Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)

[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.

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.

[[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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``First Session
``On or before: Action to be completed:

``Second Session

``On or before: Action to be completed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``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.

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

[[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

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. Authorizations of appropriations.''.

SEC. 108. GOVERNMENT PLANS ON A BIENNIAL BASIS.

[[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. 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.

____________________