oversight Group to the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       ``(A) The guidelines shall establish procedures for the 
     United States Trade Representative to provide to the 
     Oversight Group--
       ``(i) information regarding the principal multilateral and 
     bilateral negotiating objectives affecting agricultural 
     trade, and the progress being made toward their achievement;
       ``(ii) information regarding the implementation, 
     administration, and effectiveness of recently concluded 
     multilateral and bilateral agricultural trade agreements and 
     the resolution of agricultural trade disputes;
       ``(iii) a schedule for an initial meeting, prior to the 
     commencement of negotiations involving agricultural trade, 
     between the Oversight Group and the United States Trade 
     Representative, about the objectives of the negotiations;

[[Page S537]]

       ``(iv) written or oral briefings about the status of 
     ongoing negotiations involving agricultural trade;
       ``(v) prior to the President initialing the trade 
     agreement, written or oral briefings about the results of 
     negotiations involving agricultural trade;
       ``(vi) information about changes in United States laws that 
     are necessary as a result of the negotiations; and
       ``(vii) a schedule and procedure for the Oversight Group to 
     provide advice and guidance to the United States Trade 
     Representative regarding--
       ``(I) the negotiations involving agricultural trade; and
       ``(II) changes in United States laws that are necessary as 
     a result of the negotiations.
       ``(B) The United States Trade Representative shall meet 
     with the Oversight Group at a minimum on a quarterly basis, 
     and as needed during a negotiation involving agricultural 
     trade.
       ``(C) If determined necessary by either party, 
     consultations between the Oversight Group and the United 
     States Trade Representative may be conducted in executive 
     session.

     SEC. 6. SALE OR BARTER OF FOOD ASSISTANCE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the amendment to section 
     203 of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
     of 1954 (Pub. L. 480) made in section 208 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement And Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     101-127) was intended to allow the sale or barter of United 
     States agricultural commodities included in United States 
     food assistance only within the recipient country or 
     countries adjacent to the recipient country, unless such sale 
     or barter within the recipient country or adjacent 
     countries--
       (1) is not practicable; and
       (2) will not disrupt commercial markets for the 
     agricultural commodity involved.

     SEC. 7. TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, 
                   LIVESTOCK, AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

       (a) Identification Required.--Chapter 8 of title I of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 183. IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTRIES THAT ENGAGE IN UNFAIR 
                   TRADE PRACTICES AFFECTING UNITED STATES 
                   AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the annual report is required to be 
     submitted to Congressional committees under section 181(b), 
     the United States Trade Representative (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as the `Trade Representative') shall 
     identify--
       ``(1) those foreign countries that--
       ``(A) deny fair and equitable market access to United 
     States agricultural commodities through discriminatory 
     nontariff trade barriers;
       ``(B) employ unfair export subsidies that adversely affect 
     market share of United States exports of agricultural 
     commodities; or
       ``(C) unreasonably delay or preclude implementation of a 
     report of a dispute panel of the World Trade Organization; or
       ``(2) those foreign countries identified under paragraph 
     (1) that are determined by the Trade Representative to be 
     priority foreign countries.
       ``(b) Special Rules for Identification.--
       ``(1) Criteria.--In identifying priority foreign countries 
     under subsection (a)(2), the Trade Representative shall only 
     identify those foreign countries that--
       ``(A) engage in or have the most onerous or egregious acts, 
     policies, or practices that deny fair and equitable market 
     access to United States agricultural commodities;
       ``(B) engage in discriminatory nontariff trade barriers for 
     the importation of United States agricultural commodities 
     that are not based on public health concerns or cannot be 
     substantiated by reliable analytical methods;
       ``(C) use unfair export subsidies;
       ``(D) unreasonably delay or preclude implementation of a 
     report of a dispute panel of the World Trade Organization;
       ``(E) whose acts, policies, or practices described in 
     subparagraphs (A)-(D) have the greatest adverse impact 
     (actual or potential) on the relevant United States 
     agricultural commodities; or
       ``(F) that are not negotiating in good faith about adopting 
     fair and equitable trade practices, or making significant 
     progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, in 
     regards to United States agricultural commodities.
       ``(2) Consultation and consideration requirements.--In 
     identifying priority foreign countries under subsection 
     (a)(2), the Trade Representative shall--
       ``(A) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and other 
     appropriate officers of the Federal Government; and
       ``(B) take into account information from such sources as 
     may be available to the Trade Representative and such 
     information as may be submitted to the Trade Representative 
     by interested persons, including information contained in 
     reports submitted under section 181(b) and petitions 
     submitted under section 302.
       ``(3) Factual basis requirement.--The Trade Representative 
     may identify a foreign country under subsection (a)(1) only 
     if the Trade Representative finds that there is a factual 
     basis for identifying the foreign country as engaging in a 
     trade practice under subsection (a)(1).
       ``(4) Consideration of historical factors.--In identifying 
     foreign countries under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (a), the Trade Representative shall take into account--
       ``(A) the history of agricultural trade relations with the 
     foreign country, including any previous identification under 
     subsection (a)(2); and
       ``(B) the history of efforts of the United States, and the 
     response of the foreign country, to achieve fair trade 
     practices affecting trade in United States agricultural 
     commodities.
       ``(c) Revocations and Additional Identifications.--
       ``(1) Authority to act at any time.--If information 
     available to the Trade Representative indicates that such 
     action is appropriate, the Trade Representative may at any 
     time--
       ``(A) revoke the identification of any foreign country as a 
     priority foreign country under this section; or
       ``(B) identify any foreign country as a priority foreign 
     country under this section.
       ``(2) Revocation reports.--The Trade Representative shall 
     include in the semiannual report submitted to the Congress 
     under section 309(3) a detailed explanation of the reasons 
     for the revocation under paragraph (1) of the identification 
     of any foreign country as a priority foreign country under 
     this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``agricultural commodity'' and ``United States agricultural 
     commodity'' have the meanings provided in section 102 (1) and 
     (7) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, respectively.
       ``(e) Publication.--The Trade Representative shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a list of foreign countries 
     identified under subsection (a) and shall make such revisions 
     to the list as may be required by reason of the action under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(f) Annual Report.--The Trade Representative shall, not 
     later than the date by which countries are identified under 
     subsection (a), transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means 
     and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate, a report on the actions taken under this section 
     during the 12 months preceding such report, and the reasons 
     for such actions, including a description of progress made in 
     achieving fair and equitable market access for United States 
     agricultural commodities.
       (b) Remedial Actions to Unfair trade Practices Involving 
     United States Agricultural Commodities, Livestock, and 
     Agricultural Products.--
       (1) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``section 183(a) or'' 
     after ``determines under'';
       (B) in subsection (b) by inserting ``section 183(a) or'' 
     after ``determines under'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``section; or'' and 
     inserting ``section;''
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``paragraph (4).'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (4); or''; and
       (iii) by adding a new subparagraph (E) that reads as 
     follows:
       ``(E) with respect to an investigation of a country 
     identified under section 183(a)--
       ``(I) take any action authorized under this subsection; and
       ``(II) to request that the Secretary of Agriculture target 
     the use of existing United States export programs that are 
     administered within the Department of Agriculture to the 
     commodity that is subject to the unfair trade practice by the 
     priority foreign country.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 182 the following:

``Sec. 183. Identification of Countries That Engage in Unfair Trade 
              Practices Affecting United States Agricultural 
              Commodities.''
       (d) Investigation Required.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     302(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)(A)) 
     is amended by inserting ``or 183(a)(2)'' after ``section 
     182(a)(2)'' in the matter preceding clause (i).
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (D) of section 302(b)(2) of such Act is 
     amended by inserting ``concerning intellectual property 
     rights that is'' after ``any investigation''.
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 304(a)(3) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (B) by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (iii); and
       (C) by inserting immediately after clause (iii) the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iv) the foreign country involved in the investigation is 
     making substantial progress in drafting or implementing 
     legislative or administrative measures that ensure the 
     country engages in fair and equitable trade practices 
     affecting United States agricultural commodities.''.

     SEC.8. REALLOCATION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, on or 
     about April 1 and July 1

[[Page S538]]

     of each fiscal year determine whether unobligated funds exist 
     out of funds made available for the fiscal year for the 
     Export Enhancement Program.
       (b) Transfer to Food Assistance.
       The Secretary may, on or about April 1 and July 1 of each 
     fiscal year, with respect to any unobligated funds identified 
     under subsection (a), apply the funds to--
       (1) one or more of the programs administered through Public 
     Law 480 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.);
       (2) the purchase of agricultural commodities for donation 
     through one of the programs administered through section 416 
     of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431); and
       (3) programs administered through Title II of the Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621-5641).
       (c) Use Within Same Fiscal Year. All funds identified under 
     subsection (a) shall be obligated within the same fiscal 
     year. Such funds may not be transferred under subsection (b) 
     in a fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of the 
     determination in subsection (a).
                                  ____


      Summary of the United States Agricultural Trade Act of 1999

       1. Goals for Trade Negotiations--United States objectives 
     for future multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations 
     affecting agriculture, including the World Trade Organization 
     (WTO), are to--increase market access for United States 
     agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-added 
     products, particularly for new products derived from 
     biotechnology; eliminate nontariff import barriers such as 
     quotas, discriminatory tariff-rate quotas, and unjustified 
     sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions; eliminate export 
     subsidies; eliminate trade-distorting practices of state 
     trading enterprises; enforce current WTO rules and develop 
     new rules that allow increased market access; and strengthen 
     rules for implementing WTO dispute panel decisions.
       2. Sanctions Reform--International trade in United States 
     agricultural commodities, livestock, value-added products, 
     and food assistance, are exempted from unilateral economic 
     sanctions imposed by the United States, if the transaction 
     entails commercial sales or humanitarian assistance involving 
     agricultural products.
       If the President determines that this exemption should not 
     apply to a current or future sanction because of foreign 
     policy or national security considerations, the President can 
     override the exemption. The President and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture must provide a report to Congress for each 
     sanction for which the President determines the exemption 
     should not apply.
       3. Congressional Agricultural Oversight Group--A 
     Congressional Oversight Group, made up of House and Senate 
     Agriculture Committee members, is established as a consulting 
     and advisory group with the United States Trade 
     Representative for future WTO and other multilateral and 
     bilateral trade negotiations.
       4. Food Assistance Resolution--A Sense of Congress 
     resolution regarding the monetization of agricultural 
     commodities in United States food assistance is included. The 
     1996 Farm Bill allowed such monetization. The resolution 
     states that monetization should occur only in the recipient 
     country or in adjacent countries, unless this is not 
     practicable.
       5. Super 301 for Agriculture--A procedure is established 
     within the Office of the United States Trade Representative 
     to identify countries that engage in unfair trade practices 
     against U.S. agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-
     added products. Unfair trade practices in this context are 
     discriminatory nontariff trade barriers, unfair export 
     subsidies, and refusal by a country to implement a decision 
     of a WTO dispute panel. This procedure parallels an 
     investigative procedure that exists in current U.S. trade law 
     for all U.S. products. If the Trade Representative makes such 
     a determination, the Trade Representative is authorized to 
     adopt remedies already provided in United States trade law, 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to target 
     the use of existing export programs within USDA to the 
     commodity that is subject to the unfair trade practice.
       6. Commodity Program Reallocation--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture, for each fiscal year, is given the discretion to 
     reallocate unobligated funds of the Export Enhancement 
     Program to one of the Public Law 480 food assistance 
     programs, the Food for Progress program, or one of the 
     section 416 commodity donation programs. All affected funds 
     must be obligated within the same fiscal year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 102. A bill to provide that the Secretary of the Senate and the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives shall include an estimate of 
Federal retirement benefits for each Member of Congress in their 
semiannual reports, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


            THE CONGRESSIONAL PENSION DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Congressional Pension Disclosure Act of 1999 which would require the 
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
to disclose information relating to the pensions of Members of 
Congress. This legislation would require these officers to include in 
their semiannual reports to Congress detailed information relating to 
the Members pensions. The semiannual reports would then be available to 
the public for inspection.
  The reports would include the individual pension contributions of 
Members; an estimate of annuities which they would receive based on the 
earliest possible date they would be eligible to receive annuity 
payments by reason of retirement; and any other information necessary 
to enable the public to accurately compute the Federal retirement 
benefits of each Member based on various assumptions of years of 
service and age of separation from service by reason of retirement.
  The purpose of this legislation is to afford citizens their rightful 
opportunity to learn how public funds are being utilized. The taxpayers 
are not only entitled to know the various forms of compensation their 
elected officials are being paid, they are also entitled to make 
decisions about the reasonableness of such compensation.
  My bill would make this information conveniently available to the 
public. I believe that this bill would eliminate the present shroud of 
secrecy which has surrounded the congressional pension system and give 
the public better access to information regarding their representatives 
in Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and section by section analysis 
be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 102

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

     SECTION 1. DISCLOSURE OF ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   BENEFITS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 105(a) of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 1965 (2 U.S.C. 104a; Public Law 88-454; 
     78 Stat. 550) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives shall include in each semiannual 
     report submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members 
     of Congress, as applicable--
       ``(A) the total amount of individual contributions made by 
     each Member to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
     Fund and the Thrift Savings Fund under chapters 83 and 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, for all Federal service 
     performed by the Member as a Member of Congress and as a 
     Federal employee;
       ``(B) an estimate of the annuity each Member would be 
     entitled to receive under chapters 83 and 84 of such title 
     based on the earliest possible date to receive annuity 
     payments by reason of retirement (other than disability 
     retirement) which begins after the date of expiration of the 
     term of office such Member is serving; and
       ``(C) any other information necessary to enable the public 
     to accurately compute the Federal retirement benefits of each 
     Member based on various assumptions of years of service and 
     age of separation from service by reason of retirement.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


Section-by-Section Analysis of The Congressional Pension Disclosure Act 
                                of 1999


 A bill to publicly disclose Federal retirement benefits of Members of 
                                Congress

     Section 1 (a). Amending legislation.
       This section provides that Section 105(a) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1965 is amended to 
     add the following new paragraph:
       ``The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives shall include in each semiannual report 
     submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members of 
     Congress, as applicable:''
     Section 1 (A). Contributions to retirement funds.
       The semiannual report would state the total amount of 
     contributions many by each Member to the Federal retirement 
     plans (FERS or CSRS) while they performed Federal service as 
     a Member of Congress and/or a Federal employee.
     Section 1 (B). Estimate of annuity.
       The semiannual report would include an estimate of the 
     annuity each member would be entitled to receive--based upon 
     the earliest possible date of retirement (other than 
     disability retirement). This would be calculated based upon 
     the expiration of the term of office the Member is serving.
     Section 1 (C). Additional information.
       Included in the semiannual report would be any additional 
     information that would help the public accurately compute the 
     Federal

[[Page S539]]

     retirement benefits of members based on years of service and 
     age of separation from service by reason of retirement.
     Section 1(b). Effective date.
       The bill would take effect 1 year after the date of 
     enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 103. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
eliminate the temporary increase in unemployment tax; to the Committee 
on Finance.


        legislation to repeal the temporary unemployment surtax

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to repeal 
the ``temporary'' 0.2 percent Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) surtax.
  The ``temporary'' surtax was enacted in 1976 by Congress to repay the 
general fund of the Treasury for funds borrowed by the unemployment 
trust fund. Although the borrowings were repaid in 1987, Congress has 
continued to extend the surtax in tax bill after tax bill.
  Since 1987, Congress has used extension of the surtax to help raise 
revenue to pay for tax packages. In fact, the surtax was most recently 
extended to help pay for the 1997 tax bill. The tax takes money out of 
the private economy for no valid reason.
  By repealing the surtax, Congress will honor a promise that it made 
when the surtax was first enacted. Small businesses were told 
repeatedly that the tax was temporary and would be repealed when it was 
no longer needed to finance the unemployment tax system. Clearly a tax 
is not temporary when it has already been in place for over twenty 
years. I would suggest at a minimum that if we are going to keep 
extending this tax, that we be honest with the American worker and 
small business owner and stop calling this tax ``temporary.''
  Based on the original purpose, the surtax is no longer needed. The 
economy is experiencing the highest level of employment in decades, and 
all state unemployment funds have surpluses. It is inappropriate for 
the government to continue to raise excess unemployment taxes and then 
use the surplus for purposes completely unrelated to unemployment.
  Repeal of the temporary unemployment surtax will also be beneficial 
to small businesses. The surtax is especially hard on the small 
businesses because they are often labor intensive. Any payroll tax is 
added directly to the employer's payroll costs. In fact, according to 
the National Federation of Independent Business, payroll taxes are the 
fastest growing federal tax burden on small business. It is also 
important to note that the payroll taxes must be paid whether the 
business experiences a profit or a loss.
  As a former small businessman myself, I am particularly aware of this 
fact. I suspect that my view is similar to the view of many small 
business owners. It is one thing to have a surtax when unemployment is 
high and the surtax is necessary. However, it is totally unjustified 
when unemployment is at the lowest level in three decades.
  Repeal of the 0.2 percent surtax will reduce the tax burden on 
employers and workers by $6 billion over the next five years.
  Lower payroll taxes mean higher wages for workers. Although the 
employer appears to fully pay for the unemployment surtax and other 
payroll taxes, the economic evidence is strong that the cost is 
actually passed to workers in the form of lower wages.
  Consistent tax relief will help to ensure that our economy remains 
the strongest and most vibrant in the world. Low taxes reduce 
unemployment and help ensure that future surtaxes are unnecessary.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, and 
several charts that demonstrate the surpluses in each state fund be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 103

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

     SECTION. 1 REPEAL OF TEMPORARY UNEMPLOYMENT TAX.

       Section 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to rate of unemployment tax) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2007'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``1999''; and
       (2) by striking ``2008'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``2000''.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 1998]

                                 FUTile

       The nation's secondary schools are gearing up to spend 
     several hundred million in federal grants on ``school to 
     work'' programs that purport to reduce youth unemployment. 
     Indeed, under the 1993 School to Work Act, federal and state 
     bureaucrats are running around the country like so many job 
     fairies ``creating'' employment with a wave of the 
     bureaucratic wand. If job growth is really what the 
     government is after though, we know a simpler way to achieve 
     it: kill off FUTA.
       Employers know FUTA as the 0.8% payroll tax they must pay 
     to Washington on the first $7,000 of every employee's wages. 
     But this ridiculous-sounding levy--the letters stand for 
     Federal Unemployment Tax Act--is more than just another 
     troubling mandate. It is an object lesson in how a federal 
     employment program can run amok.
       When lawmakers originally imposed the tax to build a 
     network of unemployment services in 1939, they were 
     responding to an extraordinary problem: joblessness ranged 
     close to 18%. Yet long after the Depression faded, FUTA 
     remained on the books.
       Like most other New Deal acronyms, FUTA achieved tax 
     immortality, surviving decades of prosperity. The mid-1970's' 
     spike in unemployment created an excuse to ``temporarily'' 
     increase FUTA rates. Needless to say, that increase was never 
     reversed. In-deed, the third largest tax hike in the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 1997 was an extension of a FUTA surtax to 2007. 
     Today, joblessness is at a historic low. Yet FUTA tax rates 
     are higher than they were in 1975, when unemployment was 
     8.5%.
       Then there's the question of what FUTA revenues actually 
     pay for. FUTA isn't supposed to do anything as useful as pay 
     unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off. 
     Employers are the ones who have to do that. No, FUTA money is 
     earmarked toward salaries for bureaucrats in state 
     unemployment offices. This is a dubious project in any era, 
     and an absurd one in a time of worker shortage like this one.
       And here's the kicker: Much of the FUTA money doesn't even 
     make it to these superfluous employment offices. Mark Wilson 
     of the Heritage Foundation found that little more than half 
     of the $6.1 billion in FUTA revenues collected in 1997 ended 
     up being spent on FUTA's official mandate. The rest of the 
     money went straight to the federal government's ``general 
     revenues,'' traded against Treasury IOUs. In other words, 
     right into the government's maw.
       Washington robs FUTA in the same way it steals money from 
     Social Security's trust fund till. As the years pass, of 
     course, the burgeoning economy is making FUTA an even better 
     cash machine. Today the FUTA trust fund contains $23.1 
     billion, about double what it held just three years ago. No 
     wonder lawmakers get all sanctimonious about FDR when the 
     topic of limiting FUTA comes up.
       This is a shame, since FUTA does indeed kill more jobs than 
     it finds. The FUTA tax, like Social Security, the minimum 
     wage, or other mandates, hits businesses on the margin, where 
     additional work is created. In times of downsizing, as we saw 
     in the early 1990s, these bugaboos drive layoffs.
       The National Federation of Independent Business, a small 
     business lobby, lists FUTA as one of the big employment 
     burdens. FUTA also punishes workers who do have jobs, since 
     employers pass along the costs to them in the form of lower 
     wages. Sen. Wayne Allard (R., Colo.) has put forward 
     legislation to pare FUTA. It is a reform long past due.
                                  ____


                    STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION SYSTEM RESERVES AND RATIO OF RESERVES TO TOTAL WAGES BY STATE AND YEAR, 1991-1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Net reserves as of Dec. 31 of each year (thousands)          Ratio of year-end reserves to total wages
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------                  (percent)
                 State                                                                                      --------------------------------------------
                                             1995         1994         1993          1992          1991        1995     1994     1993     1992     1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................     $534,470     $551,842     $570,118      $550,280      $585,725      1.61     1.77     1.94     1.96     2.24
Alaska.................................      201,017      210,563      232,911       232,320       243,155      3.56     3.81     4.32     4.57     4.98
Arizona................................      534,640      432,449      368,782       372,423       437,667      1.48     1.33     1.26     1.36     1.71
Arkansas...............................      200,866      169,795      134,432        81,340       103,629      1.12     1.02     0.87     0.55     0.76
California.............................    2,104,220    2,092,695    2,450,402     2,786,713     4,190,197      0.68     0.72     0.87     0.99     1.52
Colorado...............................      480,582      434,482      390,435       339,246       312,036      1.22     1.21     1.15     1.10     1.09
Connecticut............................      116,692        3,311        1,062      (653,215)     (353,767)     0.27     0.01     0.00     0.00     0.00
Delaware...............................      271,807      244,013      225,943       218,719       223,685      3.24     3.14     3.05     3.04     3.20

[[Page S540]]

 
District of Columbia...................       68,636       41,141        5,937       (19,286)       12,465      0.57     0.35     0.05     0.00     0.12
Florida................................    1,806,432    1,621,614    1,505,570     1,443,603     1,691,814      1.53     1.47     1.45     1.47     1.84
Georgia................................    1,453,118    1,281,507    1,094,999       965,870       962,324      2.03     1.95     1.79     1.68     1.81
Hawaii.................................      213,496      232,859      310,155       362,123       420,991      2.07     2.26     3.01     3.57     4.39
Idaho..................................      243,090      245,096      247,823       240,141       243,573      2.88     3.14     3.49     3.67     4.09
Illinois...............................    1,629,210    1,247,066      851,918       847,622     1,172,283      1.22     0.99     0.71     0.74     1.08
Indiana................................    1,228,070    1,132,343    1,024,658       941,632       899,139      2.16     2.11     2.05     1.99     2.02
Iowa...................................      725,149      708,450      655,066       615,474       594,626      3.10     3.23     3.20     3.16     3.27
Kansas.................................      704,008      735,717      658,053       605,827       571,904      2.77     3.20     3.03     2.89     2.91
Kentucky...............................      470,826      425,682      402,311       364,287       357,940      1.61     1.55     1.57     1.49     1.58
Louisiana..............................    1,003,378      868,819      689,382       600,917       559,975      3.15     2.92     2.47     2.22     2.15
Maine..................................       95,289       74,621       51,403        35,108        77,553      1.06     0.87     0.62     0.44     1.01
Maryland...............................      605,415      408,994      219,071       145,839       224,970      1.36     0.96     0.54     0.37     0.59
Massachusetts..........................      527,273      184,933     (115,987)     (379,918)     (234,742)     0.70     0.26     0.00     0.00     0.00
Michigan...............................    1,497,688      866,906      364,530       (72,492)     (166,509)     1.45     0.90     0.42     0.00     0.00
Minnesota..............................      459,621      369,776      257,584       224,091       309,473      0.94     0.80     0.59     0.54     0.80
Mississippi............................      551,318      490,392      410,259       345,352       348,593      3.19     2.98     2.74     2.48     2.69
Missouri...............................      196,933      118,466       (7,749)        3,101       199,473      0.40     0.26     0.00    0.001     0.30
Montana................................      122,242      110,910      104,415        96,370        91,119      2.08     1.95     1.91     1.87     1.91
Nebraska...............................      194,283      188,365      171,938       160,713       146,184      1.45     1.51     1.49     1.46     1.42
Nevada.................................      297,866      289,804      238,398       233,667       295,919      1.69     1.70     1.68     1.79     2.46
New Hampshire..........................      250,884      211,580      164,455       129,582       127,995      2.25     2.06     1.71     1.38     1.46
New Jersey.............................    1,987,790    1,947,033    1,965,236     2,439,970     2,564,278      2.06     2.12     2.23     2.86     3.16
New Mexico.............................      354,874      317,264      271,194       238,999       220,932      3.25     3.13     2.91     2.77     2.73
New York...............................      248,978      190,467      129,409       213,914     1,191,450      0.12     0.10     0.07     0.12     0.69
North Carolina.........................    1,531,117    1,555,329    1,514,674     1,387,170     1,373,719      2.27     2.49     2.60     2.52     2.70
North Dakota...........................       57,415       58,641       56,267        50,306        50,914      1.41     1.55     1.59     1.51     1.64
Ohio...................................    1,600,533    1,166,837      845,054       602,464       647,410      1.46     1.13     0.88     0.65     0.74
Oklahoma...............................      521,683      474,866      437,800       418,907       426,398      2.32     2.21     2.13     2.10     2.24
Oregon.................................      905,985      994,533    1,096,695     1,054,524     1,043,810      3.21     3.86     4.63     4.71     4.98
Pennsylvania...........................    1,914,777    1,518,999    1,105,425       807,828     1,155,988      1.78     1.48     1.12     0.84     1.26
Puerto Rico............................      634,291      674,663      730,873       749,255       750,020      6.71     7.54     8.39     9.05     9.64
Rhode Island...........................      110,086      119,262      119,294       104,498       143,617      1.33     1.51     1.56     1.41     2.03
South Carolina.........................      556,650      502,237      467,494       433,442       455,097      1.84     1.79     1.77     1.73     1.92
South Dakota...........................       51,622       51,208       49,773        50,416        49,701      1.09     1.16     1.23     1.34     1.45
Tennessee..............................      822,821      747,477      672,261       603,130       612,653      1.66     1.62     1.58     1.50     1.67
Texas..................................      584,866      480,322      445,633       586,472       942,734      0.34     0.30     0.30     0.41     0.69
Utah...................................      468,030      411,411      366,524       342,146       327,893      2.93     2.86     2.82     2.83     2.96
Vermont................................      206,720      195,418      183,025       180,730       192,675      4.51     4.51     4.37     4.49     5.05
Virginia...............................      788,787      658,588      553,441       506,641       591,166      1.27     1.13     1.01     0.97     1.19
Virgin Islands.........................       40,064       40,843       51,575        47,416        43,241      6.86     6.67     6.60     7.32     7.31
Washington.............................    1,417,701    1,565,417    1,743,146     1,766,006     1,707,604      2.93     3.45     4.05     4.18     4.40
West Virginia..........................      164,036      161,671      154,512       140,517       157,124      1.44     1.47     1.49     1.38     1.62
Wisconsin..............................    1,503,641    1,400,119    1,241,918     1,194,553     1,171,822      3.06     3.03     2.87     2.90     3.07
Wyoming................................      142,310      136,755      127,332       109,826        98,952      4.22     4.15     4.08     3.71     3.48
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................   35,403,296   31,343,551   28,187,816    27,111,772    31,494,605      1.40     1.32     1.25     1.25     1.49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference between detail and totals due to rounding 1995 data subject to revision. Ratio of reserves to wages not calculated for States with negative
  balances.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Prepared by the National Foundation for U.C. & W.C., June 1997.


                                 FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY STATE FOR CY96.4, 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Revenue (12   TF Balance               Total loans
                     State                         mos) (in       (in       Mos. in TF      (in       Loans/cov.
                                                  thousands)   thousands)                thousands)    employee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................      134,029      483,472         27.3            0         0.00
Alaska.........................................      109,089      194,188         19.8            0         0.00
Arizona........................................      223,143      627,059         46.3            0         0.00
Arkansas.......................................      169,670      202,784         13.0            0         0.00
California.....................................    3,590,823    2,877,452         11.7            0         0.00
Colorado.......................................      187,897      510,956         32.5            0         0.00
Connecticut....................................      592,538      277,861          7.4            0         0.00
Delaware.......................................       68,409      258,468         31.9            0         0.00
Dist. of Colum.................................      133,380       99,368         12.2            0         0.00
Florida........................................      677,796    1,947,557         35.2            0         0.00
Georgia........................................      382,294    1,634,073         67.0            0         0.00
Hawaii.........................................      179,540      211,267         13.3            0         0.00
Idaho..........................................      105,900      266,228         32.1            0         0.00
Illinois.......................................    1,199,050    1,638,560         15.2            0         0.00
Indiana........................................      238,343    1,273,086         58.0            0         0.00
Iowa...........................................      133,905      718,845         45.9            0         0.00
Kansas.........................................       42,487      651,074         52.6            0         0.00
Kentucky.......................................      234,997      501,304         25.7            0         0.00
Louisiana......................................      204,469    1,131,052         94.7            0         0.00
Maine..........................................      122,601      112,122         12.5            0         0.00
Maryland.......................................      421,722      690,786         22.9            0         0.00
Massachusetts..................................    1,130,136      914,631         14.0            0         0.00
Michigan.......................................    1,233,803    1,830,928         21.8            0         0.00
Minnesota......................................      386,523      513,033         16.4            0         0.00
Mississippi....................................       99,520      553,222         50.0            0         0.00
Missouri.......................................      381,576      307,507         12.8            0         0.00
Montana........................................       58,841      125,900         24.9            0         0.00
Nebraska.......................................       41,748      195,210         44.8            0         0.00
Nevada.........................................      177,064      348,278         28.6            0         0.00
New Hampshire..................................       41,781      268,011         91.7            0         0.00
New Jersey.....................................    1,448,896    2,028,818         13.1            0         0.00
New Mexico.....................................       85,729      385,531         59.6            0         0.00
New York.......................................    2,211,440      470,400          2.8            0         0.00
North Carolina.................................      113,075    1,355,565         39.6            0         0.00
North Dakota...................................       24,364       50,072         19.1            0         0.00
Ohio...........................................      781,640    1,750,968         28.8            0         0.00
Oklahoma.......................................      128,728      563,895         64.3            0         0.00
Oregon.........................................      384,046      941,419         28.9            0         0.00
Pennsylvania...................................    1,612,406    2,031,947         14.9            0         0.00
Puerto Rico....................................      149,262      595,703         31.8            0         0.00
Rhode Island...................................      184,004      116,240          7.4            0         0.00
South Carolina.................................      208,829      603,410         36.2            0         0.00
South Dakota...................................       12,291       49,542         39.9            0         0.00
Tennessee......................................      284,220      826,526         30.8            0         0.00
Texas..........................................    1,014,460      642,233          7.7            0         0.00
Utah...........................................       96,262      523,880         89.2            0         0.00
Vermont........................................       48,595      218,259         49.5            0         0.00
Virginia.......................................      260,890      897,198         55.4            0         0.00
Virgin Islands.................................        9,345       42,069         51.5            0         0.00
Washington.....................................      644,606    1,332,508         19.7            0         0.00
West Virginia..................................      130,182      157,345         12.8            0         0.00

[[Page S541]]

 
Wisconsin......................................      445,248    1,556,922         37.2            0         0.00
Wyoming........................................       28,401      147,087         54.0            0         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY STATE FOR CYQ, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Revenues,                   TF as
                                     last 12     TF balance   percent of
              State                 months (in      (in      total wages
                                    thousands)   thousands)      \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................     $140,978     $451,425         1.21
Alaska...........................      131,645      202,416         3.46
Arizona..........................      224,651      741,050         1.70
Arkansas.........................      183,101      204,319         1.03
California.......................    3,367,845    3,737,815         1.05
Colorado.........................      198,748      574,413         1.22
Connecticut......................      637,125      532,692         1.06
Delaware.........................       75,692      279,173         2.86
District of Col..................      132,481      135,627         0.94
Florida..........................      685,668    2,090,222         1.55
Georgia..........................      350,964    1,797,102         2.13
Hawaii...........................      186,510      216,658         2.04
Idaho............................       99,412      280,382         3.00
Illinois.........................    1,226,328    1,742,968         1.16
Indiana..........................      268,016    1,362,463         2.15
Iowa.............................      144,156      727,327         2.79
Kansas...........................       46,633      606,735         2.16
Kentucky.........................      269,075      571,366         1.71
Louisiana........................      213,963    1,275,668         3.55
Maine............................      118,089      136,019         1.35
Maryland.........................      349,967      720,552         1.42
Massachusetts....................    1,222,144    1,446,164         1.64
Michigan.........................    1,184,719    2,222,714         1.93
Minnesota........................      398,707      564,628         0.98
Mississippi......................      166,992      563,901         2.95
Missouri.........................      381,802      417,706         0.75
Montana..........................       65,306      135,604         2.11
Nebraska.........................       57,932      205,727         1.33
Nevada...........................      224,837      387,888         1.79
New Hampshire....................       26,426      278,296         2.16
New Jersey.......................    1,459,837    2,384,916         2.21
New Mexico.......................       99,244      431,159         3.61
New York.........................    2,402,806      990,176         0.43
North Carolina...................      253,942    1,301,184         1.67
North Dakota.....................       26,246       38,057         0.83
Ohio.............................      719,622    1,874,943         1.53
Oklahoma.........................      107,585      608,942         2.36
Oregon...........................      462,961    1,068,843         3.13
Pennsylvania.....................    1,587,542    2,253,703         1.87
Puerto Rico......................      203,816      586,659         5.30
Rhode Island.....................      248,423      160,044         1.78
South Carolina...................      219,733      687,060         2.02
South Dakota.....................       14,186       48,939         0.91
Tennessee........................      296,749      847,842         1.52
Texas............................    1,014,596      706,577         0.35
Utah.............................       97,876      572,849         2.97
Vermont..........................       50,047      233,537         4.59
Virgin Islands...................        7,693       45,434         6.82
Virginia.........................      222,448      979,376         1.35
Washington.......................      810,440    1,447,195         2.42
West Virginia....................      139,030      165,917         1.37
Wisconsin........................      475,595    1,632,214         2.95
Wyoming..........................       31,217      158,573         4.26
                                  --------------------------------------
United States....................   23,731,544   43,833,157         1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on estimated wages for the most recent 12 months.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 105. A bill to deauthorize certain portions of the project for 
navigation, Bass Harbor, Maine, to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 106. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
to deauthorize the remainder of the project at East Boothbay Harbor, 
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 107. A bill to deauthorize the project for navigation, Boothbay 
Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 108. A bill to modify, and to deauthorize certain portions of, the 
project for navigation at Wells Harbor, Maine; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


    legislation to deauthorize certain portions of the project for 
                    navigation in the state of maine

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for 
their support in the last Congress for my legislation on behalf of the 
towns of Tremont and East Boothbay, Maine, which passed the Senate in 
the 105th Congress. S. 1531 sought to deauthorize certain portions of 
the navigational project for Bass Harbor, and S. 1532 sought to 
deauthorize the final portions of East Boothbay Harbor.
  I also want to thank my colleagues for their support and Senate 
passage of the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1998, or WRDA, which not only included these two stand alone bills, 
but also contained legislation that deauthorized the Federal Navigation 
Project area within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. The 
town's representatives had voted unanimously to request this 
deauthorization of the FNP area.
  Also, WRDA was amended on the floor to add language that would allow 
for the dredging of Wells Harbor. After many contentious years, this 
important federal project is set to go forward because a historic 
Memorandum of Agreement was reached amongst the town of Wells, the Save 
our Shores Wells coalition, the Wells Chamber of Commerce and the Maine 
Audubon Society.
  Bass Harbor has the greatest concentration of fishing boats on Mt. 
Desert Island and all mooring spaces are currently full, with a long 
waiting list to obtain future moorings. When the townspeople approached 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit for expansion, they 
were told that no improvements could be made until the federal project 
area boundary was moved to the proper location by legislative action. I 
am happy to do this on their behalf. The Selectmen, Town Manager, and 
Harbor Committee will not be working with the Corps and the State in 
anticipation of having the harbor dredged, which last occurred in 1966, 
so that they may make space available for more and larger boats.
  The bill for East Boothbay Harbor deauthorize the remainder of the 
federal navigational project at Boothbay Harbor. The current marina 
owners purchased the former shipbuilding yard in East Boothbay in 1993 
and have since turned it into a full service marina. In the process of 
getting all the permits together for further economic development, the 
marina discovered that parts of the harbor, while no longer used as 
such, were still deemed a federal navigation project created back in 
1913, when mine sweepers and other ships were being built there for 
World War I. Because part of the federal navigation project is still 
considered active, the Corps told the town that nothing could be done 
in the water until the entire area was deauthorized. My bill takes care 
of this final deauthorization, the rest of which was accomplished in 
the last reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act, but 
the coordinates were ultimately found to be inaccurate. This 
legislation, with the assistance of the Corps, addresses that small 
section still requiring deauthorization.

  The Town of Boothbay Harbor, Maine has requested legislation be 
enacted that will deauthorize the Federal Navigation Project area 
within the limits of Boothbay Harbor's inner harbor. To this end, I am 
introducing a bill, drafted with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, and approved unanimously by the town's representatives.
  I am also introducing legislation to address the dredging of Wells 
Harbor, which will deepen and maintain the harbor and, at the same 
time, protect an important federal wildlife refuge. The language, which 
was also included in the Senate passed WRDA of 1998, gives the Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) the authority to proceed with the project. 
The dredging of this federal project, contentious since 1988 because of 
concerns from environmental groups, is now set to go forward because of 
a historic Memorandum of Agreement that has been reached amongst the 
community and town officials, and the Maine Audubon Society. 
Interestingly, approximately 185,000 cubic yards of the sand to be 
dredged will be used to nourish adjacent eroding beaches in the town of 
Wells, so the project is a win-win situation for all concerned.
  My stand alone bill, which will also once again be incorporated into 
WRDA, will allow the Corps to conduct maintenance dredging in Wells 
Harbor based on a design capacity for the harbor of 150 vessels, of 
which approximately 10 percent are commercial fishing boats. A small 
craft fleet of 150 is the original congressionally authorized design 
capacity for the harbor, and was a crucial part of the Agreement.
  In addition, all parties to the settlement have agreed to a 
modification of the federal project, requiring Congressional action, 
that would realign and redesignate the existing federal channel, 
anchorage, and realign with the harbor settling basin, so as to 
maximize the use of the natural channels in the harbor for navigation 
and anchorage purposes. This will eliminate the impact of dredging on 
the intertidal

[[Page S542]]

sand bar, which is considered to be the geologically stabilizing force 
for the estuary. The language, drafted with Corps assistance, will 
create a new settling basin in the outer harbor, relocate the inner 
harbor channel to the east side of the harbor, and redesignate portions 
of the current channel and settling basin as anchorage.
  The State of Maine issued water quality certification and coastal 
zone management consistency in November of 1998, conditioned on the 
project modifications in my legislation and that were passed by the 
Senate in the WRDA of 1998.
  Another critical component of the Agreement for all the parties is 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's request, also supported by the 
Maine Audubon Society, that the Corps expand the area covered by the 
bathymetric survey work that it will already be conducting as part of 
the monitoring program for the harbor. The State and the parties have 
agreed that the additional survey will provide important and useful 
information about the erosional impacts of dredging in the harbor. I 
have asked the Corps to make a good faith effort to honor this request.
  Again, I congratulate the parties in the state for what I realize is 
a fragile Agreement and wish to help bring this long standing matter to 
the best conclusion possible both for the economy of the town of Wells 
and the environment of the harbor, the Rachael Carson Wildlife Refuge 
nearby and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, in which the 
harbor lies.
  I want to thank Senator Chafee and his Environment and Public Works 
Committee for their work for successful Senate passage for these bills 
in the last Congress. When passed again by the Senate and by the 
House--and signed into law--the legislation will allow the Maine towns 
involved to get on with much needed harbor economic development and 
dredging.
  I once again thank my colleagues and ask for their continued support 
for passage of these bills, and I especially want to urge the House to 
also move forward on WRDA reauthorization. One project in one district 
in one state should not hold up the passage of this important 
legislation as was the situation last year. This legislation will help 
the economy of small towns in Maine--and many other lotions around the 
country--who desperately need harbor reauthorization or dredging.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Cleland):
  S. 109. A bill to improve protection and management of the 
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


     CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARIES LEGISLATION

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which 
would modify the boundaries of the Chattahoochee River National 
Recreation Area to protect and preserve the endangered Chattahoochee 
River and provide additional recreation opportunities for the citizens 
of Georgia and our nation. This legislation authorizes the creation of 
a greenway buffer between the river and private development to prevent 
further pollution, provide flood and erosion control, and maintain 
water quality for safe drinking water and for the fish and wildlife 
dependent on the river system. In addition, this legislation promotes 
private-public partnerships by authorizing $25 million in federal funds 
for land acquisition for the recreation area. The $25 million will be 
matched by private funds. The State of Georgia, private foundations, 
corporate entities, private individuals, and others have already given 
or pledged tens of millions of dollars to protect and preserve the 
Chattahoochee River for future generations of Georgians to enjoy.
  I would like to thank Senator Cleland for co-sponsoring this 
important legislation and supporting my efforts to protect one of 
Georgia's most vital natural resources. I believe it is crucial for 
Congress to act quickly on this legislation in order to protect the 
Chattahoochee River from any further development and environmental 
damage. I look forward to working with Senator Cleland and my other 
colleagues in the Senate on this important proposal and urge its speedy 
consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 110. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide medical assistance for breast and cervical cancer-related 
treatment services to certain women screened and found to have breast 
or cervical cancer under a federally-funded screening program; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this evening, the President of 
the United States will speak to the 106th Congress and the country in 
his annual State of the Union address. As distracted as we 
appropriately are by the Senate trial of the President, it is 
nevertheless my hope that the Senate, by the conclusion of the 106th 
Congress, will have enacted a strong bipartisan agenda reflecting 
several core principles. First, we must ensure that our public 
education system provides a high-quality, safe learning environment for 
all children; second, we must help working families save for the 
future; and third, we must support policies that increase access to 
health care services and improve the quality of health care in this 
nation.
  With respect to the third principle, I rise today to introduce the 
``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999'', legislation that 
my former colleague, Senator D'Amato from New York, proposed in the 
105th Congress. Last year, this legislation received bipartisan support 
in the Senate with 35 cosponsors, and 113 cosponsors in the House of 
Representatives, demonstrating our commitment to improving the health 
and lives of low-income women in the United States.
  Mr. President, whether we stand here as fathers, husbands, brothers 
or sons, mothers, daughters, sisters or grandchildren, we all know 
someone, a family member or a friend, who has experienced the 
devastating emotional and physical effects of breast or cervical 
cancer. In my state of Oregon, more than 28,000 women are living with 
breast cancer. In 1999, 500 women will die of breast cancer, and 200 
women will die of cervical cancer. In an age of advancing technology 
and improved mammography, this is unacceptable, and unbelievable. We 
can and must do a better job for the women most at risk in this 
country.
  The legislation I am introducing today, gives us an opportunity to 
expand upon an existing program that was enacted by Congress in 1990. 
The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act created a 
breast and cervical cancer screening program for low-income and 
uninsured women, and women of racial and ethnic minority populations 
throughout the United States. In its eighth year at the Centers for 
Disease Control (CDC) more than 1.3 million screening tests for breast 
and cervical cancer were provided. The CDC estimates that if such 
services were available to all women at risk, 15-20 percent of all 
deaths from breast cancer among women over 40 could have been 
prevented.
  Recognizing the success of this screening program, the only question 
that remains is the availability of treatment. For a low-income or 
uninsured woman, a diagnosis of breast or cervical cancer means that 
the fight has just begun. Without adequate coverage for treatment, 
women in this program are left to find their own coverage or rely upon 
public hospitals or charity organizations. At Oregon Health Sciences 
University (OHSU), physicians are working overtime to treat patients 
and are facing limited budgets with which to provide services.
  Mr. President, when a woman is diagnosed with cancer, there should be 
no question of whether she will be treated; rather, the answer should 
be ``Absolutely, as soon as possible,'' not ``How do you intend to pay 
for the treatment?''
  The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 1999 seeks to expand 
upon the CDC screening program--with an emphasis on continuity of 
care--by giving states the option of providing Medicaid coverage for 
breast and cervical cancer treatment services to women who have been 
diagnosed through the CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening program. 
With this legislation, a woman who is diagnosed through the CDC 
screening program would no longer have to worry about where to find 
treatment; the treatment

[[Page S543]]

would be available to her upon diagnosis, by familiar physicians, in 
familiar surroundings.
  Mr. President, this is not an issue of costs; it's an issue of 
compassion. It is an opportunity to say ``yes, we're here to help'' to 
the women in our lives who need our help the most. I believe that this 
bill creates a new beginning not only for families of the women who are 
and who will be fighting cancer in their lives, but for us as 
legislators as we face a new millennium. I urge my colleagues to say 
yes by joining me in this opportunity to set a new standard in the way 
we meet the health care needs of women in this country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Leahy, and 
        Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 113. A bill to increase the criminal penalties for assaulting or 
threatening Federal judges, their family members, and other public 
servants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the federal judiciary protection act of 1999

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, 
Senators Thurmond, Leahy, and Jeffords, to introduce the Federal 
Judiciary Protection Act of 1999, a bill to provide greater protection 
to Federal law enforcement officials and their families. Last year, 
this legislation received strong bipartisan support and passed the 
Senate by Unanimous Consent on November 9, 1997. I intend to work with 
my colleagues and the members of the Judiciary Committee to ensure that 
this bill becomes public law this year.
  Former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles once stated that ``Of 
all the tasks of government, the most basic is to protect its citizens 
against violence.'' I believe that the Federal Judiciary Protection Act 
of 1999 gives us that very opportunity to strengthen those laws that 
deter violence and provide protection to those whose careers are 
dedicated to protecting our communities and our families.
  Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts to assault, or who 
threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a 
United States official, a United States judge or a Federal law 
enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or 
imprisonment of up to five years, or both. This legislation seeks to 
expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a 
prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 
20 years in prison.
  Importantly, this legislation would also strengthen the penalties for 
individuals who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, 
individuals who knowingly use the United States Postal Service to 
deliver any communication containing any threat are subject to a fine 
of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to five years. Under this 
legislation, anyone who communicates a threat could face imprisonment 
of up to ten years.
  Emphasizing the need for this legislation, are the experiences of 
Oregon's own Chief Judge Michael Hogan and his family. They were 
subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, letters and messages 
from an individual who had been convicted of previous crimes in Judge 
Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his family lived with the fear 
that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become 
reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out 
on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years.
  Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In April, 1997, the wife of 
a Circuit Court judge in Florida was stalked by an individual who had 
been convicted of similar offense in 1994 and 1995. In this instance, 
the judge's wife was leaving a shopping mall one afternoon, and as she 
left the parking lot, realized that she was being followed. In an 
attempt to lose her pursuer, she took alternative routes, speeding 
through residential streets. In a desperate attempt, she cut in front 
of a semitrailer truck, risking a serious accident and possible loss of 
life, to escape. Even after his third offense, stalking the wife of a 
Circuit Court judge, her pursuer has been sentence to only six months 
of probation and $150 in fines and the court costs.
  Mr. President, these are two examples of vicious acts focused at our 
Federal law enforcement officials and their families. As a member of 
the legislative branch, I believe that it is our responsibility to 
provide adequate protection to all Americans who serve to protect the 
life and liberty of every citizen in this nation. I encourage my 
colleagues to join us in sponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Gordon Smith in 
introducing the Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 1999. In the last 
Congress, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly identical legislation 
introduced by Senator Smith, which unanimously passed the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and the Senate but was not acted upon by the House 
of Representatives. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his continued 
leadership in protecting our Federal judiciary.
  Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to 
Federal judges, law enforcement officers and their families. 
Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term 
for forcible assaults, resistance, opposition, intimidation or 
interference with a Federal judge or law enforcement officer from 3 
years imprisonment to 8 years; increase the maximum prison term for use 
of a deadly weapon or infliction of bodily injury against a Federal 
judge or law enforcement officer from 10 years imprisonment to 20 
years; and increase the maximum prison term for threatening murder or 
kidnaping of a member of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law 
enforcement officer from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It has the 
support of the Department of Justice, the United States Judicial 
Conference, the United States Sentencing Commission and the United 
States Marshal Service.
  It is most troubling that the greatest democracy in the world needs 
this legislation to protect the hard working men and women who serve in 
our Federal judiciary and other law enforcement agencies. But, 
unfortunately, we are seeing more violence and threats of violence 
against officials of our Federal government.
  Recently, for example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois was 
firebombed, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This follows the 
horrible tragedy of the bombing of the federal office building in 
Oklahoma City in 1995. In my home state during the summer of 1997, a 
Vermont border patrol officer, John Pfeiffer, was seriously wounded by 
Carl Drega, during a shootout with Vermont and New Hampshire law 
enforcement officers in which Drega lost his life. Earlier that day; 
Drega shot and killed two state troopers and a local judge in New 
Hampshire. Apparently, Drega was bent on settling a grudge against the 
judge who had ruled against him in a land dispute.
  I had a chance to visit John Pfeiffer in the hospital and met his 
wife and young daughter. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to 
work along the Vermont border. As a federal law enforcement officer, 
Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our 
bill.
  There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking 
the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge or 
law enforcement officer. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service is concerned 
with more and more threats of harm to our judges and law enforcement 
officers.
  The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the 
judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the 
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives has been quoted as 
saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not 
behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this 
official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal 
official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal 
judges in the eyes of the public.
  Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate 
and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve 
within it with the respect that is essential to preserving its public 
standing.
  We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people 
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence 
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability 
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary

[[Page S544]]

that has for so long protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and 
served as a necessary check on overreaching by the other two branches, 
those more susceptible to the gusts of the political winds of the 
moment.
  We are fortunate to have dedicated women and men throughout the 
Federal Judiciary and law enforcement in this country who do a 
tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They are examples of the 
hard-working public servants that make up the federal government, who 
are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. It is unfortunate that 
it takes acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the Federal 
Judiciary and other law enforcement officials, to remind everyone that 
these are people with children and parents and cousins and friends. 
They deserve our respect and our protection.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act 
of 1999 and look forward to its swift enactment into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 114. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
revise and extend certain programs relating to the education of 
individuals as health professionals, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


    physical therapy and occupational therapy education act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Physical and 
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999. This legislation will 
increase educational opportunities for physical therapy and 
occupational therapy practitioners in order to meet the growing demand 
for the valuable services they provide in our communities.
  In its most recent report, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) projected that the demand for services provided by 
physical therapists will increase dramatically over the next decade. 
According to the BLS statistics, the increase in demand for these 
services will create a need for 81,000 additional therapists, an 80% 
increase over 1994 figures.
  The BLS also predicts an increased demand for occupational 
therapists. According to the BLS, by the year 2005, the increase in 
demand will create a need for 39,000 additional occupational 
therapists, a 72% increase over 1994 figures.
  Several factors contribute to the present need for federal support in 
this area. The rapid aging of our nations' population, the demands of 
the AIDs crisis, increasing emphasis on health promotion and disease 
prevention, and the growth of home health care have exceeded our 
ability to educate an adequate number of physical therapy and 
occupational therapy practitioners. In addition, technological advances 
are allowing injured and disabled individuals to survive conditions 
that, in past years, would have proven fatal.
  America's inability to educate an adequate number of physical 
therapists has led to an increased reliance on foreign-educated, non-
immigrant temporary workers (H-1B visa holders). The U.S. Commission on 
Immigration Reform has identified physical therapy and occupational 
therapy as having the highest number of H-1B visa holders in the U.S., 
second only to computer specialists. While the INS does not categorize 
occupational therapy as a separate profession when tracking H-1B visa 
entrants, the National Board of Certification in Occupational Therapy 
documents that the percentage of newly certified occupational 
therapists who are foreign graduates has risen from 3% in 1985 to more 
than 20% in 1995.
  The legislation I introduce today would provide necessary assistance 
to physical and occupational therapy programs throughout the country. 
In awarding grants, preference would be given to applicants seeking to 
educate and train practitioners at clinical sites in medically 
underserved communities.
  In addition to the shortage of practitioners, the current shortage of 
physical therapy and occupational therapy faculty impedes the expansion 
of established programs. The critical shortage of doctoral-prepared 
occupational therapists and physical therapists has resulted in an 
almost nonexistent pool of potential faculty. Presently, there are 117 
faculty vacancies among 131 accredited physical therapy programs in the 
U.S. Similiarily, during the 1995-1996 academic year there were 51 
faculty vacancies among 85 accredited professional level occupational 
therapy programs. The legislation I introduce today would assist in the 
development of a pool of qualified faculty by giving preference to 
applicants seeking to develop and expand post professional programs for 
the advanced training of physical and occupational therapists.
  The investment we make through passage of the Physical Therapy and 
Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999 will help reduce America's 
dependence on foreign labor and create highly-skilled, high-wage 
employment opportunities for American citizens. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in Congress to enact this important 
legislation.
  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. 114

       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 ``Physical Therapy and 
     Occupational Therapy Education Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended by the Health Professions Education 
     Partnerships Act of 1998, is amended by inserting after 
     section 769, the following:

     ``SEC. 769A. PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, programs of physical therapy and 
     occupational therapy for the purpose of planning and 
     implementing projects to recruit and retain faculty and 
     students, develop curriculum, support the distribution of 
     physical therapy and occupational therapy practitioners in 
     underserved areas, or support the continuing development of 
     these professions.
       ``(b) Preference in Making Grants.--In making grants under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to 
     qualified applicants that seek to educate physical therapists 
     or occupational therapists in rural or urban medically 
     underserved communities, or to expand post-professional 
     programs for the advanced education of physical therapy or 
     occupational therapy practitioners.
       ``(c) Peer Review.--Each peer review group under section 
     798(a) that is reviewing proposals for grants or contracts 
     under subsection (a) shall include not fewer than 2 physical 
     therapists or occupational therapists.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare a report 
     that--
       ``(A) summarizes the applications submitted to the 
     Secretary for grants or contracts under subsection (a);
       ``(B) specifies the identity of entities receiving the 
     grants or contracts; and
       ``(C) evaluates the effectiveness of the program based upon 
     the objectives established by the entities receiving the 
     grants or contracts.
       ``(2) Date certain for submission.--Not later than February 
     1, 2001, the Secretary shall submit the report prepared under 
     paragraph (1) to the Committee on Commerce and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2003.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 115. A bill to require that health plans provide coverage for a 
minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissection for 
the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary 
consultations; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


              Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, I rise today to introduce the Women's 
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999. We supported this bill in the 
105th Congress when it was championed by my friend, the Senator from 
New York, Mr. D'Amato, and we are reaffirming our support for this 
important issue by reintroducing this bill today. Last year we did make 
some progress on this bill as one piece--requiring insurance companies 
to cover reconstructive surgery was included in the final Omnibus 
spending bill enacted into law last October.
  This bill is about doing what's best for women facing the crisis of a 
cancer diagnosis and a potential mastectomy. Because right now some 
women are

[[Page S545]]

being denied the best health care available. That is simply not 
acceptable in a country of such vast medical resources.
  This year, millions of Americans will face the possibility of a 
cancer diagnosis, and 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast 
cancer. Our bill provides women with breast cancer and all Americans 
facing a cancer diagnosis with some basic protections.
  First, it ensures that doctors are not pressured by health plans to 
release mastectomy patients before it is medically appropriate. 
Currently, some insurers have guidelines recommending that mastectomies 
be performed on an outpatient basis. A mastectomy is a very complicated 
surgical procedure and complications can arise as a result. Sending a 
woman home immediately after the surgery is not always the right thing 
to do. They may not have the information they need nor, more 
importantly, the care. We want to make sure--and this bill will--that 
the decisions are made in the context of the medical well being of the 
patient as opposed to being made by an insurance company bureaucrat.
  This decision must be returned to physicians and their patients. The 
physical scars left by a mastectomy can be complicated and difficult to 
care for, and often require supervision. Women prematurely released may 
not have the information they need, and some dangerous complications 
can arise hours after the operation. And all of this is happening in 
context of the intense emotional trauma that comes with losing part or 
all of a breast.
  Finally, all Americans who face the possibility of a cancer diagnosis 
must be able to make informed decisions about appropriate medical care. 
To do that, they need access to all the information available. Our bill 
requires insurance companies to pay full coverage for secondary 
consultations with a specialist whenever any cancer has been diagnosed 
or a treatment recommended. This will reduce senseless deaths resulting 
from false diagnoses and empower individuals to seek the most 
appropriate available treatment.
  Women with breast cancer and all Americans facing a cancer diagnosis 
cannot wait any longer. I would urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bill in order to provide the protections granted under 
this bill now.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 116. A bill to establish a training voucher system, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 working american training voucher act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will address a serious need of America's workers: the need to receive 
training that will prepare individuals for the workplace of the 21st 
Century. My legislation, entitled the ``Working American Training 
Voucher Act,'' would provide $1,000 training vouchers to 1 million 
working men and women who typically have little or no access to 
employer-provided training.
  Mr. President, many Federal programs focus on the needs of those 
whose challenges and difficulties are most easily recognized and 
tangible. When we see a hungry child, an unemployed adult, or an 
impoverished senior citizen, we justifiably want to reach out and do 
what we can to help. Indeed, I am proud to be an active voice for those 
whose challenges and pains we can sometimes only imagine. However, it 
is oftentimes difficult to recognize the needs of those whose 
challenges are less tangible, whose concerns are less evident, or whose 
sense of insecurity about the future is known only by the individual 
and their family.
  It is this difficulty that confronts many American workers today. In 
the face of increasing global competition, many workers wonder if the 
job they have today will be there for them tomorrow. They are concerned 
that the advent of new technologies is making their skills and talents 
less useful for their current employers which, in turn, makes them feel 
more vulnerable and expendable. And they wonder if the skills they 
posses today are even marketable if they are ``down-sized'' or 
otherwise put out of work.
  Unfortunately, these types of concerns and anxieties of oftentimes do 
not show on the surface, so it can be difficult for others to recognize 
or address them. It is too easy for many to assume that because a man 
or woman is already holding down a job, all is well and his or her 
future is secure. After all, how bad can it be if you're punching a 
time clock and getting a paycheck? Unfortunately, such a view is not 
only shortsighted, it is also misguided and could prove disastrous.
  We should not wait until a worker has been laid-off from their job, 
or a company shuts its doors and shutters its windows, to take steps to 
help the American worker. Rather, we should take steps to ensure that 
our nation's workforce is confident of their future and feels prepared 
to address the changes that tomorrow will bring. Not only does this 
help the individual, but I think we would all agree that the best way 
to reduce the impact and cost of unemployment is to take steps to keep 
those who are already employed on-the-job!
  Admittedly, many policies and decisions play an integral role in 
creating a vibrant job market. The tax burden we place on businesses, 
the trade agreements we sign with foreign governments, and the 
regulatory load we place on employers all have a significant impact on 
our economy's ability to produce and sustain good jobs. However, for 
the individual, many of these policies seem too ``macro'' to have an 
impact on their own employment prospects. In fact, an individual may 
not even recognize the direct impact these broader policies have on 
their job from day to day.
  There is, however, one issue that truly strikes at the heart of how 
an individual feels about the future: the degree to which he or she 
knows that their skills match the needs of their current employer or 
other prospective employers in the marketplace. Without this knowledge, 
it does not matter to an individual if the unemployment rate is as low 
as economists consider the ``natural rate of unemployment'' or if the 
newspapers tell him or her that the economy couldn't be better. The 
simple fact is that unless an individual personally feels that their 
skills are up-to-date and marketable, there will never be a complete 
sense of security on the job from one day to the next.
  And that's what the legislation I am introducing today is all about. 
The ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' addresses the needs of 
the average American worker--the individual who has a job today, but 
doesn't know if he or she has the skills needed for the jobs of 
tomorrow. The person who's collecting a paycheck now, but is concerned 
that the rapidly changing work environment may put an end to that soon.
  Mr. President, we all know new technologies and new products are 
entering the workplace at an unprecedented rate and the changes 
these technologies bring are substantial. Few professions and few jobs 
have gone untouched by these changes--and even fewer will be immune 
from change in the future. Indeed, just as computers have changed the 
face of manufacturing, they have also changed the world of art and 
design. Even labor intensive tasks at assembly shops have taken on a 
high-tech flair thanks to new techologies.

  For an individual who understands these technologies or receives 
training in their use, these changes present exciting new opportunities 
that improve performance and ultimately give one a sense of assurance 
that their skills are in demand. But for those who do not understand 
these technologies or do not receive training in their use, these 
technologies are nothing more than a threat and a cause for anxiety.
  Regrettably, even as the demand for training at all levels in the 
workplace continues to grow because of these changing techologies, the 
United States has historically lagged far behind our global competitors 
in training workers. In fact, a study by the Congressional Office of 
Technology Assessment concluded: ``When measured by international 
standards, most American workers are not well trained.''
  While some U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of money to 
training, many of our global competitors spend considerably more. A 
study by the American Society for Training and Development highlighted 
this point when it found that U.S. companies spend--in the aggregate--
approximately 1.4 percent of their payroll on training, while a number 
of our competitor nations actually require companies to spend 2 to 4 
percent! While I would not espouse a mandatory training budget for any 
business, I believe

[[Page S546]]

we can and should seek to improve the availability of training for our 
nation's workers--and especially for those who need it most but are 
least likely to receive it. And that's precisely who the ``Working 
American Training Voucher'' is designed to reach.
  Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would 
provide access to critically needed training for workers at businesses 
with 200 or fewer employees. Why is it targeted to workers in small 
businesses? Quite simply, because these are the individuals who are the 
least likely to receive--or be offered--employer-provided training. The 
same report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 
summarized the plight of employees at small businesses quite 
succinctly: ``Many (employees) in smaller firms receive no formal 
training.''
  A 1997 report--completed by Professor Craig Olson at the University 
of Wisconsin-Madison and presented to the Senate Manufacturing Task 
Force during the 105th Congress--looked at the difference between the 
likelihood an individual would receive training and the level of 
educational achievement he or she attained, or the field he or she 
chose to enter. Dr. Olson's study found that individuals with a 
bachelor's or master's degree had a 50 percent chance of receiving 
training in the past year, while individuals with a high school diploma 
had only a 17 percent chance. Those who dropped-out of high school 
fared even worse: their odds of receiving training were only 5 percent.
  When viewed by occupation, individuals who worked in production- or 
service-related jobs had only a 16 percent and 18 percent chance of 
receiving training respectively, while those in management had a 50 
percent chance. When considering that only one in four American workers 
received training in the past 12 months, these odds don't bode well for 
many employees at small businesses whose educational attainment and 
occupations fall in the categories that are the least likely to receive 
training.
  One might understandably ask: Why is it that small businesses often 
provide so little training? The answer: cost. Small businesses are 
quite often unable to afford the cost of sending an employee to a 
training program. When your business is just trying to make ends meet, 
it's impossible to send an employee to a training class that costs the 
business both money and time away from work.
  Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' is designed 
to address this problem in a straightforward and efficient way. These 
vouchers-valued at up to $1,000 each--would be made available to 
employees at small business through the existing job training system 
that is already in place as a result of the Job Training Partnership 
Act (JTPA). As my colleagues in the Senate know, state and local 
governments--joined by the private sector--have primary responsibility 
for the development, management, and administration of job training 
programs in the JTPA, so no new distribution network would be necessary 
to conduct this voucher program.

  The only major requirement for receiving a voucher would be that the 
employee and employer must agree on the specific training that will be 
purchased with the voucher. This will ensure that the training will be 
targeted specifically to the needs of the individual and the business--
money would not be spent on generic training programs that teach skills 
that are of little, if any, use in a particular field or job. 
Furthermore, such an agreement will ensure that workers are actively 
engaged in pursuing training that will help their careers, even as 
employers will be urging employees to undertake training that will help 
the business.
  Last year, JTPA programs were re-crafted and consolidated as part of 
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998--a law that greatly improved 
the delivery of federal job training monies. Specifically, up until the 
passage of the WIA, there was virtually no federal money for workers 
that are already employed. But with WIA's enactment, we are beginning 
to place some much needed attention on the needs of incumbent workers, 
and the ``Working American Training Voucher Act'' will vastly expand 
access to training for those who need it most.
  Mr. President, I believe that as we prepare our workforce for the 
next century, we should be encouraging workers to develop new skills 
that will improve their longevity in their current jobs even as they 
gain confidence that their skills will be needed in the future. Not 
only will these new skills increase the confidence and performance of 
the individual worker, but they will also improve the productivity of 
the business who employs them. And we all know that if we improve a 
business' productivity and output, that business is more likely to 
survive and thrive--which means that this voucher may ultimately assist 
in preserving businesses and jobs in the long run.
  Furthermore, better skills and training will ensure that individuals 
are able to rapidly transition to new jobs in the unfortunate event 
their current job is lost for reasons beyond their control. Regardless 
of how favorable the tax code is made or how many burdensome 
regulations we remove, we will never be able to guarantee an individual 
that his or her job will be around forever. But we can provide a worker 
with access to training that will keep his or her skills up-to-date and 
marketable no matter what the future holds.
  Mr. President, the ``Working American Training Voucher'' would be a 
tangible, concrete, and definable program that would address a core 
issue facing American workers. It will ensure that those who typically 
have the least access to training will be able to acquire the skills 
needed for their current jobs, while improving their jobs in the 
future. It is targeted to those who are most in need of assistance, and 
will ensure that we no longer wait until an individual is out of work 
to provide help.
  The Federal government often promises the American people many 
things, but we can never offer peace of mind to a worker who doesn't 
know if his or her skills are adequate to keep them employed. Let's 
take a step in the right direction and at least ensure that those who 
have a job will not lose it due to a lack of access to training and new 
skills. Let's pass the ``Working American Training Voucher Act.''
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Women's 
Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999 with Senator Olympia Snowe.
  This bill has four provisions:
  For breast cancer--
  1. It requires insurance plans to cover hospital stays as determined 
by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be 
medically appropriate. Our bill does not prescribe a fixed number of 
days or set a minimum. It leaves the length of hospital stay up to the 
treating physician.
  2. It requires insurance plans to provide notice to plan subscribers 
of these requirements.
  For all cancers--
  3. It prohibits insurance plans from linking financial or other 
incentives to a physician's provisions of care.
  4. It requires plans to cover second opinions by specialists to 
confirm or refute a diagnosis. If the attending physician certifies 
that there is no appropriate specialist practicing under the insurance 
plan, the plan must ensure that coverage is provided outside the plan 
for a second opinion by a qualified specialist selected by the 
attending physician at no additional cost to the patient beyond that 
which the patient would have paid if the specialist were participating 
in the plan.


                          Need for Legislation

  The movement from inpatient to outpatient mastectomies and reduced 
hospital stays for mastectomies in recent years has been documented. A 
June 3, 1998 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute 
found that from 1986 to 1995 ``the proportion of mastectomies performed 
on an outpatient basis increased from virtually 0% to 10.8%,'' said 
these researchers. This report also says that the data ``clearly 
suggested a shorter average length of stay and a higher likelihood of a 
short stay for women covered by HMOs'' and that ``while short stays 
appear to be more prevalent among HMO enrollees, they are not limited 
exclusively to women with HMO coverage.''
  Another study, by the medical research firm HCIA of Baltimore, 
Maryland, found that in 1995, 7.6 percent of the 110,000 breast 
removals in the country were done on an outpatient basis, up from 1.6 
percent in 1991.
  Another study found that the average length of stay for women who 
have had a mastectomy is 4.34 days nationally,

[[Page S547]]

but in California, it is 2.98 days, the shortest in the country. (New 
York has the longest mastectomy length of stay at 5.78 days.) This 
study, published in the winter 1997-1998 issue of Inquiry, says:

       California had the highest proportion of mastectomy 
     patients discharged after only one day or within two days . . 
     . Nearly 12% of mastectomy patients in California were 
     discharged with a length of stay equal to one day; the next 
     highest proportion was 4.8% in Massachusetts; the percentages 
     in the other three states ranged from 1.1% to 2.2%.

  A July 7, 1997 study by the Connecticut Office of Health Care Access 
found the average hospital length of stay for breast cancer patients 
undergoing mastectomies decreased from three days in 1991 and 1993 to 
two days in 1994 and 1995. This study said, ``The percentage of 
mastectomy patients discharged after one-day stays grew about 700 
percent from 1991 to 1996.''
  The Wall Street Journal on November 6, 1996, reported that ``some 
health maintenance organizations are creating an uproar by ordering 
that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. At a growing 
number of HMOs, surgeons must document `medical necessity' to justify 
even a one-night hospital admission.''
  And so the studies confirm that (1) hospital lengths of stay for 
mastectomies are decreasing and (2) more mastectomies are being done on 
an outpatient basis.


                       Incidence of Breast Cancer

  In 1998, over 180,000 people (one in every 8 American women) 
were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 44,000 women died from 
breast cancer. Only lung cancer causes more cancer deaths in American 
women. There are 2.6 million American women living with breast cancer 
today.

  In my state, in 1998, approximately 17,600 women were diagnosed with 
breast cancer and 4,300 died, according to the American Cancer Society. 
Officials at the Northern California Cancer Center say that breast 
cancer incidence rates in Los Angeles and San Francisco are 
significantly higher than national rates.


              the stress of mastectomy; the need for care

  After a mastectomy, patients must cope with pain from the surgery, 
with drainage tubes and with psychological loss--the trauma of an 
amputation. These patients need medical care from trained 
professionals, medical care that they cannot provide themselves at 
home. A woman fighting for her life and her dignity should not also be 
saddled with a battle with her health insurance plan.
  Dr. Christine Miaskowski at the University of California, San 
Francisco, estimates that about 20 percent of women who have breast 
cancer surgery have chronic pain of long duration. A University of 
California, San Diego, study suggests that the rate may be double that, 
reports the May 20, 1998 Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
  Patients who have mastectomies in outpatient settings have higher 
rates of rehospitalization than women with a one-day hospital stay, 
according to the study reported in the Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute.
  As the National Breast Cancer Coalition wrote me on March 12, 1998: 
``The NBCC applauds this effort and believes this compromise will put 
an end to the dangerous health insurance practices that allow cost and 
not medical evidence to determine when a woman leaves a hospital after 
cancer surgery.''


                     some accomplishments last year

  In the last Congress, Senators D'Amato, Snowe and I introduced a 
similar bill, S. 249, which also included a requirement that plans 
cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. Fortunately, 
Congress passed and the President signed that part of our bill, into 
law, the omnibus appropriations bill for FY 1999, now P.L. 105-277.
  The mastectomy hospital length-of-stay and the other provisions did 
not become law, despite many efforts:
  At our request, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on S. 249 
on November 5, 1997.
  We attempted to get this considered by the Senate, three times in 
1998:
  On March 16, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2646, the Parent and 
Student Savings Account PLUS Act.
  On May 6, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2676, the IRS 
restructuring bill.
  On May 12, we tried to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate, but 
were blocked.
  In addition, Senator D'Amato offered it as an amendment in the 
Finance Committee twice.


                          two california cases

  Two California women have shared their real-life experiences with me:
  Nancy Couchot, age 60, of Newark, California, wrote me that she had a 
modified radical mastectomy on November 4, 1996, at 11:30 a.m. and was 
released by 4:30 p.m. She could not walk and the hospital staff did not 
help her ``even walk to the bathroom.'' She says, ``Any woman, under 
these circumstances, should be able to opt for an overnight stay to 
receive professional help and strong pain relief.''
  Victoria Berck, of Los Angeles, wrote that she had a mastectomy and 
lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1996, and was released 
from the hospital 7 hours later, at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Berck was given 
instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent 
home. She concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has mastectomy 
as an outpatient procedure.''
  These are but two examples of what I believe is happening around the 
county--insurance plans interfering with professional medical judgment 
and arbitrarily reducing care without a medical basis.
  Premature discharges for mastectomy, with insurance plans strong-
arming physicians to send women home, are one glaring example of the 
rising tide abuses faced by patients and physicians who have to 
``battle'' with their HMOs to get coverage of the care that physicians 
believe is medically necessary.


                        No Financial Incentives

  For all cancers, our bill also prohibits insurance plans from 
including financial or other incentives to influence the care a 
doctor's provides, similar to a law passed by the California 
legislature last year. Many physicians have complained that insurance 
plans include financial bonuses or other incentives for cutting patient 
visits or for not referring patients to specialists. Our bill bans 
financial incentives linked to how a doctor provides care. Our intent 
is to restore medical decision-making to health care.
  For example, a California physician wrote me, ``Financial incentives 
under managed care plans often remove access to pediatric specialty 
care.'' A June 1995 report in the Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute cited the suit filed by the husband of a 34-year old 
California woman who died from colon cancer, claiming that HMO 
incentives encouraged her physicians not to order additional tests that 
could have saved her life.


                            Second Opinions

  Finally, our bill requires plans to cover second opinions by 
specialists for all cancers when a patient requests them. And if the 
attending physician certifies that there is no appropriate specialist 
practicing under the plan, the plan must cover a second opinion outside 
the plan by a qualified specialist selected by the attending physician, 
at no additional cost to the patient beyond that which the patient 
would have paid if the specialists were participating in the plan.
  The alarm of learning one has cancer is profound. It affects the 
individual and the whole family deeply. People need the best medical 
judgment they can get, to make some of the most important decisions of 
their lives. I believe plans should cover a second opinion, so that 
patients can get the best care possible and can try to find some peace 
of mind that they are getting competent, complete medical advice.


                               Conclusion

  This bill would restore professional medical decision making to 
medical doctors, those whom we trust to take care of us. It should not 
take an act of Congress to guarantee good health care, but 
unfortunately that is where we are today. As the National Breast Cancer 
Coalition wrote, ``. . . until guaranteed access to quality health care 
coverage and service is available for all women and their families, 
there are some very serious patient concerns that must be met. Without 
meaningful health care reform, market forces propel the changes in the 
health care system and women are at risk of being forced to pay the 
price by having inappropriate limits placed on their access to quality 
health care.''

[[Page S548]]

  This is an important protection for millions of Americans who face 
the fear, the reality and the costs of cancer every day. Seven states 
have a law allowing a physician to determine the length of stay 
following a mastectomy. Seven states have a required 48-hour minimum 
stay requirement.
  It is long past time for this Congress to send a strong message to 
insurance companies. Medical decisions must be made by medical 
professionals, not anonymous insurance clerks.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 117. A bill to permit individuals to continue health plan coverage 
of services while participating in approved clinical studies; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 118. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, 
with respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased 
involvement of advocates in decision making at the National Cancer 
Institute; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                       BREAST CANCER LEGISLATION

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills which 
build on progress made in the 105th Congress in the difficult and 
challenging fight against breast cancer.
  Our challenge was summed up by one breast cancer advocate when she 
stated, simply and eloquently, ``We must make our voices heard, because 
it is our lives.'' Indeed, breast cancer continues to claim the lives 
of our mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. With about 1 in 8 women 
at risk for developing breast cancer, there is scarcely a family in 
America unaffected by the disease.
  By the end of this year alone, over 178,000 women will have been 
diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 43,500 will have died. And with each 
life stolen, our nation is weakened immeasurably.
  We took an important step forward in the last Congress to combat this 
deadly foe. In the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act, 
Congress included language based on a bill I introduced with the 
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to create a ``one-stop 
shopping information service'' for individuals with life-threatening 
diseases looking to obtain information about privately and publicly 
funded clinical trials. This service provides information describing 
the purpose of the trial, eligibility criteria and the location. It 
gives individuals, their families and physicians an 800 number to call 
to obtain the latest information about these trials--trials that could 
save a loved ones life and trials that could help put us a step closer 
to our ultimate goal--finding a cure.
  Much remains to be done before we conquer breast cancer, so today I 
am reintroducing a bill, the Improved Patient Access to Clinical 
Studies Act of 1999, to prohibit insurance companies from denying 
coverage for services provided to individuals participating in clinical 
trials, if those services would otherwise be covered by the plan. This 
bill would also prevent health plans from discriminating against 
enrollees who choose to participate in clinical trials.
  This bill has a two-fold purpose. First, it will ensure that many 
patients who could benefit from these potentially life-saving 
investigational treatments but currently do not have access to them 
because their insurance will not cover the associated costs. Second, 
without reimbursement for these services, our researchers' ability to 
conduct important research is impeded as it reduces the number of 
patients who seek to participate in clinical trials.
  The second bill will give breast cancer advocates a voice in the 
National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) research decision-making. The 
Consumer Involvement in Breast Cancer Research Act urges NIH to follow 
the Department of Defense's lead and include lay breast cancer 
advocates in breast cancer research decision-making.
  The involvement of these breast cancer advocates at DOD has helped 
foster new and innovative breast cancer research funding designs and 
research projects. While maintaining the highest level of quality 
assurance through peer review, breast cancer advocates have helped to 
ensure that all breast cancer research reflects the experiences and 
wisdom of the individuals who have lived with the disease, as well as 
the scientific community.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills 
which will help those suffering from breast cancer and their families 
as well as our researchers who are seeking the cure for this 
devastating disease.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 119. A bill to establish a Northern Border States-Canada Trade 
Council, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Finance.


                 the northern border states council act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States-
Canada trade.
  The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our 
Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long 
overdue. The Council will serve as an early warning system to alert 
State and Federal trade officials to problems in cross-border traffic 
and trade. The Council will enable the United States to more 
effectively administer trade policy with Canada by applying the wealth 
of insight, knowledge and expertise of people who reside not only in my 
State of Maine, but also in the other eleven northern border States as 
well, on this critical policy issue.
  Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce 
and a U.S. Trade Representative, both Federal entities, responsible for 
our larger, national U.S. trade interests. But the facts is that too 
often such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of 
the 12 northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest 
demilitarized border between two nations anywhere in the world. The 
Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials with 
a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. 
The Council will then advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. 
Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and 
State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, and 
problems.
  Canada is our largest and most important trading partner. Canada is 
by far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is 
the largest source of U.S. imports. In 1997, for instance, Canada 
imported over $151.7 million worth of U.S. goods. With an economy one-
tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on 
maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada 
accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United 
States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the 
market with fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports.
  The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade 
relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only 
for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the 
trade and border problems that do frequently develop--as we have seen 
this past year with actual farmer border blockades in some border 
states because of the unfairness of agricultural trade policies. Over 
the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two major 
trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement in 
1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993. 
Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have caused 
trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington and 
Ottawa, most recently for solutions to problems for grain trade, wheat 
imports, animal trade, and joint cooperation on Biotechnology. I might 
add at recent negotiations, there was still no movement towards 
solutions for the potato industry, but I have been promised by the USDA 
that it is now the top priority for discussion.
  Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved 
agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy 
products, and poultry products, and these disputes, of course, have 
impacted more than just the 12 northern border States.
  Each and every day, however, an enormous quantity of trade and 
traffic crosses the United States-Canada border. These are literally 
thousands of businesses, large and small, that rely

[[Page S549]]

on this cross-border traffic and trade for their livelihood.
  My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over 
that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry, and I 
know that the upper mid-west and the western states have problems as 
well. Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from 
United States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, 
such as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk 
shipments from the United States.
  This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato 
imports into Canada and was one topic of discussion during an 
International Trade Commission investigations hearing on April 30, 
1997, where I testified on behalf of the Maine potato growers. The ITC 
followed up with a report stating that Canadian regulations do restrict 
imports to bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or 
repacking, and that the U.S. maintains no such restrictions. These bulk 
shipment restrictions continue, and, at the same time, Canada also 
artificially enhances the competitiveness of its product through 
domestic subsidies for its potato growers.

  Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of 
New Brunswick, originally served as the inspiration for this 
legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began 
stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 
11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax [PST] on goods purchased 
in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the 
Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. 
The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted 
against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the 
other provinces bordering New Brunswick.
  After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do 
something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, then 
Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of 
NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the 
NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, 
the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement 
process, prompting Congress in 1996, to include an amendment I offered 
to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade 
Representative to take this action without further delay. But, it took 
three years for a resolution, and even then, the resolution was not 
crafted by the USTR.
  Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the state of 
Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials 
that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted 
their attention and action. We had no way of knowing, whether problems 
similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States-
Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body 
like the Northern Border States Council had existed when the collection 
of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the 
issue to determine its impact and would have made recommendations as to 
how to deal with it.
  The long-standing pattern of unsuccessful negotiations is alarming, 
with no solution on the horizon from the federal entities in charge, as 
the industry in Maine and other states in the U.S. continues to strive 
to stay competitive despite the trade barriers thrown up against their 
potatoes.
  In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes 
and ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and who are 
most vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The 
Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in 
monitoring their cross-border trade. It will help insure that national 
trade policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be 
developed and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities 
and burdens present to the northern border states.
  The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a 
regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature 
and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend 
how to resolve them.
  The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not 
be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such 
matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and 
retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and 
subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products 
commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws 
and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act 
as nontariff barriers to trade.
  As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all 
Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United 
States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the 
dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council 
reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade 
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from 
any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State.
  If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade 
dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best 
of its ability, if the source of the dispute in the Canadian Federal 
Government or a Canadian Provencal government.
  The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade 
bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by 
the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern 
border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members 
will be unpaid, and serve as 2-year term.
  The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will 
not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure 
that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in 
Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices 
have been ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer 
severe economic consequences at various times because of it. This 
legislation will bring our States into their rightful position as full 
partners for issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our 
country's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 120. A bill to amend title II of the Trade Act of 1974 to clarify 
the definition of domestic industry and to include certain agricultural 
products for purposes of providing relief from injury caused by import 
competition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               the agricultural trade reform act of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to give 
agricultural producers, including potato producers, some important and 
badly needed new tools for combating injurious increases in imports 
from foreign countries.
  The Trade Act of 1974 contains provisions that permit U.S. industries 
to seek relief from serious injury caused by increased quantities of 
imports. In practice, however, it has been very difficult for many U.S. 
industries to actually secure action under the Act to remedy this kind 
of injury.
  The ineffectiveness of the Act results from some of the specific 
language in the statute. Specifically, the law requires the 
International Trade Commission, when evaluating a petition for relief 
from injury, to consider whether the injury affects the entire U.S. 
industry, or a segment of an industry located in a ``major geographic 
area'' of the U.S. whose production constitutes a ``substantial 
portion'' of the total domestic injury. This language has been 
interpreted by the ITC to mean that all or nearly all of the U.S. 
industry must be seriously injured by the imports before it can qualify 
for any relief.
  Thus, if an important segment of an industry is being severely 
injured by imports that compete directly with that segment, the 
businesses who comprise this portion of the industry do not have much 
recourse--even though the industry segment in question may employ 
thousands of Americans and generate billions of dollars annually for 
the U.S. economy. In other words, our current trade laws leave large 
segments of an industry that serve particular regions and markets, or 
have

[[Page S550]]

other distinguishing features, practically helpless in the face of 
sharp and damaging import surges.
  In addition, even if large industry subdivisions could qualify for 
assistance, the time frames under the Trade Act for expedited, or 
provisional, relief for agricultural products are too long to respond 
in time to prevent or adequately remedy injury caused by increasing 
imports. At a minimum, three months must elapse before any relief can 
be provided, irrespective of the damage that American businesses may 
suffer during that time. And three months is an absolute minimum. In 
reality, it could take substantially longer to provide expedited 
relief.
  Mr. President, when it comes to agricultural products, the problems 
in U.S. trade law that I have described remain acute. Due to their 
perishable nature, many agricultural products cannot be inventoried 
until imports subside or the ITC grants relief--if the industry is so 
fortunate--many months or even years later. And most agricultural 
producers, who are heavily dependent on credit each year to produce and 
sell a crop, cannot wait that long. They need assistance in the short-
term, while the injury is occurring, if they are going to survive an 
import surge.
  Also, because crops are grown during particular seasons and serve 
specific markets related to production in those growing seasons, the 
agricultural industry is more prone to segmentation. Finally, many of 
the agricultural industry entities that would have to file a petition 
for relief under the Trade Act are really grower groups that do not 
necessarily have the financial wherewithal to spend millions of dollars 
researching, filing, and pursuing a petition before the ITC.
  The bill that I have introduced today is designed to empower 
America's agricultural producers to seek and obtain effective remedies 
for damaging import surges. It will make the Trade Act more user 
friendly for American businesses. Unlike the current law, which sets 
criteria for ITC consideration that are impossible to meet and that do 
not reflect the realities of today's industry, my bill establishes more 
useful criteria. It permits the ITC to consider the impacts of import 
surges on an important segment of an agricultural industry when 
determining whether a domestic industry has been injured by imports. 
This segment is defined as a portion of the domestic industry located 
in a specific geographic area whose collective production constitutes a 
significant portion of the entire domestic industry. The ITC would also 
be required to consider whether this segment primarily serves the 
domestic market in the specific geographic area, and whether 
substantial imports are entering the area.
  Rather than rely solely on an industry petition to initiate an ITC 
review of whether provisional, or expedited, relief deserves to be 
granted, my bill would permit the United States Trade Representative or 
the Congress, via a resolution, to request such review.

  Because the time frames in the present law for considering and 
providing provisional relief are so long that the damage from imports 
can already be done well before a decision by the ITC is ever issued, 
this bill would shorten the time frame for provisional relief 
determinations by the ITC by allowing the commission to waive, in 
certain circumstances, the act's requirement that imports be monitored 
by the USTR for at least 90 days.
  And, finally, the bill expands the list of agricultural products 
eligible for provisional relief to include any potato product, 
including processed potato products. Under current law, only perishable 
agricultural products and citrus products are eligible to apply for 
expedited relief determinations. But this narrow eligibility list 
unreasonably excludes important U.S. agribusinesses, such as our frozen 
french fry producers, from the expedited remedies available in the 
Trade Act.
  For too long, American agriculture has been trying to combat 
sophisticated foreign competition with the equivalent of sticks and 
stones. My bill strengthens the position of American agricultural 
producers in the competitive arena, and will help provide effective 
remedies for agricultural producers, and provide effective deterrents 
to the depredations of their competitors from other countries. I hope 
other senators with a interest in fair play for our domestic 
agricultural producers will join me I cosponsoring this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 121. A bill to amend certain Federal civil rights statutes to 
prevent the involuntary application of arbitration to claims that arise 
from unlawful employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, 
sex, age, or disability, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                          ____________________