[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S554-S714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     REDUCING THE NUMBER OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my good 
friend the senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) in introducing 
legislation to reduce the number of presidential political appointees. 
Specifically, the bill caps the number of political appointees at 
2,000. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this measure

[[Page S555]]

would save $333 million over the next five years.
  The bill is based on the recommendations of a number of distinguished 
panels, including most recently, the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force 
on the Presidential Appointment Process. The task force findings, 
released last fall, are only the latest in a long line of 
recommendations that we reduce the number of political appointees in 
the Executive Branch. For many years, the proposal has been included in 
CBO's annual publication Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue 
Options, and it was one of the central recommendations of the National 
Commission on the Public Service, chaired by former Federal Reserve 
Board Chairman Paul Volcker.
  Mr. President, this proposal is also consistent with the 
recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review, 
which called for reductions in the number of federal managers and 
supervisors, arguing that ``over-control and micro management'' not 
only ``stifle the creativity of line managers and workers, they consume 
billions per year in salary, benefits, and administrative costs.''
  Those sentiments were also expressed in the 1989 report of the 
Volcker Commission, when it argued the growing number of presidential 
appointees may ``actually undermine effective presidential control of 
the executive branch.'' The Volcker Commission recommended limiting the 
number of political appointees to 2,000, as this legislation does.
  Mr. President, it is essential that any Administration be able to 
implement the policies that brought it into office in the first place. 
Government must be responsive to the priorities of the electorate. But 
as the Volcker Commission noted, the great increase in the number of 
political appointees in recent years has not made government more 
effective or more responsive to political leadership.
  Between 1980 and 1992, the ranks of political appointees grew 17 
percent, over three times as fast as the total number of Executive 
Branch employees and looking back to 1960 their growth is even more 
dramatic. In his recently published book ``Thickening Government: 
Federal Government and the Diffusion of Accountability,'' author Paul 
Light reports a startling 430% increase in the number of political 
appointees and senior executives in Federal government between 1960 and 
1992.
  In recommending a cap on political appointees, the Volcker Commission 
report noted that the large number of presidential appointees simply 
cannot be managed effectively by any President or White House. The 
Commission argued that this lack of control and political focus ``may 
actually dilute the President's ability to develop and enforce a 
coherent, coordinated program and to hold cabinet secretaries 
accountable.''
  Adding organizational layers of political appointees can also 
restrict access to important resources, while doing nothing to reduce 
bureaucratic impediments.
  In commenting on this problem, author Paul Light noted, ``As this 
sediment has thickened over the decades, presidents have grown 
increasingly distant from the lines of government, and the front lines 
from them.'' Light added that ``Presidential leadership, therefore, may 
reside in stripping government of the barriers to doing its job 
effectively. . .''
  The Volcker Commission also asserted that this thickening barrier of 
temporary appointees between the President and career officials can 
undermine development of a proficient civil service by discouraging 
talented individuals from remaining in government service or even 
pursuing a career in government in the first place.
  Mr. President, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson put it well 
when he noted:

       But a White House personnel assistant sees the position of 
     deputy assistant secretary as a fourth-echelon slot. In his 
     eyes that makes it an ideal reward for a fourth-echelon 
     political type--a campaign advance man, or a regional 
     political organizer. For a senior civil servant, it's irksome 
     to see a position one has spent 20 or 30 years preparing for 
     preempted by an outsider who doesn't know the difference 
     between an audit exception and an authorizing bill.

  Mr. President, the report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on 
the Presidential Appointment Process identified another problem 
aggravated by the mushrooming number of political appointees, namely 
the increasingly lengthy process of filling these thousands of 
positions. As the Task Force reported, both President Bush and 
President Clinton were into their presidencies for many months before 
their leadership teams were fully in place. The Task Force noted that 
``on average, appointees in both administrations were confirmed more 
than eight months after the inauguration--one-sixth of an entire 
presidential term.'' By contrast, the report noted that in the 
presidential transition of 1960, ``Kennedy appointees were confirmed, 
on average, two and a half months after the inauguration.''
  In addition to leaving vacancies among key leadership positions in 
government, the appointment process delays can have a detrimental 
effect on potential appointees. The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force 
reported that appointees can ``wait for months on end in a limbo of 
uncertainty and awkward transition from the private to the public 
sector.''
  Mr. President, there have been some modest reductions in the number 
of political appointees in recent years, but further reductions are 
needed.
  The sacrifices that deficit reduction efforts require must be spread 
among all of us. This measure requires us to bite the bullet and impose 
limitations upon political appointments that both parties may well wish 
to retain. The test of commitment to deficit reduction, however, is not 
simply to propose measure that impact someone else.
  As reduce the number of government employees, streamline agencies, 
and make government more responsive, we should also right size the 
number of political appointees, ensuring a sufficient number to 
implement the policies of any Administration without burdening the 
Federal budget with unnecessary, possibly counterproductive political 
jobs.
  Mr. President, when I ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I developed an 
82 point plan to reduce the Federal deficit and achieve a balanced 
budget. Since that time, I have continued to work toward enactment of 
many of the provisions of that plan and have added new provisions on a 
regular basis.
  The legislation I am introducing today reflects one of the points 
included on the original 82 point plan calling for streamlining various 
federal agencies and reducing agency overhead costs. I am pleased to 
have this opportunity to continue to work toward implementation of the 
elements of the deficit reduction plan.
  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. 125

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

     SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``political 
     appointee'' means any individual who--
       (1) is employed in a position on the executive schedule 
     under sections 5312 through 5316 of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (2) is a limited term appointee, limited emergency 
     appointee, or noncareer appointee in the senior executive 
     service as defined under section 3132(a) (5), (6), and (7) of 
     title 5, United States Code, respectively; or
       (3) is employed in a position in the executive branch of 
     the Government of a confidential or policy-determining 
     character under Schedule C of subpart C of part 213 of title 
     5 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Limitation.--The President, acting through the Office 
     of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel 
     Management, shall take such actions as necessary (including 
     reduction in force actions under procedures established under 
     section 3595 of title 5, United States Code) to ensure that 
     the total number of political appointees shall not exceed 
     2,000.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 126. A bill to terminate the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences; to the Committee on Armed Services.


  TERMINATING THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation 
terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
(USUHS), a medical school run by the Department

[[Page S556]]

of Defense. The measure is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. 
Senate, and was part of a larger, 82 point plan to reduce the Federal 
budget deficit. The most recent estimates of the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) project that terminating the school would save $273 
million over the next five years, and when completely phased-out, would 
generate $450 million in savings over five years.
  USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military 
medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small 
fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994 
according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's 
scholarship program which provided over 80 percent of the military's 
new physicians in that year.
  Mr. President, what is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the 
single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO 
reports that based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician 
costs the military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program 
cost about $125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new 
physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO noted in their Spending and 
Revenue Options publication, even adjusting for the lengthier service 
commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training 
them is still higher than that of training physicians from other 
sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's 
estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the 
cost of obtaining physicians from other sources.
  The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on 
several occasions, and the Vice President's National Performance Review 
joined others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising 
the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first 
class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than 
alternative sources of physicians for the military.
  Mr. President, the real issue we must address is whether USUHS is 
essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do 
without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite 
the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained 
from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program, 
but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain 
in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon 
indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate 
mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before 
the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the 
military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the 
services.
  And while USUHS only provides a small fraction of the military's new 
physicians, it is important to note that relying primarily on these 
other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to 
meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management 
and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert 
Storm, only 103, about 5%, were USUHS trained.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by recognizing that USUHS has some 
dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are 
legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this 
institution. The problem, however, is that the federal government can 
no longer afford to continue every program that provides some useful 
function.
  This is especially true in the area of defense spending. Many in this 
body argue that the Defense budget is too tight, that a significant 
increase in spending is needed to address concerns about shortfalls in 
recruitment and retention, maintenance backlogs, and other indicators 
of a lower level of readiness.
  Mr. President, the debate over our level of readiness is certainly 
important, and it may well be that more Defense funding should be 
channeled to these specific areas of concern.
  But before advocates of an increased Defense budget ask taxpayers to 
foot the bill for hundreds of billions more in spending, they owe it to 
those taxpayers to trim Defense programs that are not justified.
  In the face of our staggering national debt and annual deficits, we 
must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained 
with limited federal dollars, or where a more cost-effective means of 
fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The future of USUHS 
continues to be debated precisely because in these times of budget 
restraint it does not appear to pass the higher threshold tests which 
must be applied to all federal spending programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 126

       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 ``Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences Termination and Deficit 
     Reduction Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF 
                   THE HEALTH SCIENCES.

       (a) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--The Uniformed Services University of the 
     Health Sciences is terminated.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (B) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of 
     such title, and at the beginning of part III of such 
     subtitle, are each amended by striking out the item relating 
     to chapter 104.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Termination.--The termination of the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall take effect on the day after the date of the graduation 
     from the university of the last class of students that 
     enrolled in such university on or before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Amendments.--The amendments made by subsection (a)(2) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that the provisions of chapter 104 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as in effect on the day before such date, shall 
     continue to apply with respect to the Uniformed Services 
     University of the Health Sciences until the termination of 
     the university under this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD;
  S. 127. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from including any storage 
charges in the calculation of loan deficiency payments or loans made to 
producers for loan commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                         COTTON STORAGE SUBSIDY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation, 
originally introduced in the 105th Congress. This measure will give 
relief to the taxpayers of this country, who now pay millions every 
year to provide cotton producers with an expensive and unnecessary perk 
no other farmer enjoys.
  Each year, the Federal Government's Agriculture Department pays 
millions of dollars in storage costs for cotton farmers. Last year, 
this program provided more than $23 million to store the cotton crop of 
participating farmers. My measure puts all commodities on a more equal 
footing by eliminating the storage subsidy for cotton, the only 
commodity whose producers still enjoy this privilege.
  Mr. President, prior to the passage of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, 
farmers producing wheat and feed grains relied heavily on the Farmer 
Owned Reserve Program to assist them in repaying their overdue loans 
when times were tough. They would roll their non-recourse loans into 
the Farmer Owned Reserve Program which would allow them the opportunity 
to pay back their loan, without interest, and also get assistance in 
paying storage costs. Although cotton producers were not eligible to 
participate in that particular program, they were offered a similar 
subsidy and other perks through the cotton program. Those were the days 
of heavy agriculture subsidization, when the government dictated 
prices, provided price supports, and more often than not, had over-
surpluses of wheat, corn and other feed grains--driving down domestic 
prices. The 1996 Farm Bill, sought to bring farm policy in line with a 
realistic agricultural and economic view, that the agriculture industry 
must be more market oriented--must not rely so much on government price 
interference.

[[Page S557]]

  Mr. President, although the Farm Bill was successful in ridding 
agriculture policy of much of the weight of government intrusion that 
burdened it for years, there are still hidden subsidies costing 
taxpayers billions. This legislation would prevent USDA from factoring 
cotton industry storage costs into Marketing Loan Program calculations. 
This costly and unnecessary benefit is bestowed on the producers of no 
other commodity.
  Farmers, except those who produce cotton, are required to pay storage 
cost through the maturity date of their support loans. Producers must 
prepay or arrange to pay storage costs through the loan maturity date 
or USDA reduces the amount of the loan by deducting the amount 
necessary for prepaid storage. Cotton producers are not required to 
prepay storage costs. When they redeem a loan under marketing loan 
provisions or forfeit collateral, USDA pays the cost of the accrued 
storage.
  It is interesting to note, Mr. President, that in a 1994 audit of the 
cotton program, USDA's Office of Inspector General found no reason for 
USDA to pay the accrued storage costs of cotton producers. The 
Inspector General recommended that USDA ``revise procedures to 
eliminate the automatic payment of cotton storage charges by CCC and 
make provisions consistent with the treatment of storage charges on 
other program crops''.
  Although those in the cotton industry will argue that the automatic 
payments were eliminated in the Farm Bill, in reality, those payments 
are now simply hidden. It's true that certain provisions have been 
removed from the statute which mandates that USDA pay these charges. 
Now, USDA freely chooses to waste the taxpayers money by paying these 
costs, allowing cotton producers to subtract their storage costs from 
the market value of their cotton, providing a larger difference with 
the loan rate, and therefore receiving a higher return.
  Marketing Loan Programs are designed to encourage producers to redeem 
their loans and market their crops, but USDA payment of cotton storage 
costs discourage loan redemption. As long as the adjusted world price 
is at or below the loan rate, producers can delay loan redemption in 
the secure expectation that domestic prices will rise or the adjusted 
world price will decline regardless of accruing storage costs.
  Mr. President, its time to stop kidding ourselves. Let's eliminate 
this subsidy before it costs hardworking Americans any more. Let's 
bring equity to the commodities program. Lets finish what the Farm Bill 
started--a more market oriented agriculture program. One that benefits 
us all.
  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. 127

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

     SECTION 1. STORAGE CHARGES FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

       Subtitle C of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 138. STORAGE CHARGES FOR LOAN COMMODITIES.

       ``In calculating the amount of a loan deficiency payment or 
     loan made to a producer for a loan commodity under this 
     subtitle, the Secretary may not include any storage charges 
     incurred by the producer in connection with the loan 
     commodity.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 128. A bill to terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
Communication System of the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.


  TO TERMINATE OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION 
                           SYSTEM OF THE NAVY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to offer 
a bill to terminate the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency Communication 
System. I am again pleased to be joined in introducing this bill with 
the senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and the Senator from 
Oregon (Mr. Wyden).
  Mr. President, this bill would terminate the operation of the Navy's 
Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, or Project ELF, as it's 
more familiarly known, while maintaining the infrastructure in 
Wisconsin and Michigan for resuming should a resumption in operation 
become necessary. As my colleagues are well aware, I have long opposed 
this needless project.
  Project ELF is an ineffective, unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic 
that is not wanted by most residents in my state. The members of the 
Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project 
ELF; I have introduced legislation during each Congress since taking 
office to terminate it; and I have even recommended it for closure to 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
  This project has been opposed by residents of Wisconsin since its 
inception, but for years we were told that the national security 
considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this 
installation in our state. As we continue our efforts to truly balance 
the federal budget and as the Department of Defense continues to 
struggle to address readiness concerns, it is clear that Project ELF 
should be closed down. If enacted, my legislation would save 
approximately $12 million a year.
  Project ELF is a one-way, primitive messenger system designed to 
signal to--not communicate with--deeply submerged Trident nuclear 
submarines. It is a ``bell ringer'', a pricey beeper system, used to 
tell the submarine when to rise to the surface to get a detailed 
message through a less primitive communications systems.
  It was designed at a time when the threat and consequences of 
detection to our submarines was real. But ELF was never developed to an 
effective capability, and the demise of the Soviet threat has certainly 
rendered it unnecessary.
  In fact, Mr. President, the submarine capabilities of our potential 
adversaries have noticeably deteriorated or remain far behind those of 
our Navy. The primary mission of our attack submarines was to fight the 
heart of the Soviet navy, its attack submarine force. This mission 
included hunting down Soviet submarines. Due to Russia's continued 
economic hardships, they continue to cede ground to us in technology 
and training. Reports even contend that Russia is having trouble 
keeping just one or two of its strategic nuclear submarines 
operational. According to General Eugene E. Habiger, USAF (Ret.) and 
former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Moscow's ``sub fleet is 
belly-up.''
  Further, of our known potential adversaries, only Russia and China 
possess ballistic missile-capable submarines. And China's one ballistic 
missile capable submarine is used solely as a test platform. Russia's 
submarine fleet has shrunk from more than 300 vessels to about 100. 
Even Russia's most modern submarines can't be used to full capability 
because Russia can't adequately train its sailors. The threat for which 
Project ELF was designed no longer exists.
  Even the Pentagon and members of this body are beginning to see the 
need for reevaluating our strategic forces, including our Trident 
ballistic missile submarines. Earlier this month, Chief of Naval 
Operations Admiral Jay Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee 
that he wants to reduce the fleet from 18 to 14. And Chairman Warner 
agreed with the need to reevaluate priorities on strategic weapons.
  With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder 
to justify. Trident submarines no longer need to take that extra 
precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a 
regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also 
receive more complicated messages through very low frequency (VLF) 
radiowaves or lengthier messages through satellite systems, if it can 
be done more cheaply.
  During the 103rd Congress, I worked with Senator Nunn to include an 
amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1994 requiring a report by the Secretary of Defense on the benefits and 
costs of continued operation of Project ELF. The report issued by DoD 
was particularly disappointing because it basically argued that because 
Project ELF may have had a purpose during the Cold War, it should 
continue to operate after the Cold War as part of the complete 
complement of command and control links configured for the Cold War.

[[Page S558]]

  Did Project ELF play a role in helping to minimize the Soviet threat? 
Perhaps. Did it do so at risk to the community? Perhaps. Does it 
continue to play a vital security role to the Nation? No.
  In the fiscal year 1996 DoD authorization bill, the Senate cut 
funding for the program, but again it was resurrected in conference.
  I'd like to note here that Members in both Wisconsin and Michigan, 
the states in which Project ELF is located, support terminating the 
project. Also, former Commanders-in-Chief of Strategic Command, General 
George Lee Butler and General Eugene E. Habiger, called for an end to 
Cold War nuclear weapons practices, of which Project ELF is a harrowing 
reminder. Additionally, the Center for Defense Information called for 
ending the program, noting that ``U.S. submarines operating under 
present and foreseeable worldwide military conditions can receive all 
necessary orders and instructions in timely fashion without need for 
Project ELF.''

  As I mentioned, this bill would terminate operation of Project ELF, 
but would call for the Defense Department to maintain its 
infrastructure. Should Project ELF become necessary for future military 
action, DoD could quickly bring it back on-line. In essence, this bill 
would save DoD some much-needed operations and maintenance funds 
without degrading its capabilities.
  Mr. President, I'd also like to briefly touch on the public health 
and environmental concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two 
decades, we have received inconclusive data on this project's effects 
on Wisconsin and Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court 
ordered that the project be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate 
attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the 
National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, that decision was 
overturned because U.S. national security, at the time, prevailed over 
public health and environmental concerns.
  More than 40 medical studies point to a link between electromagnetic 
pollution and cancer and abnormalities in both animal and plant 
species. Metal fences near the two transmitters must be grounded to 
avoid serious shock from the presence of high voltages.
  Mr. President, last year, an international committee, convened by the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences urged the study of 
electric and magnetic fields as a possible cause of cancer. Project ELF 
produces the same kind of electric and magnetic fields cited by this 
distinguished committee. The committee's announcement seems to confirm 
the fears of many of my constituents.
  And recently, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are 
convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has 
demonstrably reduced milk production.
  In recent years, a coalition of fiscal conservatives and 
environmentalists have targeted Project ELF because it both fiscally 
and environmentally harmful. The coalition, which includes groups like 
the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National 
Wildlife Federation, and Friends of the Earth, took aim at about 70 
wasteful and dangerous programs. I hope we take their heed and end this 
program.
  Mr. President, this bill achieves two vital goals of many of my 
colleagues here. It terminates a wasteful and unnecessary Cold War era 
program, while allowing the Pentagon to address its readiness 
shortfalls. This is a win-win situation and I hope my colleagues will 
support this legislation.
  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:

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

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW 
                   FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency 
     Communication System of the Navy.
       (b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation 
     of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 129. A bill to terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.


             termination of the f/a-18E/F aircraft program

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce 
legislation terminating the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Program. 
I am pleased to be joined again by Senator Lautenberg and Senator Wyden 
on this important legislation.
  Mr. President, given the Pentagon's self-reported readiness crisis, I 
have serious doubts as to whether we can continue funding this costly 
program while it fails to live up to expectations and continues to 
experience highly visible problems.
  In just the past year, we've been told that the program-threatening 
wing drop problem is solved, but maybe not completely. We've also 
learned that program officials may not have been exactly forthright in 
letting Pentagon superiors in on the seriousness of that problem. We've 
learned that the Super Hornet doesn't meet all of the performance 
standards expected of it. And most recently, we've learned that cracks 
in the aircraft's engines have forced the Navy to approach another 
contractor.
  This, Mr. President, should not be the track record of the plane that 
the Navy called the ``future of naval aviation.'' In fact, this history 
more closely resembles the previously-canceled A-12 attack plane. And I 
know that neither the Pentagon nor the Congress wants another debacle 
like the A-12.
  Mr. President, I began this debate over the Super Hornet in 1997 on 
the basis of the 1996 General Accounting Office report ``Navy Aviation: 
F/A-18E/F Will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost.'' 
In this report, GAO studied the rationale and need for the F/A-18E/F in 
order to determine whether continued development of the aircraft is the 
most cost-effective approach to modernizing the Navy's tactical 
aircraft fleet. GAO concluded that the marginal improvements of the F/
A-18E/F are far outweighed by the high cost of the program.
  Since that time, I have offered numerous pieces of legislation that 
run the gamut from outright termination of the program to continued 
oversight of it. I asked GAO for a follow-up review. I have even asked 
DoD's Inspector General to investigate various aspects of the program, 
including testing evaluation. The one constant, however, has been the 
program's continuing disappointments.
  Mr. President, as we have all heard by now, wing drop causes the 
aircraft to rock back and forth when it is flying at altitudes and 
speeds at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur.
  What really disturbs me about wing drop is that almost a year and a 
half went by after the discovery of the problem before the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense acknowledged the problem. The Pentagon's 
ignorance is caused either by shamefully poor communication or the 
withholding of program information by the Navy. For that reason, I have 
asked the DoD Inspector General to take a look at the wing drop fiasco.
  Mr. President, the Navy's Super Hornet test team discovered the wing 
drop problem in March, 1996. In October of that year, the Navy rated it 
a priority problem. On February 5, 1997, wing drop was placed on an 
official deficiency report. In that report, the Navy classified wing 
drop as a **1 deficiency. In other words, one that will cause aircraft 
control loss, equipment destruction, or injury. This is the most 
serious category that the Navy assigns to program deficiencies. In the 
same report, the Super Hornet's test director stated that wing drop, 
``will prevent or severely restrict the performance of air-to-air 
tracking tasks during air-to-air combat maneuvering. Therefore, the 
operational effectiveness will be compromised.'' On March 12, 1997, the 
test team characterized the problem as being ``an unacceptable 
deficiency''.
  Two weeks later, the Navy's Defense Acquisition Board met with the 
test team, which failed to mention the wing drop problem at all. 
Following that meeting, Secretary Cohen approved the group's 
recommendation to spend 1.9

[[Page S559]]

billion dollars for the first dozen Super Hornets.
  In November, 1997, the assistant secretary of Defense reportedly 
first informed the Navy Secretary of the wing drop problem. In 
December, the problem was moved to the program's high-risk category. It 
should also be noted that wing drop was considered by the Navy and the 
contractor, Boeing, to be the most challenging technical risk to the 
program at that time. This past February 4, Secretary Cohen stated 
unequivocally that the program would ``not go forward until wing drop 
is corrected.'' A month later, a Navy blue ribbon panel reported that 
the Navy does ``not have a good understanding'' of wing drop and that 
the current porous wing fold fix is ``not a solution''. In May, 
Secretary Cohen released funds for the second round of production 
aircraft. Through it all, the Pentagon apparently didn't think wing 
drop was significant enough to warrant full disclosure.
  Following the release of the 1998 GAO report and reports of the wing 
drop fiasco, I asked the Secretary to document the wing drop problem. 
Specifically, I asked Secretary Cohen questions on who knew of the 
problem and when they knew it.
  In April, I received the Secretary's disappointing response. The 
essence of his answers to my questions is that wing drop was not a 
significant enough issue to warrant disclosure to the Defense 
Acquisition Board before its decision to recommend production of the 
first lot of aircraft.
  Mr. President, given the Navy's classification of wing drop, the test 
director's assessment of the mission impact, and the significant 
efforts that were underway to resolve the problem, the Navy's failure 
to discuss the wing drop problem with DoD officials responsible for 
making the decision on whether to proceed into production of the 
initial Super Hornets reflects, in my view, questionable judgement at 
best and underscores the need for continued DoD and congressional 
oversight of the Super Hornet's development and production program.
  One final point, Mr. President. It should be made clear that DoD and 
the Navy did not begin openly discussing wing drop until after the 
assistant secretary John Douglass' November 20, 1997, memo on the issue 
to Navy Secretary John Dalton appeared in the press. In fact, during a 
February, 1998, hearing before the House National Security Committee's 
Research and Development Subcommittee, Chairman Curt Weldon voiced his 
displeasure with having to learn about the Super Hornet's wing drop 
problem through the media rather than from the Navy. If the chairman of 
the subcommittee responsible for the development of the Super Hornet 
has to rely on the media to learn about one of the Defense Department's 
costliest programs, then I think it's fairly reliable that all the 
information was not made available.
  Mr. President, the Navy has based the need for development and 
procurement of the F/A-18E/F on existing or projected operational 
deficiencies of the F/A-18C/D Hornet in the following key areas: strike 
range, carrier recovery payload and survivability. In addition, the 
Navy notes limitations of current Hornets with respect to avionics 
growth space and payload capacity.
  The Navy and Boeing call these points the ``five pillars'' of the 
Super Hornet program. The most recent GAO report and my review of the 
program show that the five pillars are weak and crumbling.
  GAO identifies problems with the Super Hornet in each of these five 
areas. Meanwhile, the Navy's responses to the criticisms are at odds 
with their own arguments in favor of the program. In the 1998 report, 
GAO identified problems that may diminish the effectiveness of the 
plane's survivability improvements, problems that could degrade engine 
performance and service life, and dangerous weapons separation problems 
that require additional testing.
  In July, 1997, the Navy's Program Risk Advisory Board stated that 
``operational testing may determine that the aircraft is not 
operationally effective or suitable.'' That December, the board 
reversed its position and said the E/F is potentially operationally 
effective and suitable, but also reiterated its concerns with certain 
systems that are supposed to make the Super Hornet superior to the 
Hornet.
  These are not glowing reviews for any program, but are downright 
awful for an aircraft program slated to cost upwards of $100 billion. 
We should not gamble with our pilots' lives and more than 100 billion 
taxpayer dollars. These stakes are too high.
  Also in the report, GAO asserted the Super Hornet doesn't accelerate 
or maneuver as well as the Hornet. DoD readily agrees, but maintains 
that this is an acceptable trade-off for other capabilities. I wonder 
if a pilot under fire would agree.
  It gets better, Mr. President. The publication, Inside the Pentagon, 
reported last February that the Navy will not hold the Super Hornet to 
strict performance specifications in three areas. It published a copy 
of a memo written by Rear Admiral Dennis McGinn, the Navy's officer in 
charge of air warfare programs, that ordered the E/F would not be 
strictly held to performance specifications in turning, climbing and 
maneuvering.
  Everyone can agree that these are important performance criteria for 
a state-of-the-art fighter and attack plane. It turns out that this 
memo was sent to the E/F test team after the team concluded that the 
Super Hornet was, in some cases, not as proficient in turning or 
accelerating as the Hornet. The test team concluded that the single-
seat E, when outfitted with a relatively light load of air-to-air 
missiles, is ``slightly less'' capable than the single-seat C in terms 
of instantaneous turn performance, sustained turn performance, and in 
some cases, of unloaded acceleration. Interestingly enough, the C 
models used in the comparisons were not even the most advanced C's 
available. These deficiencies haven't improved since then.

  GAO also said that the Navy board's program officials came to ``the 
realization that the F/A-18E/F may not be as capable in a number of 
operational performance areas as the most recently procured `C' model 
aircraft that are equipped with an enhanced performance engine.''
  Mr. President, the Navy's own test team has stated that the new plane 
does not perform as well as the reliable version currently in use in 
key performance areas. But this isn't enough. The Navy now says these 
performance criteria are not important. Mr. President, this is 
shameful.
  In its 1996 report, GAO reached a number of conclusions. It found 
that the Super Hornet offers only marginal improvements over the 
Hornet, and that these are far outweighed by the high cost. It found 
that the Hornet can be modified to meet every capacity the Super Hornet 
is intended to fulfill. And GAO found that the Defense Department could 
save $17 billion by purchasing additional improved Hornets instead of 
Super Hornets. The Congressional Budget Office updated that cost 
savings last year to $15 billion, still a princely sum, especially 
given DoD's hopes of increasing defense spending by roughly that amount 
each year for the next six years.
  The report also addressed other purported improvements of the Super 
Hornet over the Hornet. GAO concluded that the reported operational 
deficiencies of the C/D that the Navy cited to justify the E/F either 
have not materialized as projected or that such deficiencies can be 
corrected with nonstructural changes to the current C/D and additional 
upgrades made which would further improve its capabilities.
  GAO even rebutted all of the claims of the Hornet's disadvantages. 
The report concluded that the Navy's F/A-18 strike range requirements 
can be met by either the E/F or the C/D, and that the E/F's increased 
range is achieved at the expense of its aerial combat performance. It 
notes that even with increased range, both aircraft will still require 
aerial refueling for low-altitude missions.
  Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the E/F's increased strike 
range is achieved at the expense of the aircraft's aerial combat 
performance. This is shown by its sustained turn rate, maneuvering, and 
acceleration--critical components of its ability to maneuver in either 
offensive or defensive modes.
  GAO also disputes the Navy's contention that the C/D cannot carry 480 
gallon external fuel tanks. Next, the deficiency in carrier recovery 
payload which the Navy anticipated for the F/

[[Page S560]]

A-18C simply has not materialized. GAO notes that while it is not 
necessary, upgrading F/A-18C's with stronger landing gear could allow 
them to recover carrier payloads of more than 10,000 pounds, greater 
than the 9,000 pounds sought for the F/A-18E/F.
  Additional improvements have been made or are planned for the Hornet 
to enhance its survivability including improvements to reduce its radar 
detectability, while survivability improvements of the Super Hornet are 
questionable. For example, because the Super Hornet will be carrying 
weapons and fuel externally, the radar signature reduction improvements 
derived from the structural design of the aircraft will be diminished 
and will only help the aircraft penetrate slightly deeper than the 
Hornet into an integrated defensive system before being detected.
  Mr. President, as we discuss survivability, we should recall the 
outstanding performance of the Hornet in the Gulf War a few years ago. 
By the Navy's own account, the C/D performed extraordinarily well, and, 
in the Navy's own words, experienced ``unprecedented survivability.''
  The Navy predicted that by the mid-1990's the Hornet would not have 
growth space to accommodate additional new weapons and systems under 
development. Specifically, the Navy predicted that by fiscal year 1996, 
C/D's would only have 0.2 cubic feet of space available for future 
avionics growth; however, 5.3 cubic feet of available space have been 
identified for future system growth. Furthermore, technological 
advancements such as miniaturization, modularity and consolidation may 
result in additional growth space for future avionics.
  Also, while the Super Hornet will provide some increase in air-to-air 
capability by carrying two extra missiles, it will not increase its 
ability to carry the heavier, precision-guided, air-to-ground weapons 
that are capable of hitting fixed and mobile hard targets nor to 
deliver heavier standoff weapons that will be used to increase aircraft 
survivability.
  So we have a plane that doesn't really do the things the Navy said it 
would do, and in some cases does not perform as well as the older 
version, but we're supposed to pay probably three times more for the 
Super Hornet.
  Mr. President, it's time we ended this fiasco once and for all. The 
program already costs tens of billions of dollars more than initial 
Navy estimates and costs continues to rise. Additionally, we must 
compare the estimated $73 million cost per plane for the Super Hornet 
to the $28 million per plane for the Hornet. And, as I have mentioned, 
some projections put the total program cost of the F/A-18E/F at close 
to $100 billion.
  Mr. President, let me briefly highlight the ballooning cost of the 
Super Hornet. Just a few years ago, the Navy, using overstated 
assumptions about the total number of planes procured and an estimated 
annual production rate of 72 aircraft per year, calculated a unit 
recurring flyaway cost of $44 million. However, using GAO's more 
realistic assumptions of the procurement of 660 aircraft by the Navy, 
at a production rate of 36 aircraft per year, the unit recurring 
flyaway cost of the Super Hornet ballooned to $53 million. Last year, 
the Navy used more realistic procurement figures of 548 aircraft with 
annual production at 36 aircraft per year, which brought the unit cost 
to $73 million. And I am fairly safe in assuming this figure will only 
rise. This is compared to the $28 million unit recurring flyaway cost 
for the Hornet. CBO estimates that this cost difference in unit 
recurring flyaway would result in a savings of almost $15 billion if 
the Navy were to procure the Hornets rather than the Super Hornets.
  Mr. President, given the enormous cost and marginal improvement in 
operational capabilities the Super Hornet would provide, it seems that 
the justification for it just isn't there. Proceeding with the Super 
Hornet program may not be the most cost-effective approach to 
modernizing the Navy's tactical aircraft fleet. In the short term, the 
Navy can continue to procure the Hornet aircraft, while upgrading it to 
improve further its operational capabilities. For the long term, the 
Navy can look toward the next generation strike fighter, the JSF, which 
will provide more operational capability at far less cost than the 
Super Hornet.
  Mr. President, by all accounts the F/A-18C/D is a top-quality 
aircraft that has served the Navy well over the last decade, and could 
be modified to meet every capacity the E/F is intended to fulfill over 
the course of the next decade at a substantially lower cost.
  Therefore, considering the Department of Defense has clearly 
overextended itself in terms of supporting three major multirole 
fighter programs, it is clear that we must discontinue the Super Hornet 
program before the American taxpayer is asked to fund yet another 
unnecessary, flawed multi-billion dollar program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 129

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

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE F/A-18E/F AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

       (a) Termination of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     terminate the F/A-18E/F aircraft program.
       (b) Payment of Termination Costs.--Funds available for 
     procurement and for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation that are available on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act for obligation for the F/A-18E/F 
     aircraft program may be obligated for that program only for 
     payment of the costs associated with the termination of the 
     program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 130. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the 
dependent care credit refundable, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 131. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction from gross income for home care and adult day and respite 
care expenses of individual taxpayers with respect to a dependent of 
the taxpayer who suffers from Alzheimer's disease or related organic 
brain disorders; to the Committee on Finance.


                       long term care assistance

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, long term care is an issue that continues 
to tug at Congress and this country. In 1995 the federal and state 
governments spent $23 billion on long term care and another $21 billion 
for home care. And it is estimated that those in need of long-term care 
will grow from 7.3 million today to 10-14 million by 2020--potentially 
a doubling of those in need.
  The appropriate care for an individual should be an issue that is 
made by that individual and their loved ones. But we all know the truth 
is that in many cases it comes down to the financial realities of the 
family. For many people, remaining at home is their choice. It allows 
them to remain with their loved ones in familiar surroundings. We need 
to do more to assist these people and their families if this is their 
choice.
  Toward that end I am reintroducing a bill that provides a tax credit 
for families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's 
disease. When I first came to Congress 20 years ago, not a single piece 
of legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease had even been introduced. 
We have come along way since then, as today `Alzheimer's' is a 
household word. It is also the most expensive uninsured illness in 
America. Alzheimer's will consume more of our national wealth-
approximately $1.75 trillion--than all other illnesses except cancer 
and heart disease. And the number of those affected by this disease is 
rising and will continue to rise dramatically, from 4 million today to 
over 14 million by the middle of the 21st century.
  As staggering as these numbers are, they pale in comparison to the 
emotional costs this disease places on the family. We can help lessen 
that cost by providing some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their 
families. My bill would allow families to deduct the cost of home care 
and adult day and respite care provided to a dependent suffering from 
Alzheimer's disease.
  My second bill will strengthen the dependent care tax credit and 
restore Congress' original intent to provide the greatest benefit of 
the tax credit to low-income taxpayers. This bill expands the dependent 
care tax credit, makes it applicable for respite care expenses and 
makes it refundable.

[[Page S561]]

  As more and more women enter the workforce combined with the aging of 
our population, we are continuing to see an increased need for both 
child and elder care. Expenses incurred for this care can place a large 
burden on a family's finances. The cost of full time child care can 
range from $4,000 to $10,000. The cost of nursing home care is in 
excess of $40,000 a year. Managing these costs is difficult for many 
families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income 
brackets.
  In 1976, the dependent care tax credit was created to help low- and 
moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related 
dependent care. We haven't changed the DCTC since it was created 23 
years and in fact, in the 1986 Tax Reform Act we indexed all the basic 
provisions of the tax code that determine tax liability except for 
DCTC. We need to make the credit relevant by updating it to reflect 
today's world. My legislation will do that by indexing the credit to 
inflation and making it refundable so that those who do not reach the 
tax thresholds will still received assistance. It also raises the DCTC 
sliding scale from 30 to 50 percent of work-related dependent care 
expenditures for families earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then 
be reduced by 1 percentage point for each additional $1,000 more of 
income, down to a credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or 
more.
  In order to assist those who care for loved ones at home, the bill 
also expands the definition of dependent care to include respite care, 
thereby offering relief from this additional expense. A respite care 
credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for one qualifying dependent 
care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two bills that 
will provide assistance to families that wish to provide long term care 
to their loved ones at home.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 132. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
comprehensive pension protection for women; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                 women's pension protection act of 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to improve 
the retirement security of women. Even with the increasing number of 
women entering the workforce, only 39 percent of part-time and full-
time working women are covered by a pension plan.
  While women have come a long way, even now a woman makes only 75 
cents for every dollar a man makes--and older women are payed even 
less: 66 cents for every dollar earned by a 55-year-old man. In 
addition, as we all know, women have spent more time outside the 
workforce because they have spent more time inside the household 
raising families. These two factors help explain why older women are 
twice as likely as older men to be poor or near poor; with nearly 40 
percent of older women who live alone live in or near poverty.
  This bill makes a number of changes in current pension law including: 
helping to ensure that pension benefits earned during a marriage are 
considered and divided fairly in the event of divorce; closing 
loopholes in the civil service and railroad retirement laws that have 
resulted in the loss of pension benefits for widows and ex-spouses of 
beneficiaries in such plans and increases the amount of information 
available by establishing a pension ``hotline'' at the Department of 
Labor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 134. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study 
whether the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore should be protected as a 
wilderness area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         Gaylord Nelson apostle islands stewardship act of 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Gaylord 
Nelson Apostle Islands Stewardship Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to have 
the Senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) join me as an original 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  Many outside Wisconsin may not know that, in addition to founding 
Earth Day, Senator Nelson was also the primary sponsor of the Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore Act. That act, which passed in 1970, 
protects one of Northern Wisconsin's most beautiful areas, at which I 
spend my vacation with my family every year.
  Though Senator Nelson has received many awards, I know that among his 
proudest accomplishments are those bills he crafted which have produced 
real and lasting change in preserving America's lands, such as the 
Apostle Islands.
  The Apostle Islands National Lakshore includes 21 forested islands 
and 12 miles of pristine shoreline which are among the Great Lakes' 
most spectacular scenery. Centuries of wave action, freezing, and 
thawing have sculpted the shorelines, and nature has carved intricate 
caves into the sandstone which forms the islands. Delicate arches, 
vaulted chambers, and hidden passageways honeycomb cliffs on the north 
shore of Devils Island, Swallow Point on Sand Island, and northeast of 
Cornucopia on the mainland. The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore 
includes more lighthouses than any other coastline of similar size in 
the United States, and is home to diverse wildlife including: black 
bear, bald eagles and deer. It is an important recreational area as 
well. Its campgrounds and acres of forest, make the Apostles a favorite 
destination for hikers, sailors, kayakers, and bikers. The Lakeshore 
also includes the underwater lakebed as well, and scuba divers register 
with the National Park Service to view the area's underwater resources.
  Unfortunately, the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore finds itself, 
nearly 29 years later, with significant financial and legal resource 
needs, as do many of the lands managed by the National Park Service. If 
we are to be true stewards of America's public lands, we need to be 
willing to make necessary financial investments and management 
improvements when they are warranted. I introduce this legislation in 
an attempt to resolve the unfinished business that remains at the 
Lakeshore, as well as to renew our Nation's commitment to this 
beautiful place.
  Mr. President, the legislation has three major sections. First, it 
authorizes the Park Service to conduct a wilderness suitability study 
of the Lakeshore as required by the Wilderness Act.
  This study is needed to ensure that we have the appropriate level of 
management at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Wilderness 
Act and the National Park Service policies require the Park Service to 
conduct an evaluation of the lands it manages for possible inclusion in 
the National Wilderness system. The study would result in a 
recommendation to Congress about whether any of the federally-owned 
lands currently within the Lakeshore still retain the characteristics 
that would make them suitable to be legally designated as wilderness. 
If Congress found the study indicated that some of the federal lands 
within the Lakeshore were in need of legal wilderness status, Congress 
would have to subsequently pass legislation to confer such status.

  We need this study, Mr. President because 28 years have passed and it 
is time to determine the proper level of management for the Lakeshore. 
During the General Management Planning Process for the Lakeshore, which 
was completed nearly a decade ago in 1989, the need for a formal 
wilderness study was identified. Although a wilderness study has been 
identified as a high priority by the Lakeshore, it has never been 
funded.
  Since 1989, most of the Lakeshore, roughly 80 percent of the acreage, 
is being managed by the Park Service as if it were federally designated 
wilderness. As a protective measure, all lands which might be suitable 
for wilderness designation were zoned to protect any wilderness 
characteristics they may have pending completion of the study. However, 
we may be managing lands as wilderness in the Lakeshore that might, due 
to use patterns, no longer be suitable for wilderness designation. 
Correspondingly, some land area may have become more ecologically 
sensitive and may need additional legal protection.
  Second, this legislation also directs the Park Service to protect the 
historic Raspberry Island and Outer Island lighthouses. The bill 
authorizes $3.9 million for bluff stabilization and other necessary 
actions. There are six lighthouses in the Apostle Island National 
Lakeshore--Sand Island, Devil's

[[Page S562]]

Island, Raspberry Island, Outer Island, Long Island and Michigan 
Island. Engineering studies completed for the National Park Service 
have determined that several of these lighthouses are in danger of 
structural damage due to the continued erosion of the red clay banks 
upon which they were built. The situations at Outer Island and 
Raspberry Island, the two which this legislation addresses, were 
determined to be in the most jeopardy.
  Last year, as part of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Bill, $215,000 
was provided to the Apostle Island National Seashore for the 
rehabilitation of the historic lighthouses. While the funding was a 
commendable first step, it will allow only for preliminary engineering 
assessments of how to best protect these landmarks. We must go further 
to ensure that these precious and fragile beacons do not simply crumble 
into Lake Superior.
  The Raspberry Island situation is most critical. The Raspberry Island 
lighthouse was completed in 1863 to make the west channel through the 
Apostle Islands. The original light was a rectangular frame structure 
topped by a square tower that held a lens 40 feet above the ground.
  A fog signal building was added to Raspberry Island in 1902. The red 
brick structure housed a ten-inch steam whistle and a hoisting engine 
for a tramway. The need for additional personnel at the station led to 
a redesign of the lighthouse building in 1906-07. The structure was 
converted to a duplex, housing the keeper and his family in the east 
half, with the two assistant keepers sharing the west half. A 23-
kilowatt, diesel-driven electric generator was installed at the station 
in 1928. The light was automated in 1947 and then moved to a metal 
tower in front of the fog signal building in 1952.

  Raspberry Island light is now the most frequently visited of Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore's lighthouses. Recent erosion is threatening 
the access tram and the fog signal building.
  The Outer Island light station was built in 1874 on a red clay bluff 
40 feet above Lake Superior. The lighthouse tower stands 90 feet high 
and the watchroom is encircled by an outside walkway and topped by the 
lantern. As its name implies, the light is stationed on the outermost 
island of the Apostle archipelago, fully exposed to Lake Superior's 
gale-force storms.
  Historic architects have indicated to the Park Service that Outer 
Island lighthouse may already be suffering some structural damage due 
to its location on the bluff and the situation would be much worse if 
Lake Superior were exceedingly high.
  Engineers believe that preservation of these structures requires 
protection of the bluff beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the 
banks, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the bluffs. 
Although the projects have in the past been included within the Park 
Service-wide construction priorities, they have never been funded. The 
specific authorization and funding contained in this legislation is 
essential if the projects are ever to receive the attention they so 
urgently deserve.
  In keeping with my belief that progress toward a balanced budget 
should be maintained, I am proposing that the $4.1 million in 
authorized spending for the Apostle Islands contained in this 
legislation be offset by rescinding $10 million in unspent funds from 
$40 million in funds carried over for the Department of Energy's Clean 
Coal Technology Program in FY 99 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The 
Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer $5.9 million 
above the money that it needs to take actions at the Apostle Islands 
back to the Treasury.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that we have set aside such a large 
amount of money for the Clean Coal Technology Program, which the 
program has been unable to spend, when we have acute appropriations 
needs at places like the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
  Finally, this legislation adds language to the act which created the 
Lakeshore allowing the Park Service to enter into cooperative 
agreements with state, tribal, local governments, universities or other 
non-profit entities to enlist their assistance in managing the 
Lakeshore. Some parks have specific language in the act which created 
the park allowing them to enter into such agreements. Parks have used 
them for activities such as research, historic preservation, and 
emergency services. Apostle Islands currently does not have this 
authority, which this legislation adds.
  Other National Park lands and lands which are managed by the Park 
Service, such as the Lakeshore, have such authority. Adding that 
authority to the Lakeshore will be a way to make Lakeshore management 
resources go farther. The Park Service has the opportunity to carry out 
joint projects with other partners which could contribute to the 
management of the Lakeshore including: state, local, and tribal 
governments, universities, and non-profit groups. Such endeavors would 
have both scientific management and fiscal benefits. In the past, the 
Lakeshore has had to forego these opportunities because the specific 
authority is absent under current law.

  In his 1969 book on the environment, entitled America's Last Chance, 
Senator Nelson issued a political challenge:

       I have come to the conclusion that the number one domestic 
     problem facing this country is the threatened destruction of 
     our natural resources and the disaster which would confront 
     mankind should such destruction occur. There is a real 
     question as to whether the nation, which has spent some two 
     hundred years developing an intricate system of local, State 
     and Federal Government to deal with the public's problems, 
     will be bold, imaginative and flexible enough to meet this 
     supreme test.

  Though the Apostle Islands are not, because of former Senator 
Nelson's efforts, ``threatened with destruction,'' they are a fitting 
place for us to rise to this challenge. I believe that Senator Nelson 
meant two things by his challenge. Not only did he mean that government 
must act immediately and decisively to protect resources in crisis, but 
he also meant that government must be responsible and flexible enough 
to remain committed to the protection of the areas we wisely seek to 
preserve under our laws.
  Thus, Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this legislation as a 
renewal of the federal government's commitment to the Apostle Islands 
National Lakeshore. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 134

       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 ``Gaylord Nelson Apostle 
     Islands Stewardship Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. GAYLORD NELSON APOSTLE ISLANDS.

       (a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
       (1) the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a national 
     and a Wisconsin treasure;
       (2) the State of Wisconsin is particularly indebted to 
     former Senator Gaylord Nelson for his leadership in the 
     creation of the Lakeshore;
       (3) after more than 28 years of enjoyment, some issues 
     critical to maintaining the overall ecological, recreational, 
     and cultural vision of the Lakeshore need additional 
     attention;
       (4) the general management planning process for the 
     Lakeshore has identified a need for a formal wilderness 
     study;
       (5) all land within the Lakeshore that might be suitable 
     for designation as wilderness are zoned and managed to 
     protect wilderness characteristics pending completion of such 
     a study;
       (6) several historic lighthouses within the Lakeshore are 
     in danger of structural damage due to severe erosion;
       (7) the Secretary of the Interior has been unable to take 
     full advantage of cooperative agreements with Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal governmental agencies, institutions of 
     higher education, and other nonprofit organizations that 
     could assist the National Park Service by contributing to the 
     management of the Lakeshore;
       (8) because of competing needs in other units of the 
     National Park System, the standard authorizing and budgetary 
     process has not resulted in updated legislative authority and 
     necessary funding for improvements to the Lakeshore; and
       (9) the need for improvements to the Lakeshore and 
     completion of a wilderness study should be accorded a high 
     priority among National Park Service activities.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Lakeshore.--The term ``Lakeshore'' means the Apostle 
     Islands National Lakeshore.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting

[[Page S563]]

     through the Director of the National Park Service.
       (c) Wilderness Study.--In fulfillment of the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wilderness Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and of applicable agency policy, the 
     Secretary shall evaluate areas of land within the Lakeshore 
     for inclusion in the National Wilderness System.
       (d) Apostle Islands Lighthouses.--The Secretary shall 
     undertake appropriate action (including protection of the 
     bluff toe beneath the lighthouses, stabilization of the bank 
     face, and dewatering of the area immediately shoreward of the 
     bluffs) to protect the lighthouse structures at Raspberry 
     Lighthouse and Outer Island Lighthouse on the Lakeshore.
       (e) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 6 of Public Law 91-424 
     (16 U.S.C. 460w-5) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 6. The lakeshore'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The lakeshore''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into 
     a cooperative agreement with a Federal, State, tribal, or 
     local government agency or a nonprofit private entity if the 
     Secretary determines that a cooperative agreement would be 
     beneficial in carrying out section 7.''.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) $200,000 to carry out subsection (c); and
       (2) $3,900,000 to carry out subsection (d).
       (g) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``clean coal technology'' under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' for obligation in prior years, in 
     addition to the funds deferred under the heading ``clean coal 
     technology'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' under 
     section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277--
       (A) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 
     2000; and
       (B) $5,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 
     2001.
       (2) Ongoing projects.--Funds made available in previous 
     appropriations Acts shall be available for any ongoing 
     project regardless of the separate request for proposal under 
     which the project was selected.
       (3) Transfer of funds.--In addition to any amounts made 
     available under subsection (f), amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall be transferred to the Secretary for use 
     in carrying out subsections (c) and (d).
       (4) Unexpended balance.--Any balance of funds transferred 
     under paragraph (3) that remain unexpended at the end of 
     fiscal year 1999 shall be returned to the Treasury.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Baucus):
  S. 136, A bill to provide for teacher excellence and classroom help; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     teacher excellence act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, states and local communities are making 
significant progress toward improving their public schools. Almost 
every state has developed challenging academic standards for all 
students to meet--and they are holding schools accountable for results.
  But just setting standards isn't enough. Schools and communities have 
to do more to ensure improved student achievement. Schools must have 
small classes, particularly in the early grades. They must have strong 
parent involvement. They must have safe, modern facilities with up-to-
date technology. They must have high-quality after-school opportunities 
for children who need extra help. They must have well-trained teachers 
in the classroom who keep up with current developments in their field 
and the best teaching practices.
  Last year, with broad bipartisan support, Congress made substantial 
investments in the nation's public schools to reduce class size, expand 
after-school programs, and improve the initial training of teachers. 
However, more needs to be done.
  Education must continue to be a top priority in the new Congress. We 
must do more to meet the needs of public schools, families, and 
children, so that all children have an opportunity to attend good 
schools. We need to do more to help communities modernize their 
schools, reduce class sizes, especially in grades 1-3, improve the 
quality of the nation's teachers, and expand after-school programs.
  These steps are urgently needed to help communities address the 
serious problems of rising student enrollments, overcrowded classrooms, 
dilapidated schools, teacher shortages, underqualified teachers, high 
turnover rates of teachers, and lack of after-school programs. These 
are real problems that deserve real solutions.
  The needs of families across the nation should not be ignored. They 
want the federal government to offer a helping hand in improving public 
schools.
  This year, the nation has set a new record for elementary and 
secondary student enrollment. The figure has reached an all-time high 
of 53 million students--500,000 more students than last year.
  Serious teacher shortages are being caused by rising student 
enrollments, and also by the growing number of teacher retirements. The 
nation's public schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers over the 
next ten years, just to hold their own. If we don't act now, the need 
for more teachers will put even greater pressure on school districts to 
lower their standards and hire unqualified teachers.
  Also, too many teachers leave within the first three years of 
teaching--including 30-50% of teachers in urban areas--because they 
don't get the support and mentoring they need to succeed. Veteran 
teachers and principals need more and better opportunities for 
professional development to enhance their knowledge and skills, to 
integrate technology into the curriculum, and to help children meet 
high standards.

  We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire 
100,000 new teachers, in order to reduce class size. But it is equally 
important that we help communities recruit promising teacher 
candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will help 
them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the on-going 
training they need to stay abreast of modern technologies and new 
research.
  Many communities are working hard to attract, keep, and support good 
teachers--and often they're succeeding.
  The North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program has recruited 3,600 high-
ability high school graduates to go into teaching. The students agree 
to teach for four years in the state's public schools in exchange for a 
four-year college scholarship. North Carolina principals report that 
the performance of the Fellows far exceeds other new teachers.
  In Chicago, a program called the Golden Apple Scholars of Illinois 
recruits promising young men and women into the profession by selecting 
them during their junior year of high school, then mentoring them 
through the rest of high school, college, and five years of actual 
teaching. 60 Golden Apple scholars enter the teaching field each year, 
and 90 percent of them stay in the classroom.
  Colorado State University's Project Promise recruits prospective 
teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading and 
medicine. Current teachers mentor graduates in their first two years of 
teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits enter the field, and 80 
percent stay for at least five years.
  New York City's Mentor Teacher Internship Program has increased the 
retention of new teachers. In Montana, only 4 percent of new teachers 
in mentoring programs left after their first year of teaching, compared 
with 28 percent of teachers without mentoring programs.
  New York City's District 2 has made professional development the 
central component for improving schools. They believe that student 
learning will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it's 
working. In 1996, student math scores were second in the city.
  Massachusetts has invested $60 million in the Teacher Quality 
Endowment Fund to launch the 12-to-62 Plan for Strengthening 
Massachusetts Future Teaching Force. The plan being developed is a 
comprehensive effort to improve recruitment, retention, and 
professional development of teachers throughout their careers.
  Congress should build on and support these successful efforts across 
the country to ensure that the nation's teaching force is strong and 
successful in the years ahead.

  The Teacher Excellence Act we are introducing will invest $1.2 
billion in fiscal year 2000 to improve the recruitment, retention, and 
on-going professional development of the nation's teachers. The 
proposal will provide states and local school districts with the 
support they need to recruit excellent teacher candidates, to retain 
and

[[Page S564]]

support promising beginning teachers, and to provide veteran teachers 
and principals with the on-going professional development they need to 
help all children meet high standards of achievement.
  States will receive grants through the current Title I or Title II 
formula, whichever is greater. They will use 20 percent of the funding 
to provide scholarships to prospective teachers--whether they are high 
school graduates, professionals who want to make a career change, or 
paraprofessionals who want to become fully certified as teachers. 
Scholarship recipients must agree to teach for at least 3 years after 
completion of the teaching degree and teach in a high-need school 
district or in a high-need subject.
  At least 70 percent of the funds must go to local school districts on 
a competitive basis to implement, improve or expand high-quality 
programs for beginning teachers, including mentoring and internship 
programs, and provide high-quality professional development for 
principals and veteran teachers. Our goal is to ensure that every child 
has the opportunity to meet high state standards. States must also set 
additional eligibility criteria, including the poverty rate of the 
school district; the need for support based on low student achievement 
and low teacher retention rates; and the need for upgrading the 
knowledge and skills of veteran teachers in high-priority content 
areas. Other criteria include the need to help students with 
disabilities and limited English proficiency. States must target grants 
to school districts with the highest needs and ensure a fair 
distribution of grants among school districts serving urban and rural 
areas.
  In addition to providing states and communities with the support they 
need to ensure that there is a qualified, well-trained teacher in every 
classroom, we must also hold states and communities accountable for 
results--and for making the changes that will achieve those results.
  Currently, teachers are often assigned subjects in which they have no 
training or experience. Nearly one-fourth of all secondary school 
teachers do not have even a college minor in their main teaching field, 
let alone a college major. This fact is true for more than 50 percent 
of math teachers. 56 percent of high school students taking a physical 
science course are taught by out-of-field teachers, as are 27 percent 
of those taking mathematics, and 21 percent of those taking English. 
The proportions are much higher in high-poverty schools. In schools 
with the highest minority enrollments, students have less than a 50 
percent chance of having science or math teachers who hold a license 
and a degree in the field they teach.
  Because of teacher shortages caused by rising enrollments and teacher 
retirements, communities must often lower their standards and hire 
unqualified teachers. Currently, communities across the country have 
hired 50,000 unqualified teachers in order to address such shortages. 
More than 12 percent of newly hired teachers have no training and 15 
percent of new teachers enter teaching without meeting state standards.

  Under the Teacher Excellence Act, states and communities will be held 
accountable for reducing the number of emergency certified teachers and 
out-of-field placements of teachers. As they work to improve 
recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers, 
states and communities should also reduce these practices that 
undermine efforts to help all students meet high standards. States will 
be able to use up to 10 percent of the funds in order to meet these 
accountability requirements.
  In addition, the bill supports the full $300 million for funding of 
Title II of the Higher Education Act to improve the initial preparation 
of teachers. Also, current support for technology programs must include 
a requirement for training teachers in how to use technologies 
effectively to improve student learning.
  We must do all we can to improve teacher quality across the country. 
What teachers know and are able to teach are among the most important 
influences on student achievement. Improving teacher quality is an 
effective way to link high state standards to the classroom. We should 
do all we can to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn 
from a qualified, well-trained teacher and to attend a school with a 
well-trained principal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 137. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the increase in tax on social security benefits; to the Committee on 
Finance.


           The Senior Citizens Income Tax Relief Act of 1999

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens 
Income Tax Relief Act. This legislation would give seniors relief from 
the Clinton Social Security tax increase of 1993. I introduced this 
bill on August 5, 1993, the day this tax was first imposed on America's 
senior citizens.
  Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
recently predicted that the federal government would generate a budget 
surplus of up to $700 billion over the next 10 years. He proposed that 
roughly $600 billion of this surplus be used to fund a tax cut. I could 
not agree more. I will be working with Senator Domenici and members of 
the Senate on both sides of the aisle to ensure that there will be 
sufficient room in this surplus for Social Security tax relief for 
senior citizens.
  Millions of America's senior citizens depend on Social Security as a 
critical part of their retirement income. Having paid into the program 
throughout their working lives, retirees count on the government to 
meet its obligations under the Social Security contract. For many, the 
security provided by this supplemental pension plan is the difference 
between a happy and healthy retirement and one marked by uncertainty 
and apprehension, particularly for the vast majority of seniors on 
fixed incomes.
  As part of his massive 1993 tax hike, President Clinton imposed a tax 
increase on senior citizens, subjecting to taxation up to 85 percent of 
the Social Security received by seniors with annual incomes of over 
$34,000 and couples with over $44,000 in annual income.
  This represents a 70 percent increase in the marginal tax rate for 
these seniors. Factor in the government's ``Social Security Earnings 
Limitation,'' and a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 percent--
twice the rate paid by millionaires.
  An analysis of government-provided figures on the 1993 Social 
Security tax increase finds that, at the end of 1998, America's seniors 
have paid an extra $25 billion because of this tax hike, including $380 
million from senior citizens in Arizona alone.
  Mr. President, I want to make an additional important point. Despite 
all the partisan demagoguery, the only attack on Social Security in 
recent years has come from the administration and the other party in 
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Not one Republican 
supported this tax increase on Social Security benefits.
  If the administration opposes any meaningful tax cut, the relief we 
will be able to provide will be limited. It will be difficult, then, to 
repeal the Social Security tax increase. This is why, in the 105th 
Congress, I offered an amendment to ensure that we are able to expand 
tax relief in the future, and why the first tax relief proposal I am 
introducing in the 106th Congress will repeal President Clinton's 1993 
Social Security tax increase.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for expenses of attending elementary and 
secondary schools and for contributions to charitable organizations 
which provide scholarships for children to attend such schools; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                j-12 community participation act of 1999

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an education proposal 
that will increase parental and student choice, educational quality, 
and school safety.
  A colleague from the Arizona delegation, representative Matt Salmon, 
is today introducing this proposal in the House of Representatives.
  The ``K through 12 Community Participation Act'' would offer tax 
credits to families and businesses of up to $250 annually for qualified 
K through 12 education expenses or activities.
  Over the last 30 years, Americans have steadily increased their 
monetary

[[Page S565]]

commitment to education. Unfortunately, we have not seen a 
corresponding improvement in the quality of the education our children 
receive. Given our financial commitment, and the great importance of 
education, these results are unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I believe the problem is not how much money is spent, 
but how it is spent, and by whom.
  The K through 12 Community Participation Act addresses the problem of 
falling education standards by giving families and businesses a tax 
incentive to provide children with a higher quality education through 
choice and competition.
  The problem of declining education standards is illustrated by a 1998 
report released by the Education and Workforce Committee of the House 
of Representatives, Education at the Crossroads. This is the most 
comprehensive review of federal education programs ever undertaken by 
the United States Congress. It shows that the federal government's 
response to the decline in American schools has been to build bigger 
bureaucracies, not a better education system.
  According to the report, there are more than 760 federal education 
programs overseen by at least 39 federal agencies at a cost of $100 
billion a year to taxpayers. These programs are overlapping and 
duplicative.
  For example, there are 63 separate (but similar) math and science 
programs, 14 literacy programs, and 11 drug-education programs. Even 
after accounting for recent streamlining efforts, the U.S. Department 
of Education still requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork 
per year--this is the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time.
  States get at most seven percent of their total education funds from 
the federal government, but most states report that roughly half of 
their paperwork is imposed by federal education authorities.
  The federal government spends tax dollars on closed captioning of 
``educational'' programs such as ``Baywatch'' and Jerry Springer's 
squalid daytime talk show.
  With such a large number of programs funded by the federal 
government, it's no wonder local school authorities feel the heavy hand 
of Washington upon them.
  And what are the nation's taxpayers getting for their money? 
According to the report,
  Around 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read; and 57 percent of 
urban students score below their grade level.
  Half of all students from urban school districts fail to graduate on 
time, if at all.
  U.S. 12th graders ranked third from the bottom out of 21 nations in 
mathematics.
  According to U.S. manufacturers, 40 percent of all 17-year-olds do 
not have the math skills to hold down a production job at a 
manufacturing company.
  The conclusion of the Education at the Crossroads report is that the 
federally designed ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to education is 
simply not working.
  Mr. President, I believe we need a federal education policy that 
will:
  Give parents more control.
  Give local schools and school boards more control.
  Spend dollars in the classrooms, not on a Washington bureaucracy.
  Reaffirm our commitment to basic academics.
  My state of Arizona has led the way with education tax credit 
legislation passed in 1997. This state law provides tax credits that 
can be used by parents and businesses to cover certain types of 
expenses attendant to primary and secondary education.
  Mr. President, today, Representative Salmon and I are reintroducing a 
form of the Arizona education tax-credit law.
  The K through 12 Community Participating Education Act would be 
phased in over four years and would encourage parents, businesses, and 
other members of the community to invest in our children's education.
  Specifically, it offers every family or business a tax credit of up 
to $250 annually for any K through 12 education expense or activity. 
This tax credit could be applied to home schooling, public schools 
(including charter schools), or parochial schools. Allowable expenses 
would include tuition, books, supplies, and tutors.
  Further, the tax credit could be given to a ``school-tuition 
organization'' for distribution. To qualify as a school-tuition 
organization, the organization would have to devote at least 90 percent 
of its income per year to offering available grants and scholarships 
for parents to use to send their children to the school of their 
choice.
  How would this work? A group of businesses in any community could 
join forces to send sums for which they received tax credits to 
charitable ``school-tuition organizations'' which would make 
scholarships and grants available to low income parents of children 
currently struggling to learn in unsafe, non-functional schools.
  Providing all parents--including low income parents--increased 
freedom to choose will foster competition and increase parental 
involvement in education.
  Insuring this choice will make the federal education tax code more 
like Arizona's. It is a limited but important step the Congress and the 
President can--and I believe, must--take.
  Mr. President, it's clear that top-down, one-size fits all, big 
government education policy has failed our children and our country.
  This tax-credit legislation will refocus our efforts on doing what is 
in the best interests of the child as determined by parents, and will 
give parents and businesses the opportunity to take an important step 
to rescue American education so that we can have the educated citizenry 
that Thomas Jefferson said was essential to our health as a nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 139. 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.


           separate enrollment and line item veto act of 1999

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Separate Enrollment 
and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. I'm pleased to be joined by my long-
time colleague and tireless fighter for budget sanity, Senator Hollings 
of South Carolina.
  As former governors, we both understand the importance of line-item 
veto authority in prioritizing spending. The legislation we introduce 
today is similar to that passed by the Senate in 1995, which is 
patterned on the separate enrollment process that we both supported 
with former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey.
  I have been a long-time supporter of various line-item veto measures 
because I believe that only the President has the singular ability to 
reconcile spending priorities in the best interest of the nation. 
Recognizing that Congress has been unable or unwilling to seriously 
address our problems with special interest tax provisions and spending 
for members' pet projects, as last year's appropriations process 
attests, some form of additional veto authority should be given to the 
President. Otherwise, the President continues to have to approve items 
in bills which he doesn't support to approve those that he does.
  As my colleagues know, the Separate Enrollment Line Item Veto 
legislation we passed in 1995 in the Senate was ultimately changed in 
conference negotiations with the House of Representatives. The end 
product of those negotiations was an enhanced rescission line item veto 
process, giving the President the ability to strike items from bills 
after signing them into law. Because that approach was struck down by 
the Supreme Court, I believe the line item veto is an important enough 
fiscal tool that we ought to put forward other alternatives.
  The separate enrollment process contained in this bill presents few 
constitutional concerns. This process doesn't give the President the 
ability to strike items from bills he otherwise approves. This approach 
breaks down bills into their individual parts that are then passed 
again as separate bills, making sure each provision can then stand on 
its own merits.
  In closing, let me acknowledge that this line item veto legislation, 
like the previous experiment, won't solve all

[[Page S566]]

the nation's fiscal problems, but that it is a needed step if we are 
interested in pursuing good public and budget policy.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Robb to 
introduce the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. This 
Congress, I hope the Senate will finally dispense with political 
gamesmanship and enact a true line item veto. It is past time to 
restore responsibility to federal spending by granting the President 
the power to strike wasteful and unnecessary items from our budget.
  The bill we are introducing today is a ``separate enrollment'' line 
item veto. It provides that each spending or tax provision be enrolled 
as a separate bill, allowing the President to either sign or veto each 
of these smaller bills in accordance with the veto power expressly 
granted under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. This 
legislation is designed to allow the President to strike spending or 
tax items from the budget without violating the delicate separation of 
powers which exists under our Constitution. In contrast, the so-called 
``enhanced rescission'' line item veto--enacted in 1996 and struck down 
by the Supreme Court on June 25, 1998--represented a shift in the 
separation of powers. Under that approach, the President had the 
authority to sign a bill into law, then strike individual provisions 
and require a Congressional supermajority to override these 
rescissions. In doing so, the President was clearly performing a 
legislative function granted exclusively to Congress by the 
Constitution.
  When the Supreme Court announced its decision striking down the 1996 
line item veto, the White House and many in Congress clamored in the 
media about how disappointed they were. The truth is that no one was 
really surprised. In fact, many Senators--including myself--made 
statements in 1996 and voted against the bill because it was 
unconstitutional. The events surrounding the enactment of the 1996 law 
clearly show that politics was placed before policy. In 1995 our 
separate enrollment approach had received bipartisan support in the 
Senate, with 69 Senators voting for the measure. The ``enhanced 
rescission'' approach, on the other hand, received only 45 votes when 
considered in 1993, with several Senators raising constitutional 
objections during the debate. However, in an apparent attempt to put 
off meaningful reform in favor of Presidential politics, the ``enhanced 
rescission'' bill was resurrected in 1996 in an effort to score 
political points. Now, we have come full circle after the Court's 
decision. It is time to get serious and enact the same bill which 
received 69 votes in 1995.
  Mr. President, I am no stranger to this issue. As Governor of South 
Carolina, I saw first hand how effective the line item veto can be. I 
used it to cut millions of dollars in wasteful spending from the state 
budget, and in the process helped earn South Carolina the first AAA 
credit rating in the state's history. The Governors of 43 states now 
possess line item veto authority. I have been trying for years to bring 
this same approach to Washington. I have introduced or co-sponsored a 
separate enrollment line-item veto in every Congress since 1985. In 
that year, I co-sponsored Senator Mack Mattingly's separate enrollment 
bill, which received 58 votes in the Senate. In 1990, I offered a 
similar bill in the Senate Budget Committee, which passed the line item 
veto for the first time in history by a bipartisan vote of 13-6. In 
1993, after Senator Bradley came on board, we were again able to get a 
majority of 53 votes. Then, in 1995, support for the bill reached an 
all-time high when the bill finally passed the Senate with 69 votes.
  One needs to look no further than last year's end of the session 
debacle to see the need for the line item veto. Nearly an entire year's 
worth of legislation--including eight of the thirteen normal 
appropriations bills, an emergency spending bill, and a tax 
``extenders'' bill--was wrapped into a monstrosity entitled the Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 
Year 1999. The time period between the drafting of the bill and its 
enactment was so short that Senators made statements on the floor that 
they did not even know the contents of the bill. Unfortunately, this 
type of omnibus appropriations has become common in recent years, and 
it prevents an obvious opportunity for abuse. Wasteful spending and tax 
items are included in these huge, hastily drafted bills, and the 
President is faced with a ``take it or leave it'' proposition. With the 
session winding down, he often is forced to ``take it,'' including 
items which are totally without merit. The line item veto would prevent 
this type of waste and irresponsibility by allowing each item to be 
considered separately.
  I urge my colleagues to support this line item veto bill with the 
same bi-partisan support it received in 1995 so that we may finally 
restore responsibility to our federal budget process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 140. A bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in 
the State of New York as an affiliated area of the National Park 
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


           thomas cole national historic site designation act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which would 
place the home and studio of Thomas Cole under the care of the Greene 
County Historical Society as a National Historic Site. I am pleased 
Senator Schumer has agreed to cosponsor this bill. Thomas Cole founded 
the American artistic tradition known as the Hudson River School. He 
painted landscapes of the American wilderness as it never had been 
depicted, untamed and majestic, the way Americans saw it in the 1830s 
and 1840s as they moved west. His students and followers included 
Frederick Church, Alfred Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and John Frederick 
Kennesett.
  No description of Cole's works would do them justice, but let me say 
that their moody, dramatic style and subject matter were in sharp 
contrast to the pastoral European landscapes that Americans previously 
had admired. The new country was just settled enough that some people 
had time and resources to devote to collecting art. Cole's new style 
coincided with this growing interest, to the benefit of both.
  Cole had begun his painting career in Manhattan, but one day took a 
steamboat up the Hudson for inspiration. It worked. The landscapes he 
saw set him on the artistic course that became his life's work. He 
eventually moved to a house up the river in Catskill. First he boarded; 
then he bought the house. He married and raised his family there. That 
house, known as Cedar Grove, remained in the Cole family until 1979, 
when it was put up for sale.
  The Cole house would be only the second site under the umbrella of 
the Park Service dedicated to interpreting the life and work of an 
American painter.
  Olana, Church's home, sits immediately across the Hudson, so we have 
the opportunity to provide visitors with two nearby destinations that 
show the inspiration for two of America's foremost nineteenth century 
painters. Visitors could walk, hike, or drive to the actual spots where 
masterpieces were painted and see the landscape much as it was then.
  I regret that none of Thomas Cole's work hang in the Capitol, 
although two works by Bierstadt can be found in the stairwell outside 
the Speaker's Lobby. Perhaps Cole's greatest work is the four-part 
Voyage of Life, an allegorical series that depicts man in the four 
stages of life. It can be found in the National Gallery, along with two 
other Cole paintings. Another work of Cole's that we would be advised 
to remember is The Course of Empire, which depicts the rise of a great 
civilization from the wilderness, and its return.
  Several years ago the first major Cole exhibition in decades was held 
at the National Museum of American Art. The exhibition was all the 
evidence needed of Cole's importance and the merit of adding his home 
to the list of National Historic Sites. I should add that this must 
happen soon. The house needs work, and will not endure many more 
winters in its present state.
  This legislation would authorize cooperative agreements under which 
the management of the Cole House would go to the Greene County 
Historical Society, which is entirely qualified for the job. The 
Society could enter into cooperative agreements with the National Park 
Service for the preservation and interpretation of the site.

[[Page S567]]

  I ask that my colleagues support this legislation, and 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. 140

       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 ``Thomas Cole National 
     Historic Site Designation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Hudson River school of landscape painting was 
     inspired by Thomas Cole and was characterized by a group of 
     19th century landscape artists who recorded and celebrated 
     the landscape and wilderness of the United States, 
     particularly in the Hudson River Valley region in the State 
     of New York;
       (2) Thomas Cole is recognized as the United States's most 
     prominent landscape and allegorical painter of the mid-19th 
     century;
       (3) located in Greene County, New York, the Thomas Cole 
     House, also known as Thomas Cole's Cedar Grove, is listed on 
     the National Register of Historic Places and has been 
     designated as a National Historic Landmark;
       (4) within a 15-mile radius of the Thomas Cole House, an 
     area that forms a key part of the rich cultural and natural 
     heritage of the Hudson River Valley region, significant 
     landscapes and scenes painted by Thomas Cole and other Hudson 
     River artists, such as Frederic Church, survive intact;
       (5) the State of New York has established the Hudson River 
     Valley Greenway to promote the preservation, public use, and 
     enjoyment of the natural and cultural resources of the Hudson 
     River Valley region; and
       (6) establishment of the Thomas Cole National Historic Site 
     will provide--
       (A) opportunities for the illustration and interpretation 
     of cultural themes of the heritage of the United States; and
       (B) unique opportunities for education, public use, and 
     enjoyment.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret the Thomas Cole House and 
     studio for the benefit, inspiration, and education of the 
     people of the United States;
       (2) to help maintain the integrity of the setting in the 
     Hudson River Valley region that inspired artistic expression;
       (3) to coordinate the interpretive, preservation, and 
     recreational efforts of Federal, State, and other entities in 
     the Hudson Valley region in order to enhance opportunities 
     for education, public use, and enjoyment; and
       (4) to broaden understanding of the Hudson River Valley 
     region and its role in the history and culture of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Thomas Cole National Historic Site established by section 4.
       (2) Hudson river artist.--The term ``Hudson River artist'' 
     means an artist associated with the Hudson River school of 
     landscape painting.
       (3) Plan.--The term ``plan'' means the general management 
     plan developed under section 6(d).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) Society.--The term ``Society'' means the Greene County 
     Historical Society of Greene County, New York, that owns the 
     Thomas Cole House, studio, and other property comprising the 
     historic site.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THOMAS COLE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established, as an affiliated 
     area of the National Park System, the Thomas Cole National 
     Historic Site in the State of New York.
       (b) Description.--The historic site shall consist of the 
     Thomas Cole House and studio, comprising approximately 3.4 
     acres, located at 218 Spring Street in the village of 
     Catskill, New York, as generally depicted on the boundary map 
     numbered TCH/80002, and dated March 1992.

     SEC. 5. RETENTION OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC 
                   SITE BY GREENE COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

       Under a cooperative agreement entered into under section 
     6(b)(1), the Greene County Historical Society of Greene 
     County, New York, shall own, manage, and operate the historic 
     site.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Applicability of National Park System Laws.--Under a 
     cooperative agreement entered into under subsection (b)(1), 
     the historic site shall be administered by the Society in a 
     manner consistent with this Act and all laws generally 
     applicable to units of the National Park System, including--
       (1) 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
       (2) 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.--
       (1) Assistance to society.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the Society--
       (A) to preserve the Thomas Cole House and other structures 
     in the historic site; and
       (B) to assist with education programs and research and 
     interpretation of the Thomas Cole House and associated 
     landscapes in the historic site.
       (2) Other assistance.--The Secretary may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the State of New York, the 
     Society, the Thomas Cole Foundation, and other public and 
     private entities to--
       (A) further the purposes of this Act; and
       (B) develop, present, and fund art exhibits, resident 
     artist programs, and other appropriate activities related to 
     the preservation, interpretation, and use of the historic 
     site.
       (c) Artifacts and Property.--
       (1) Personal property generally.--The Secretary may acquire 
     personal property associated with, and appropriate for, the 
     interpretation of the historic site.
       (2) Works of art.--The Secretary may acquire works of art 
     associated with Thomas Cole and other Hudson River artists 
     for the purpose of display at the historic site.
       (d) General Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2000, under a 
     cooperative agreement entered into under section 6(b)(1), the 
     Society, with the assistance of the Secretary, shall develop 
     a general management plan for the historic site.
       (2) Contents of plan.--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) Authority.--The plan shall be prepared in accordance 
     with section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-7(b)).
       (4) Submission of plan.--On the completion of the plan, the 
     Secretary shall provide a copy of the plan to--
       (A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 141. A bill to amend section 845 of title 18, United States Code, 
relating to explosive materials; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               legislation relating to explosive material

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
restricts those who can have access to black powder, the primary 
ingredient in pipe bombs. At present, there are no restrictions on 
those who wish to buy commercially manufactured black powder in 
quantities not to exceed 50 pounds solely for sporting or recreational 
purposes. Anyone, including a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, 
and a person adjudicated to be mentally defective, can buy commercially 
manufactured black powder in the above amounts with no questions asked. 
This is both wrong and dangerous. The same restrictions that apply to 
who can buy explosives should also apply to those who can lawfully buy 
commercially manufactured black powder.
  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. 141

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

     SECTION 1. EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS.

       Section 845(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph 
     (6) as paragraph (5).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 142. A bill to amend section 842 of title 18, United States Code, 
relating to explosive materials transfers; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


  legislation to require that the federal government be notified when 
                        explosives are purchased

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would require vendors of explosives to notify the Federal Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.) when they sell such items. 
Now, there is no requirement that a seller notify the B.A.T.F. when a 
customer buys explosives. All that is required is that the buyer 
complete a federally generated form--5400.4--and that the seller keep 
it. There is nothing that requires the seller to send a copy of this 
form to the B.A.T.F.
  In all likelihood, any terrorist attach aimed at this country's 
infrastructure will use explosives to achieve its purpose. One key way 
to prevent an attack

[[Page S568]]

such as this is to have information about the individuals who are 
buying these items.
  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. 142

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

     SECTION 1. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS 
                   TRANSFERS.

       Section 842(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, 
     in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``require,'' and inserting ``require (''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``) and transmitting a copy of each such record to 
     the Secretary''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 143. A bill to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to 
standardize the physical examinations that each boxer must take prior 
to each professional boxing match and to require a brain CAT scan every 
2 years as a requirement for the licensing of a boxer; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


         The Professional Boxing Safety Act Amendments of 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, On January 3, 1999, Jerry Quarry, a 
perennial heavyweight boxing champion contender in the 1960's and 
1970's, died of pneumonia brought on by an advanced state of dementia 
pugilistica. He was 53. The list goes on: Sugar Ray Robinson, Archie 
Moore and Muhammad Ali are but a few examples. The Professional Boxing 
Safety Act of 1996 was an excellent step toward making professional 
boxing safer for its participants. Nevertheless, it contains several 
gaps.
  The two amendments I propose here today are aimed at protecting 
professional fighters by requiring more rigorous prefight physical 
examinations and by requiring a brain catscan before a boxer can renew 
his or her professional license.
  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. 143

       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 ``Professional Boxing Safety 
     Act Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING SAFETY ACT OF 
                   1996.

       (a) Standardized Physical Examinations.--Section 5(1) of 
     the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 
     6304(1)) is amended by inserting after ``examination'' the 
     following: ``, based on guidelines endorsed by the American 
     Medical Association, including a circulo-respiratory check 
     and a neurological examination,''.
       (b) CAT Scans.--Section 6(b)(2) of the Professional Boxing 
     Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6305(b)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``and, with 
     respect to such renewal, present proof from a physician that 
     such boxer has taken a computerized axial tomography (CAT) 
     scan within the 30-day period preceding that date on which 
     the renewal application is submitted and that no brain damage 
     from boxing has been detected''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 144. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to review the 
suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 
System of the Everglades expansion area; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


    REVIEW OF EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA FOR POTENTIAL AS WILDERNESS

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since my days as Governor of the State of 
Florida, I have been a strong advocate of the protection and 
restoration of the Florida Everglades, the largest wetland and 
subtropical wilderness in the United States. This legislation will 
require the Secretary of the Interior to review the suitability for 
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System of the 
Everglades expansion area, a designation that will protect and preserve 
this area for the use of present and future generations. This action 
will be an important step towards maintaining the natural habitat of 
such endangered species as the Florida panther, the snail kite, and the 
cape sable seaside sparrow, as well as sustaining uninterupted water 
flow to the Everglades' aquifers, the main water source for the 
majority of the rapidly growing state of Florida. Over the last 100 
years, this ecosystem has been altered by man to provide for 
development, to manage water for irrigation, and to provide flood 
control in times of hurricanes. The review of this land for potential 
as wilderness may lead to greater future protection of the Everglades 
ecosystem.
  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. 144

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

     SECTION 1. REVIEW OF EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA FOR POTENTIAL 
                   AS WILDERNESS.

       (a) Definition of Addition.--In this section, the term 
     ``addition'' has the meaning given the term in section 101(c) 
     of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act 
     of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-5(c)).
       (b) Review and Report.--Subject to subsection (c), in 
     accordance with section 3 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1132), the Secretary of the Interior shall review and report 
     on the suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System of any part of the addition.
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (b) shall take effect--
       (1) on the date of submission to Congress of the proposed 
     comprehensive plan to restore, preserve, and protect the 
     South Florida ecosystem required by section 528(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3767); but
       (2) only if the plan does not specify that construction and 
     water storage are required in the addition (as determined by 
     the Secretary of the Interior).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM:
  S. 145. A bill to control crime by requiring mandatory victim 
restitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   Victim Restitution Enforcement Act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Victim 
Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999. I have long supported restitution 
for crime victims, and have long been convinced that justice requires 
us to devise effective mechanisms through which victims can enforce 
restitution orders and make criminals pay for their crimes.
  I was very pleased when we enacted mandatory victim restitution 
legislation in the 104th Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I supported that legislation and 
very much appreciated the efforts of my colleagues, particularly 
Senators Hatch, Biden, Nickles, Grassley, and McCain, to ensure that 
victim restitution provisions were included in the antiterrorism 
legislation.
  Those victim restitution provisions--brought together as the 
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996--will significantly advance 
the cause of justice for victims in federal criminal cases. The Act 
requires federal courts, when sentencing criminal defendants, to order 
these defendants to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes. It 
also establishes a single set of procedures for the issuance of 
restitution orders in federal criminal cases to provide uniformity in 
the federal system. Inclusion of mandatory victim restitution 
provisions in the federal criminal code was long overdue, and I am 
pleased that the 104th Congress was able to accomplish that.
  However, much more remains to be done to ensure that victims can 
actually collect those restitution payments and to provide victims with 
effective means to pursue whatever restitution payments are owed to 
them. Even if a defendant may not have the resources to pay off a 
restitution order fully, victims should still be entitled to go after 
whatever resources a defendant does have and to collect whatever they 
can. We should not effectively tell victims that it is not worth going 
after whatever payments they might get. That is what could happen under 
the current system, in which victims have to rely on government 
attorneys--who may be busy with many other matters--to pursue 
restitution payments. Instead, we should give victims themselves the 
tools they need so that they can get what is rightfully theirs.
  The victim restitution provisions enacted in the 104th Congress 
consolidated the procedures for the collection of unpaid restitution 
with existing procedures for the collection of unpaid

[[Page S569]]

fines. Unless more steps are taken to make enforcement of restitution 
orders more effective for victims, we risk allowing mandatory 
restitution to be mandatory in name only, with criminals able to evade 
ever paying their restitution and victims left without the ability to 
take action to enforce restitution orders.
  In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Victim Restitution 
Enforcement Act of 1995. Many components of my legislation were also 
included in the victim restitution legislation enacted as part of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The legislation I 
introduce today is similar to the legislation I introduced in the 104th 
Congress as Senate Bill S. 1504 and again in the 105th Congress as S. 
812, and is designed to build on what are now current provisions of 
law. All in all, I hope to ensure that restitution payments from 
criminals to victims become a reality, and that victims have a greater 
degree of control in going after criminals to obtain restitution 
payments.

  Under my legislation, restitution orders would be enforceable as a 
civil debt, payable immediately. Most restitution is now collected 
entirely through the criminal justice system. It is frequently paid as 
directed by the probation officer, which means restitution payments 
cannot begin until the prisoner is released. This bill makes 
restitution orders payable immediately, as a civil debt, speeding 
recovery and impeding attempts by criminals to avoid repayment. This 
provision will not impose criminal penalties on those unable to pay, 
but will simply allow civil collection against those who have assets.
  This will provide victims with new means of collecting restitution 
payments. If the debt is payable immediately, all normal civil 
collection procedures, including the Federal Debt Collection Act, can 
be used to collect the debt. The bill explicitly gives victims access 
to other civil procedures already in place for the collection of debts. 
This lightens the burden of collecting debt on our Federal courts and 
prosecutors.
  My bill further provides that Federal courts will continue to have 
jurisdiction over criminal restitution judgments for five years, not 
including time that the defendant is incarcerated. The court is 
presently permitted to resentence or take several other actions against 
a criminal who willfully refuses to make restitution payments; the 
court may do so until the termination of the term of parole. Courts 
should have the ability to do more over a longer period of time, and to 
select those means that are more likely to prove successful. Under my 
bill, during the extended period, Federal courts will be permitted, 
where the defendant knowingly fails to make restitution payments, to 
modify the terms or conditions of a defendant's parole, extend the 
defendant's probation or supervised release, hold the defendant in 
contempt, increase the defendant's original sentence, or revoke 
probation or supervised release.
  My legislation will also give the courts power to impose pre-sentence 
restraints on defendants' uses of their assets in appropriate cases. 
This will prevent well-heeled defendants from dissipating assets prior 
to sentencing. Without such provisions, mandatory victim restitution 
provisions may well be useless in many cases. Even in those rare cases 
in which a defendant has the means to pay full restitution at once, if 
the court has no capacity to prevent the defendant from spending ill-
gotten gains or other assets prior to the sentencing phase, there may 
be nothing left for the victim by the time the restitution order is 
entered.
  The provisions permitting pre-sentence restraints are similar to 
other provisions that already exist in the law for private civil 
actions and asset forfeiture cases, and they provide adequate 
protections for defendants. They require a court hearing, for example, 
and place the burden on the government to show by a preponderance of 
the evidence that pre-sentence restraints are warranted.
  In short, I want to make criminals pay and to give victims the tools 
with which to make them pay. In enacting mandatory victim restitution 
legislation in the 104th Congress, we demonstrated our willingness to 
make some crimes subject to this process. I believe we must take 
additional steps to make those mandatorily issued orders easily 
enforceable.
  This legislation is supported by the National Victim Center and by 
the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask 
unanimous consent to have placed in the Record letters of support from 
those victims' rights organizations.
  I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will empower 
victims to collect on the debts that they are owed by criminals and 
which will improve the enforceability of restitution orders.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be placed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This section provides that the act may be cited as the 
     ``Victim Restitution Enforcement Act of 1999.''

     SECTION 2. PROCEDURES FOR ISSUANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   RESTITUTION ORDER.

       This section amends the Federal criminal code to revise 
     procedures for the issuance and enforcement of restitution 
     orders. The legislation directs the court to: (1) order the 
     probation service of the court to obtain and include in its 
     presentence report, or in a separate report, information 
     sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in 
     fashioning a restitution order (which shall include a 
     complete accounting of the losses to each victim, any 
     restitution owed pursuant to a plea agreement, and 
     information relating to the economic circumstances of each 
     defendant); and (2) disclose to the defendant and the 
     attorney for the Government all portions of the report 
     pertaining to such matters.
       This section also makes specified provisions of the Federal 
     criminal code and Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure the only rules applicable to proceedings for the 
     issuance and enforcement of restitution orders. It authorizes 
     the court, upon application of the United States, to enter a 
     restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a 
     satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to 
     preserve the availability of property or assets necessary to 
     satisfy a criminal restitution order, if specified 
     circumstances apply.
       This legislation also sets forth provisions regarding: (1) 
     notice requirements; (2) evidence and information that the 
     court may consider at a hearing; (3) the use of temporary 
     restraining orders; (4) disclosure of financial information 
     regarding the defendant; (5) the use of consumer credit 
     reports; (6) timetables for the attorney for the United 
     States to provide the probation service of the court with 
     information available to the attorney, including matters 
     occurring before the grand jury relating to the identity of 
     the victims, the amount of loss, and financial matters 
     relating to the defendant.
       Further, this section directs the attorney for the 
     Government to provide notice to all victims. It authorizes: 
     (1) the court to limit the information to be provided or 
     sought by the probation service under specified 
     circumstances; (2) a victim who objects to any information 
     provided to the probation service by the attorney for the 
     United States to file a separate affidavit with the court; 
     and (3) the court to require additional documentation or hear 
     testimony after reviewing the report of the probation 
     service. Provides for the privacy of records filed and 
     testimony heard and permits records to be filed or testimony 
     to be heard in camera.
       This legislation also establishes procedures regarding the 
     court's ascertaining of the victims' losses. It permits the 
     court to refer any issue arising in connection with a 
     proposed restitution order to a magistrate or special master 
     for proposed findings of fact and recommendations as to 
     disposition, subject to a de novo determination of the issue 
     by the court. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) 
     consideration of compensation for losses from insurance or 
     other sources; and (2) the burden of proof.
       The bill directs the court to order restitution to each 
     victim in the full amount of each victim's losses as 
     determined by the court without consideration of the 
     defendant's economic circumstances. It sets forth provisions 
     regarding situations where the amount of the loss is not 
     reasonably ascertainable, and where there is more than one 
     defendant. The bill also specifies that no victim shall be 
     required to participate in any phase of a restitution order.
       This legislation requires the defendant to notify the court 
     and the Attorney General of any material change in the 
     defendant's economic circumstances that might affect the 
     defendant's ability to pay restitution. Authorizes the court 
     to adjust the payment schedule.
       It also sets forth provisions regarding: (1) court 
     retention of jurisdiction over criminal restitution 
     judgments; and (2) enforcement of restitution orders. 
     Further, this section specifies that: (1) a conviction of a 
     defendant for an offense giving rise to restitution shall 
     estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of 
     that offense in any subsequent Federal civil proceeding or 
     State civil proceeding, regardless of any State law 
     precluding estoppel for a lack of mutuality; and (2) the 
     victim, in such subsequent proceeding, shall not be precluded 
     from establishing

[[Page S570]]

     a loss that is grater than that determined by the court in 
     the earlier criminal proceeding.

     SECTION 3. CIVIL REMEDIES

       This section adds restitution to a provision governing the 
     post-sentence administration of fines. Provides that an order 
     of restitution shall operate as a lien in favor of the United 
     States for its benefit or for the benefit of any non-federal 
     victims against all property belonging to the defendant. 
     Authorizes the court, in enforcing a restitution order, to 
     order jointly owned property divided and sold, subject to 
     specified requirements.

     SECTION 4. FINES

       Species that a defendant shall not incur any criminal 
     penalty for failure to make a payment on a fine, special 
     assessment, restitution, or cost because of the defendant's 
     indigency.

     SECTION 5. RESENTENCING

       This section authorizes the court, where a defendant 
     knowingly fails to pay a delinquent fine, to increase the 
     defendant's sentence to any sentence that might originally 
     have been imposed under the applicable statute.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Hatch, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Helms, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Grams, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 146. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to 
penalties for crimes involving cocaine, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the powder cocaine sentencing act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``The Powder Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 1999.'' This legislation would toughen federal policy 
toward powder cocaine dealers by reducing from 500 to 50 grams the 
amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing in 
order to receive a mandatory 5 year minimum sentence.
  I am convinced, Mr. President, that we need tougher sentences for 
powder cocaine dealers so that we may protect our kids from drugs and 
our neighborhoods from the violence and social breakdown that accompany 
drug trafficking.
  We have seen a disturbing trend in recent years, a reversal, really, 
of the decade long progress we enjoyed in the war on drugs. For 
example, over the last six years the percentage of high school seniors 
admitting that they had used an illicit drug has risen by more than 
half. This spells trouble for our children. Increased drug use means 
increased danger of every social pathology of which we know. It must 
stop.
  Ironically, at the same time that we are learning the disturbing news 
about overall drug use among teens, we also are finding heartening news 
in our war on violent crime. The F.B.I. now reports that, since 1991, 
the number of homicides committed in the United States has dropped by 
31 percent. Also since 1991, the number of robberies has fallen 32 
percent. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, robberies fell 
a stunning 17 percent in 1997 alone.
  This is good news, Mr. President. And there is widespread agreement 
among experts in the field that the principal cause of this decline in 
violent crime is our success in curbing the crack cocaine epidemic and 
the violent gang activities that accompany that epidemic. The New York 
Times recently reported on a conference of criminologists held in New 
Orleans. Experts at the conference agreed that the rise and fall in 
violent crime during the 1980s and 1990s closely paralleled the rise 
and fall of the crack epidemic.
  At the same time, there is a warning signal here. The most recent 
``Monitoring the Future'' Study done by the University of Michigan, 
which tracks drug use and attitudes by teenagers, showed an increase in 
the use of both crack and powder cocaine this year. This is in contrast 
to its finding that the use of other drugs by kids may finally be 
leveling off, albeit at unacceptably high levels.
  Yet surprisingly, despite these developments, in last year's Ten Year 
Plan for a National Drug Control Strategy, the Administration proposed 
making crack sentences 5 times more lenient than they are today. Why? 
The Administration say we need to reduce crack dealer sentences because 
they are too tough when compared to sentences for powder cocaine 
dealers. And it is true that it does not make sense for people higher 
on the drug chain to get lighter sentences than those at the bottom. 
But going easier on crack peddlers--the dealers who infest our school 
yards and playgrounds--is not the solution. Crack is cheap and highly 
addictive. Tough crack sentences have encouraged many dealers to turn 
in their superiors in exchange for leniency. Softening these sentences 
will remove that incentive and undermine our prosecutors, making them 
less effective at protecting our children and our neighborhoods.
  The Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act rests on the conviction that there 
is a better way to bring crack and powder cocaine sentences more in 
line. First, it rejects any proposal to lower sentences for crack 
dealers. Second, it makes sentences for powder cocaine dealers a good 
deal tougher than they are today.
  Mr. President, this legislation will reduce the differential between 
the amount of powder and crack cocaine required to trigger a mandatory 
minimum sentence from 100 to 1 to 10 to 1--the same ratio proposed by 
the Administration. But this legislation will accomplish that goal, not 
by making crack dealer sentences more lenient, but rather by toughening 
sentences for powder cocaine dealers.
  At this crucial time we may be making real progress in winning the 
war on violent crime in part because we have sent the message that 
crack gang membership is no way to live and that society will come down 
very hard on those spreading this pernicious drug. At the same time our 
kids remain all too exposed to dangerous drugs, far more exposed than 
any of us can probably really imagine. In light of these two trends, it 
would be a catastrophic mistake to let any drug dealer think that the 
cost of doing business is going down. As important, Mr. President, it 
will be nearly impossible to succeed in discouraging our children from 
using drugs if they hear we are lowering sentences for any category of 
drug dealers.
  I ask my colleagues to send a strong message to drug dealers and to 
our kids, the message that drugs are dangerous and illegal, and those 
who sell them will not be tolerated. This legislation will send this 
message, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.
  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. 146

       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 ``Powder Cocaine Sentencing 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. SENTENCING FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING COCAINE POWDER.

       (a) Amendment of Controlled Substances Act.--
       (1) Large quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and inserting ``500 
     grams''.
       (2) Small quantities.--Section 401(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``500 grams'' and inserting ``50 grams''.
       (b) Amendment of Controlled Substances Import and Export 
     Act.--
       (1) Large quantities.--Section 1010(b)(1)(B) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``5 kilograms'' and 
     inserting ``500 grams''.
       (2) Small quantities.--Section 1010(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     960(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``500 grams'' and 
     inserting ``50 grams''.
       (c) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant to 
     section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United 
     States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal 
     sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by this 
     section.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Powder Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 1999'' sponsored by Senator Spence Abraham of 
Michigan. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important 
legislation that will toughen federal policy toward powder cocaine 
dealers.
  As we begin the legislative business of the Senate this year, we must 
strengthen our efforts to stop illegal drug use and drug-related crime 
and violence. We must fulfill our moral obligation to communicate the 
dangers and consequences of illegal drug use. Continuing our fight 
against the threat of drug abuse is one of the most important 
contributions the 106th Congress

[[Page S571]]

can make toward providing a promising future for the young people of 
America.
  Under current law, a dealer must distribute 500 grams of powder 
cocaine to qualify for a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and 
distribute 5 grams of crack cocaine for that offense. These sentencing 
guidelines result in a 100-to-1 quantity ratio between powder and more 
severe crack cocaine distribution sentences. This disparity has caused 
a great deal of concern among members of Congress and the 
administration. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration fails to see 
the dangers in changing the federal crack cocaine distribution law.
  During the 104th Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recommended 
a lower threshold under which a convicted person may receive a 5-year 
mandatory sentence in cases involving the distribution of crack 
cocaine. Through the leadership of Senator Abraham, Congress 
overwhelmingly passed legislation which rejected the Sentencing 
Commission's proposal. At the signing ceremony for this legislation, 
President Clinton expressed the strong message its enactment would send 
to our Nation and those who choose to deal drugs throughout our 
communities.
  President Clinton remarked,

       We have to send a constant message to our children that 
     drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost you 
     your life--and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe. I 
     am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea 
     that the cost of doing business is going down.

  Regrettably, the Clinton administration continues to promote a 
federal sentencing policy for crack cocaine offenses that fails to 
recognize the dangerous and addictive nature of this illegal substance 
and its impact upon violent crime throughout our communities. In an 
April 1997 report to Congress, the Sentencing Commission unanimously 
recommended an increase in the mandatory minimum trigger for the 
distribution of crack cocaine.
  I share the views expressed by the administration and community 
groups in my home state of Minnesota that the current penalty disparity 
in cocaine sentencing should be addressed. However, I disagree with the 
ill-advised manner in which the administration seeks to achieve this 
goal by making the mandatory minimum prison sentences for crack cocaine 
dealers at least five times more lenient than they are today.
  Mr. President, the legislation offered today by Senator Abraham 
represents a fair and effective approach toward federal cocaine 
sentencing policy. Rather than make federal crack cocaine sentences 
more lenient, the Abraham bill would reduce from 500 to 50 grams the 
amount of powder cocaine a person must be convicted of distributing 
before receiving a mandatory 5-year sentence. This legislation would 
adjust the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio to 10-to-1 by toughening 
powder cocaine sentences without reducing crack cocaine sentences.
  By February 1, Congress will receive a National Drug Control Strategy 
from the Office of National Drug Control Policy which will contain 
goals for reducing drug abuse in the United States. As part of this 
plan, I am hopeful that National Drug Control Policy Director Barry 
McCaffrey will speak out forcefully against any proposal to make 
sentences for a person who is convicted of dealing crack cocaine more 
lenient. Punishing drug dealers who prey upon the innocence of our 
children should be a critical component of our nation's drug strategy.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the ``Powder Cocaine 
Sentencing Act of 1999'' and reject lower federal crack sentences. We 
should exercise greater oversight of federal sentencing policy for 
cocaine offenses. Passage of this legislation will help give greater 
protection to Americans from drugs by keeping offenders off the streets 
for longer periods of time.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. 
        DeWine):
  S. 147. A bill to provide for a reduction in regulatory costs by 
maintaining Federal average fuel economy standards applicable to 
automobiles in effect at current levels until changed by law, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


                corporate average fuel economy standards

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
with Senators Levin, Ashcroft, and DeWine that would freeze the 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards--known as CAFE--at current 
levels unless changed by Congress.
  This issue is attracting an increased amount of attention as 
automobile manufacturers continue to increase car and light truck 
efficiency and as Americans begin to understand the consequences of 
increased fuel economy standards: less consumer choice, more dangerous 
vehicles and reduced competitiveness for domestic automobile 
manufacturers. Perhaps, Mr. President, some of these repercussions 
could be easier to accept if the supposed benefits of increased CAFE 
standards were ever realized, but this has not occurred. In the two 
decades since CAFE standards were first mandated, this Nation's oil 
imports have grown to account for nearly half our annual consumption 
and the average number of miles driven by Americans has increased.
  Mr. President, last session 15 Senators from both sides of the aisle 
joined me in sponsoring this legislation. Given the importance of the 
automobile industry to the continued economic health of the country, 
the preference for increased capacity that American consumers have 
demonstrated and the producers' continuing trend toward more efficient 
engines, it is time for the setting of CAFE standards to once again 
reside with elected officials.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and ask 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. 147

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

     SECTION 1. AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS.

       Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the average 
     fuel economy standards established (whether directly or 
     indirectly) under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of 
     Transportation under chapter 329 of title 49, United States 
     Code, prior to the date of enactment of this Act for 
     automobiles (as that term is defined in section 32901 of 
     title 49, United States Code) that are in effect on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, shall apply without 
     amendment, change, or other modification of any kind (whether 
     direct or indirect) for--
       (1) the model years specified in the regulations;
       (2) the applicable automobiles specified in the regulations 
     last promulgated for such automobiles; and
       (3) each model year thereafter;

     until chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     specifically amended to authorize an amendment, change, or 
     other modification to such standards or is otherwise modified 
     or superseded by law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr Daschle, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Hatch, 
        and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 148. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish 
a program to provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical 
migratory birds; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                       migratory bird protection

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999.'' This 
legislation, which I am introducing today with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Chafee, is designed to protect 
over 90 endangered species of bird spending certain seasons in the 
United States and other seasons in other nations of the Western 
Hemisphere. This is actually the second time Senator Daschle and I have 
introduced this bill. Last year, after receiving considerable support 
from the environmental community, this legislation passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent. Unfortunately, time ran out for equal consideration 
in the House. Nevertheless, we are back again with renewed 
determination and I believe the effort in the 106th Congress will prove 
successful.
  Every year, Mr. President, approximately 25 million Americans travel 
to observe birds, and 60 million American adults watch and feed birds 
at home. Bird-watching is a source of real pleasure to many Americans, 
as well as a source of important revenue to states,

[[Page S572]]

like my own state of Michigan, which attract tourists to their scenes 
of natural beauty. Bird watching and feeding generates fully $20 
billion every year in revenue across America.
  Birdwatching is a popular activity in Michigan, and its increased 
popularity is reflected by an increase in tourist dollars being spent 
in small, rural communities. Healthy bird populations also prevent 
hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses each year to farming 
and timber interests. They help control insect populations, thereby 
preventing crop failures and infestations.
  Despite the enormous benefits we derive from our bird populations, 
many of them are struggling to survive. Ninety species are listed as 
endangered or threatened in the United States. Another 124 species are 
of high conservation concern. In my own state we are working to bring 
the Kirtland's Warbler back from the brink of extinction. In recent 
years, the population of this distinctive bird has been estimated at 
approximately 200 nesting pairs. That number has recently increased to 
an estimated 800 nesting pairs, but this entire species spends half of 
the year in the Bahamas. Therefore, the significant efforts made by 
Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and concerned residents will 
not be enough to save this bird if its winter habitat is degraded or 
destroyed. Not surprisingly, the primary reason for most declines is 
the loss of bird habitat.
  This situation is not unique, among bird watchers' favorites, many 
neotropical birds are endangered or of high conservation concern. And 
several of the most popular neotropical species, including bluebirds, 
robins, goldfinches and orioles, migrate to and from the Caribbean and 
Latin America.
  Because neotropical migratory birds range across a number of 
international borders every year, we must work to establish safeguards 
at both ends of their migration routes, as well as at critical stopover 
areas along their way. Only in this way can conservation efforts prove 
successful.
  That is why Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I have introduced the 
``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.'' This legislation will 
protect bird habitats across international boundaries by establishing 
partnerships between the business community, nongovernmental 
organizations and foreign nations. By teaming businesses with 
international organizations concerned to protect the environment we can 
combine capital with know-how. By partnering these entities with local 
organizations in countries where bird habitat is endangered we can see 
to it that local people receive the training they need to preserve this 
habitat and maintain this critical natural resource.

  This act establishes a three year demonstration project providing $8 
million each year to help establish programs in the United States, 
Latin America and the Caribbean. The greater portion of these funds 
will be focused outside the U.S. Approved programs will manage and 
conserve neotropical migratory bird populations. Those eligible to 
participate will include national and international nongovernmental 
organizations and business interest, as well as U.S. government 
entities.
  The key to this act is cooperation among nongovernmental 
organizations. The federal share of each project's cost is never to 
exceed 33 percent. For grants awarded outside the U.S., the nonfederal 
match can be made with in-kind contributions. This will encourage 
volunteerism and local interest in communities that lack the financial 
resource to contribute currency. Since domestic organizations and 
communities are more financially secure, the matching portion of grants 
awarded within the U.S. will be required in cash.
  The approach taken by this legislation differs from that of current 
programs in that it is proactive and, by avoiding a crisis management 
approach, will prove significantly more cost effective. In addition, 
this legislation does not call for complicated and expensive 
bureaucratic structures such as councils, commissions or multi-tiered 
oversight structures. Further, this legislation will bring needed 
attention and expertise to areas now receiving relatively little 
attention in the area of environmental degradation.
  This legislation has the support of the National Audubon Society, the 
American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. These 
organizations agree with Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee and I that, by 
establishing partnerships between business, government and 
nongovernmental organizations both here and abroad we can greatly 
enhance the protection of migratory bird habitat.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask that a copy of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 148

       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 ``Neotropical Migratory Bird 
     Conservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) of the nearly 800 bird species known to occur in the 
     United States, approximately 500 migrate among countries, and 
     the large majority of those species, the neotropical 
     migrants, winter in Latin America and the Caribbean;
       (2) neotropical migratory bird species provide invaluable 
     environmental, economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits 
     to the United States, as well as to the Western Hemisphere;
       (3)(A) many neotropical migratory bird populations, once 
     considered common, are in decline, and some have declined to 
     the point that their long-term survival in the wild is in 
     jeopardy; and
       (B) the primary reason for the decline in the populations 
     of those species is habitat loss and degradation (including 
     pollution and contamination) across the species' range; and
       (4)(A) because neotropical migratory birds range across 
     numerous international borders each year, their conservation 
     requires the commitment and effort of all countries along 
     their migration routes; and
       (B) although numerous initiatives exist to conserve 
     migratory birds and their habitat, those initiatives can be 
     significantly strengthened and enhanced by increased 
     coordination.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical 
     migratory birds;
       (2) to assist in the conservation of neotropical migratory 
     birds by supporting conservation initiatives in the United 
     States, Latin America, and the Caribbean; and
       (3) to provide financial resources and to foster 
     international cooperation for those initiatives.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Neotropical 
     Migratory Bird Conservation Account established by section 
     9(a).
       (2) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use 
     of methods and procedures necessary to bring a species of 
     neotropical migratory bird to the point at which there are 
     sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the long-term 
     viability of the species, including--
       (A) protection and management of neotropical migratory bird 
     populations;
       (B) maintenance, management, protection, and restoration of 
     neotropical migratory bird habitat;
       (C) research and monitoring;
       (D) law enforcement; and
       (E) community outreach and education.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program to 
     provide financial assistance for projects to promote the 
     conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
       (b) Project Applicants.--A project proposal may be 
     submitted by--
       (1) an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, 
     association, or other private entity;
       (2) an officer, employee, agent, department, or 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State, 
     municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or of any 
     foreign government;
       (3) a State, municipality, or political subdivision of a 
     State;
       (4) any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States or of any foreign country; and
       (5) an international organization (as defined in section 1 
     of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 
     288)).
       (c) Project Proposals.--To be considered for financial 
     assistance for a project under this Act, an applicant shall 
     submit a project proposal that--
       (1) includes--
       (A) the name of the individual responsible for the project;
       (B) a succinct statement of the purposes of the project;
       (C) a description of the qualifications of individuals 
     conducting the project; and
       (D) an estimate of the funds and time necessary to complete 
     the project, including sources and amounts of matching funds;

[[Page S573]]

       (2) demonstrates that the project will enhance the 
     conservation of neotropical migratory bird species in Latin 
     America, the Caribbean, or the United States;
       (3) includes mechanisms to ensure adequate local public 
     participation in project development and implementation;
       (4) contains assurances that the project will be 
     implemented in consultation with relevant wildlife management 
     authorities and other appropriate government officials with 
     jurisdiction over the resources addressed by the project;
       (5) demonstrates sensitivity to local historic and cultural 
     resources and complies with applicable laws;
       (6) describes how the project will promote sustainable, 
     effective, long-term programs to conserve neotropical 
     migratory birds; and
       (7) provides any other information that the Secretary 
     considers to be necessary for evaluating the proposal.
       (d) Project Reporting.--Each recipient of assistance for a 
     project under this Act shall submit to the Secretary such 
     periodic reports as the Secretary considers to be necessary. 
     Each report shall include all information required by the 
     Secretary for evaluating the progress and outcome of the 
     project.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of each 
     project shall be not greater than 33 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Source.--The non-Federal share required to be paid for 
     a project shall not be derived from any Federal grant 
     program.
       (B) Form of payment.--
       (i) Projects in the united states.--The non-Federal share 
     required to be paid for a project carried out in the United 
     States shall be paid in cash.
       (ii) Projects in foreign countries.--The non-Federal share 
     required to be paid for a project carried out in a foreign 
     country may be paid in cash or in kind.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (1) develop guidelines for the solicitation of proposals 
     for projects eligible for financial assistance under section 
     5;
       (2) encourage submission of proposals for projects eligible 
     for financial assistance under section 5, particularly 
     proposals from relevant wildlife management authorities;
       (3) select proposals for financial assistance that satisfy 
     the requirements of section 5, giving preference to proposals 
     that address conservation needs not adequately addressed by 
     existing efforts and that are supported by relevant wildlife 
     management authorities; and
       (4) generally implement this Act in accordance with its 
     purposes.

     SEC. 7. COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--In carrying out this Act, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) support and coordinate existing efforts to conserve 
     neotropical migratory bird species, through--
       (A) facilitating meetings among persons involved in such 
     efforts;
       (B) promoting the exchange of information among such 
     persons;
       (C) developing and entering into agreements with other 
     Federal agencies, foreign, State, and local governmental 
     agencies, and nongovernmental organizations; and
       (D) conducting such other activities as the Secretary 
     considers to be appropriate; and
       (2) coordinate activities and projects under this Act with 
     existing efforts in order to enhance conservation of 
     neotropical migratory bird species.
       (b) Advisory Group.--
       (1) In general.--To assist in carrying out this Act, the 
     Secretary may convene an advisory group consisting of 
     individuals representing public and private organizations 
     actively involved in the conservation of neotropical 
     migratory birds.
       (2) Public participation.--
       (A) Meetings.--The advisory group shall--
       (i) ensure that each meeting of the advisory group is open 
     to the public; and
       (ii) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for 
     interested persons to present oral or written statements 
     concerning items on the agenda.
       (B) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide to the public 
     timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group.
       (C) Minutes.--Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group 
     shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available to 
     the public.
       (3) Exemption from federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the advisory group.

     SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than October 1, 2002, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results and effectiveness of the 
     program carried out under this Act, including recommendations 
     concerning how the Act might be improved and whether the 
     program should be continued.

     SEC. 9. NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund of the Treasury a 
     separate account to be known as the ``Neotropical Migratory 
     Bird Conservation Account'', which shall consist of amounts 
     deposited into the Account by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     under subsection (b).
       (b) Deposits Into the Account.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deposit into the Account--
       (1) all amounts received by the Secretary in the form of 
     donations under subsection (d); and
       (2) other amounts appropriated to the Account.
       (c) Use.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may use amounts in the Account, without further Act of 
     appropriation, to carry out this Act.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--Of amounts in the Account 
     available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expend not 
     more than 6 percent to pay the administrative expenses 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
       (d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may 
     accept and use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts 
     received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into 
     the Account.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to the Account to 
     carry out this Act $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2003, to remain available until expended, of which 
     not less than 50 percent of the amounts made available for 
     each fiscal year shall be expended for projects carried out 
     outside the United States.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my 
colleagues to introduce the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
Act.
  First, let me commend my colleague, Senator Abraham, for all of his 
work to develop this legislation. This bill addresses some of the 
critical threats to wildlife habitat and species diversity and 
demonstrates his commitment, which I strongly share, to solving the 
many challenges we face in this regard.
  The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act will help to ensure 
that some of our most valuable and beautiful species of birds--those 
that most of us take for granted, including bluebirds, goldfinches, 
robins and orioles--may overcome the challenges posed by habitat 
destruction and thrive for generations to come. It is not widely 
recognized that many North American bird species once considered common 
are in decline. In fact, a total of 90 species of migratory birds are 
listed as endangered or threatened in the United States, and another 
124 species are considered to be of high conservation concern.
  The main cause of this decline is the loss of critical habitat 
throughout our hemisphere. Because these birds range across 
international borders, it is essential that we work with nations in 
Latin America and the Caribbean to establish protected stopover areas 
during their emigrations. This bill achieves that goal by fostering 
partnerships between businesses, nongovernmental organizations and 
other nations to bring together the capital and expertise needed to 
preserve habitat throughout our hemisphere.
  As we begin the 106th Congress, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation. It has been endorsed by the National Audubon Society, the 
American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. I believe 
that it will substantially improve upon our ability to maintain 
critical habitat in our hemisphere and help to halt the decline of 
these important species.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Neotropical 
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1999, introduced by Senator Abraham. 
The bill would establish a program to provide financial assistance for 
projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in 
the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. An identical bill, 
which I also cosponsored, was approved by the Senate during the last 
Congress, but failed in the House for reasons unrelated to the bill.
  Each autumn, some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between 
their breeding grounds in North America and tropical habitats in the 
Caribbean, Central and South America. These neotropical migrants--or 
New World tropical migrants--are birds that migrate between the 
biogeographic region stretching across Mexico, Central America, much of 
the Caribbean, and the northern part of South America.
  The natural challenges facing these migratory birds are profound. 
These challenges have been exacerbated by human-induced impacts, 
particularly the continuing loss of habitat in the Caribbean and Latin 
America. As a result, populations of migratory birds have declined 
generally in recent years.
  While there are numerous efforts underway to protect these species 
and their habitat, they generally focus on

[[Page S574]]

specific groups of migratory birds or specific regions in the Americas. 
There is a need for a more comprehensive program to address the varied 
and significant threats facing the numerous species of migratory birds 
across their range.
  Frequently there is little, if any, coordination among the existing 
programs, nor is there any one program that serves as a link among 
them. A broader, more holistic approach would bolster existing 
conservation efforts and programs, fill the gaps between these 
programs, and promote new initiatives.
  The bill we are introducing today encompasses this new approach. It 
mandates a program to promote voluntary, collaborative partnerships 
among Federal, State, and private organizations. The Federal share can 
be no more than 33 percent. The non-Federal share for projects in the 
U.S. must be paid in cash, while in projects outside the U.S., the non-
Federal share may be entirely in-kind contributions. The Secretary of 
the Interior may establish an advisory group to assist in implementing 
the legislation. The success of this initiative will depend on close 
coordination with public and private organizations involved in the 
conservation of migratory birds. The bill authorizes up to $8 million 
annually for appropriations, of which no less than 50 percent can be 
spent for projects outside the U.S.

  I believe that this bill is a much needed initiative that will fill a 
great void in conservation of our nation's wildlife. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor it.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S 149. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the 
transfer of a handgun; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     child safety lock act of 1999

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Child Safety Lock Act 
of 1999, along with Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Boxer and Durbin. Our 
bipartisan measure will save children's lives by reducing the senseless 
tragedies that result when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come 
within the reach of children.
  Each year, nearly 500 children and teenagers are killed in firearms 
accidents, and every year 1,500 more children use firearms to commit 
suicide. Additionally, about 7,000 violent juvenile crimes are 
committed annually with guns which children take from their own homes. 
Safety locks can be effective in preventing at least some of these 
incidents.
  The sad truth is that we are inviting disaster because guns too often 
are not being properly stored away from children. Nearly 100 million 
privately-owned firearms are stored unlocked, with 22 million of these 
guns left unlocked and loaded; twenty-four percent of children between 
the ages of 10 and 17 say that they can gain access to a gun in their 
home; and the Centers for Disease Control estimate that almost 1.2 
million elementary school-aged children return from school to a home 
where there is no adult supervision, but at least one firearm.
  That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable.
  Our legislation will help address this problem. It is simple, 
effective and straightforward. It requires that a child safety device--
or trigger lock--be sold with every handgun. These devices vary in 
form, but the most common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun 
trigger and immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by tens of 
thousands of responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from 
unauthorized use, and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store 
for less than 10 dollars.
  This measure gained momentum last Congress, falling short by just one 
vote in the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, in part as a result of our 
proposal, a majority of the largest handgun manufacturers in the United 
States agreed to voluntarily include safety locks with each handgun 
they manufacture. Despite this unprecedented voluntary step, though, 
our legislation is still needed. Here's why: because some manufacturers 
appear to be dragging their feet--an October 1998 study indicated that 
eighty percent of the handgun makers who signed onto the voluntary 
agreement were not yet providing safety locks. And even if they do 
comply, many handguns would likely still not be covered because too 
many other manufacturers have refused to sign onto our agreement.
  Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to ensure that safety 
locks are provided with all handguns, and to keep the pressure on 
handgun manufacturers to put safety first. We already protect children 
by requiring that seat belts be installed in all automobiles and that 
childproof safety caps be provided on medicine bottles. We should be no 
less vigilant when it comes to gun safety.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 149

       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 ``Child Safety Lock Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) The term `locking device' means a device or locking 
     mechanism--
       ``(A) that--
       ``(i) if installed on a firearm and secured by means of a 
     key or a mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically 
     operated combination lock, is designed to prevent the firearm 
     from being discharged without first deactivating or removing 
     the device by means of a key or mechanically, electronically, 
     or electromechanically operated combination lock;
       ``(ii) if incorporated into the design of a firearm, is 
     designed to prevent discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm; or
       ``(iii) is a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other 
     device that is designed to store a firearm and that is 
     designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a 
     combination, or other similar means; and
       ``(B) that is approved by a licensed firearms manufacturer 
     for use on the handgun with which the device or locking 
     mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) In general.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Locking Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a firearm; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     firearm for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a firearm for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off 
     duty).''.
       (2) Effective date.--Section 922(y) of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by this subsection, shall take effect 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any firearms dealer or 
     any other person for any civil liability; or
       (B) establish any standard of care.
       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action to enforce 
     this section.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(y) of that title.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--

[[Page S575]]

       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $10,000.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 150. A bill to the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert 
Miftakhov; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a measure to bring 
critically needed relief to Marina Khalina and her son, Albert 
Miftakhov, who suffers from cerebral palsy. Marina and Albert are 
Russian immigrants who have made a new home for themselves in the state 
of Oregon. They love their new life in America, but they face 
deportation unless Congress steps in and helps them become citizens of 
this country.
  Marina and Albert have been valuable members of their community in 
Oregon and would make model citizens. They are both people of 
exceptional moral character. Neither has been arrested or convicted of 
any crime. Although Albert often has had to miss school for medical 
operations, therapy, and other treatments, he consistently has been a 
good student. Marina has worked tirelessly in the United States to 
support her family and to cover her son's staggering medical costs, 
which will include additional surgery in the future. Through hard work, 
determination, and courage, Marina has made sure that Albert receives 
the medical care he requires.
  Forcibly removing them and sending them back to Russia would result 
in extreme hardship for both of them and would make it virtually 
impossible for Albert to receive proper medical attention. Albert would 
be unable to lead a normal life due to the current inability of Russian 
society to understand and accommodate disabled persons. Even the most 
basic medical treatment, surgical intervention and physical therapy 
would be either unavailable or extremely difficult to obtain in Russia.
  Although life has not been easy for Marina and Albert, they have both 
shown bravery in the face of adversity. This bill will allow Marina and 
Albert to stay in the United States so that Albert can receive the care 
he needs to lead a normal life. I urge you to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 151. A bill to amend the International Maritime Satellite 
Telecommunications Act to ensure the continuing provision of certain 
global satellite safety services after the privatization of the 
business operations of the International Mobile Satellite Organization, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


   International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act Amendments

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
authorize continued U.S. participation in the International Mobile 
Satellite Organization, currently known as ``Inmarsat'', during and 
after its restructuring, scheduled to take place April 1. The United 
States is currently a member of this organization, but its structure 
and functions are slated for significant reform. Rather than actually 
owning and operating mobile satellite telecommunications facilities, 
the intergovernmental institution will retain the much more limited 
role of overseeing the provision of global maritime distress and safety 
services, ensuring that this important function is carried out properly 
and effectively under contract. U.S. participation in the 
organization--which will keep the same name but change its acronym to 
``IMSO''--will not require a U.S. financial contribution and will not 
impose any new legal obligations upon the U.S. government. 
Privatization of Inmarsat's commercial satellite business is an 
objective broadly shared by the legislative and executive branches, 
American businesses, COMSAT, which is the U.S. signatory entity, and 
the international community.
  To give some brief background, Inmarsat was established in 1979 to 
serve the global maritime industry by developing satellite 
communications for ship management and distress and safety 
applications. Over the past 20 years, Inmarsat has expanded both in 
terms of membership and mission. The intergovernmental organization now 
counts 85 member countries and has expanded into land-mobile and 
aeronautical communications.
  Inmarsat's governing bodies, the Assembly of Parties and the Inmarsat 
Council, have reached an agreement to restructure the organization, a 
move that has been strongly supported and encouraged by the United 
States. This restructuring will shift Inmarsat's commercial activities 
out of the intergovernmental organization and into a broadly-owned 
public corporation by next spring. The new corporation will acquire all 
of Inmarsat's operational assets, including its satellites, and will 
assume all of Inmarsat's operational functions. All that will remain of 
the intergovernmental institution is a scaled-down secretariat with a 
small staff to ensure that the new corporation continues to meet 
certain public service obligations, such as the Global Maritime 
Distress and Safety System (GMDSS). It is important to U.S. interests 
that we participate in the oversight of this function, as well as be 
fully represented in the organization throughout the process of 
privatization.
  The legislation I am introducing will enable a smooth transition to 
the new structure. It contains two major provisions. First, it 
authorizes the President to maintain U.S. membership in IMSO after 
restructuring to ensure the continued provision of global maritime 
distress and safety satellite communications services. Second, it 
repeals those provisions of the International Maritime Satellite 
Telecommunications Act that will be rendered obsolete by the 
restructuring of Inmarsat, including all those relating to COMSAT's 
role as the United States' signatory. The bill's provisions will take 
effect on the date that Inmarsat transfers its commercial operations to 
the new corporation.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 151

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

     SECTION 1. CONTINUING PROVISION OF GLOBAL SATELLITE SAFETY 
                   SERVICES AFTER PRIVATIZATION OF BUSINESS 
                   OPERATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILE SATELLITE 
                   ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Authority.--The International Maritime Satellite 
     Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C. 751 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:


  ``global satellite safety services after privatization of business 
                         operations of inmarsat

       ``Sec. 506. In order to ensure the continued provision of 
     global maritime distress and safety satellite 
     telecommunications services after the privatization of the 
     business operations of INMARSAT, the President may maintain 
     on behalf of the United States membership in the 
     International Mobile Satellite Organization.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--
       (1) Repeal.--That Act is further amended by striking 
     sections 502, 503, 504, and 505 (47 U.S.C. 751, 752, 753, and 
     757).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date on which the International 
     Mobile Satellite Organization ceases to operate directly a 
     global mobile satellite system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 152. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the tax on handgun ammunition, to impose the special occupational tax 
and registration requirements on importers and manufacturers of handgun 
ammunition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                Real Cost of Destruction Ammunition Act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 153. A bill to prohibit the use of certain ammunition, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


             Destructive Ammunition Prohibition Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:

[[Page S576]]

  S. 154. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 155. A bill to provide for the collection and dissemination of 
information on injuries, death, and family dissolution due to bullet-
related violence, to require the keeping of records with respect to 
dispositions of ammunition, and to increase taxes on certain bullets; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                   Violent Crime Control Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 156. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or importation of .25 caliber 
and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                  Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 157. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to tax 9 
millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets; to the Committee on 
Finance.


              Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 158. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the 
manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing 
police body armor; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       Law Enforcement Officers Protection Amendment Act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a series of 
bills aimed at curtailing gun related violence, one of the leading 
causes of death in this country. These bills launch a two-prong 
assault. The first seeks to outlaw certain types of ammunition that 
have no purpose other than killing people. The second imposes heavy 
taxes on these same deadly categories by making them prohibitively 
expensive. Similarly, I am proposing that we commission an 
epidemiological study on bullet-related violence in this country and 
that we enhance the safety of this nation's police officers by 
promulgating performance standards for armor piercing ammunition.
  My first two bills are called the Destructive Ammunition Prohibition 
Act of 1999 and the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition Act of 1999.
  Some of my colleagues may remember the Black Talon. It is a hollow-
tipped bullet, singular among handgun ammunition in its capacity for 
destruction. Upon impact with human tissue, the bullet produces razor-
sharp radial petals that produce a devastating wound. It is the very 
same bullet that a crazed gunman fired at unsuspecting passengers on a 
Long Island Railroad train in December 1993, killing the husband of now 
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and injuring her son. That same month, 
it was also used in the shooting of Officer Jason E. White of the 
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, just 15 blocks 
from the Capitol.
  I first learned of the Black Talon in a letter I received from Dr. 
E.J. Gallagher, director of Emergency Medicine at Albert Einstein 
College of Medicine at the Municipal Hospital Trauma Center in the 
Bronx. Dr. Gallagher wrote that he has never seen a more lethal 
projectile. On November 3, 1993, I introduced a bill to tax the Black 
Talon at 10,000 percent. Nineteen days later, Olin Corp., the 
manufacturer of the Black Talon, announced that it would withdraw sale 
of the bullet to the general public. Unfortunately, the 103rd Congress 
came to a close without the bill's having won passage.
  As a result, there is nothing in law to prevent the reintroduction of 
this pernicious bullet, nor is there any existing impediment to the 
sale of similar rounds that might be produced by another manufacturer. 
So today I reintroduce the bill to tax the Black Talon as well as a 
bill to prohibit the sale of the Black Talon to the public. Both bills 
would apply to any bullet with the same physical characteristics as the 
Black Talon.
  It has been estimated that the cost of hospital services for treating 
bullet-related injuries is $1 billion per year, with the total cost to 
the economy of such injuries approximately $14 billion. We can ill 
afford further increases in this number, but this would surely be the 
result if bullets with the destructive capacity of the Black Talon are 
allowed onto the streets.

   Mr. President, despite the fact that the national crime rate has 
decreased in recent months, the number of deaths and injuries caused by 
bullet wounds is still at an unconscionable level. It is time we take 
meaningful steps to put an end to the massacres that occur daily as a 
result of gun violence. How better a beginning than to go after the 
most insidious culprits of this violence? I urge my colleagues to 
support these measures and to prevent these bullets from appearing on 
the market.
  My third measure, the Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999, 
introduces a measure to improve our information about the regulation 
and criminal use of ammunition and to prevent the irresponsible 
production of ammunition. This bill has three components. First, it 
would require importers and manufacturers of ammunition to keep records 
and submit an annual report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition, including the amount, 
caliber and type of ammunition imported or manufactured. Second, it 
would require the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a study of ammunition use and 
make recommendations on the efficacy of reducing crime by restricting 
access to ammunition. Finally, it would amend title 18 of the United 
States Code to raise the application fee for a license to manufacture 
certain calibers of ammunition.
  While there are enough handguns in circulation to last well into the 
22nd century, there is perhaps only a 4-year supply of ammunition. But 
how much of what kind of ammunition? Where does it come from? Where 
does it go? There are currently no reporting requirements for 
manufacturers or importers of ammunition; earlier reporting 
requirements were repealed in 1986. The Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Reports, based on information 
provided by local law enforcement agencies, does not record the 
caliber, type, or quantity of ammunition used in crime. In short, our 
data base is woefully inadequate.
  I supported the Brady law, which requires a waiting period before the 
purchase of a handgun, and the recent ban on semi-automatic weapons. 
But while the debate over gun control continues, I offer another 
alternative: Ammunition control. After all, as I have said before, guns 
do not kill people; bullets do.
  Ammunition control is not a new idea. In 1982 Phil Caruso of the New 
York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association asked me to do something 
about armor-piercing bullets. Jacketed in tungsten or other materials, 
these rounds could penetrate four police flak jackets and five Los 
Angeles County telephone books. They have no sporting value. I 
introduced legislation, the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, to 
ban the cop-killer bullets in the 97th, 98th and 99th Congresses. It 
enjoyed the overwhelming support of law enforcement groups and, 
ultimately, tacit support from the National Rifle Association. It was 
finally signed into law by President Reagan on August 28, 1986.
  The crime bill enacted in 1994 contained my amendment to broaden the 
1986 ban to cover new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing rounds.
  Our cities are becoming more aware of the benefits to be gained from 
ammunition control. The District of Columbia and some other cities 
prohibit a person from possessing ammunition without a valid license 
for a firearm of the same caliber or gauge as the ammunition. Beginning 
in 1990, the city of Los Angeles banned the sale of all ammunition 1 
week prior to Independence Day and New Year's Day in an effort to 
reduce injuries and deaths caused by the firing of guns into the air. 
And in September 1994, the city of Chicago became the first in America 
to ban the sale of all handgun ammunition.
  Such efforts are laudable. But they are isolated attempts to cure 
what is in truth a national disease. We need to do more, but to do so, 
we need information to guide policy making. This bill would fulfill 
that need by requiring annual reports to BATF by manufactures

[[Page S577]]

and importers and by directing a study by the National Academy of 
Sciences. We also need to encourage manufacturers of ammunition to be 
more responsible. By substantially increasing application fees for 
licenses to manufacturer .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9-mm ammunition, 
this bill would discourage the reckless production of unsafe ammunition 
or ammunition which causes excessive damage.
  My fourth measure provides a comprehensive way of addressing the 
epidemic proportions of violence in America.
  By including two different crime-related provisions, my bill attacks 
the crime epidemic on more than just one front. If we are truly serious 
about confronting our Nation's crime problem, we must learn more about 
the nature of the epidemic of bullet-related violence and ways to 
control it. To do this, we must require records to be kept on the 
disposition of ammunition.
  In October 1992, the Senate Finance Committee received testimony that 
public health and safety experts have, independently, concluded that 
there is an epidemic of bullet-related violence. The figures are 
staggering.
  In 1995, bullets were used in the murders of 23,673 people in the 
United States. By focusing on bullets, and not guns, we recognize that 
much like nuclear waste, guns remain active for centuries. With minimum 
care, they do not deteriorate. However, bullets are consumed. Estimates 
suggest we have only a 4-year's supply of them.

  Not only am I proposing that we tax bullets used disproportionately 
in crimes--9 millimeter, .25 and .32 caliber bullets--I also believe we 
must set up a Bullet Death and Injury Control Program within the 
Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control. This Center will enhance our knowledge of the distribution and 
status of bullet-related death and injury and subsequently make 
recommendations about the extent and nature of bullet-related violence.
  So that the Center would have substantive information to study and 
analyze, this bill also requires importers and manufacturers of 
ammunition to keep records and submit an annual report to the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [BATF] on the disposition of ammunition. 
Currently, importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not required 
to do so.
  My next two bills, the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 1999 and the 
Real Cost of Handgun Ammunition Act of 1999, ban or heavily tax .25 
caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 mm ammunition. These calibers of bullets 
are used disproportionately in crime. They are not sporting or hunting 
rounds, but instead are the bullets of choice for drug dealers and 
violent felons. Every year they contribute overwhelmingly to the 
pervasive loss of life caused by bullet wounds.
  Today marks the fifth time in as many Congresses that I have 
introduced legislation to ban or tax these pernicious bullets. As the 
terrible gunshot death toll in the United States continues unabated, so 
too does the need for these bills, which, by keeping these bullets out 
of the hands of criminals, would save a significant number of lives.
  The number of Americans killed or wounded each year by bullets 
demonstrates their true cost to American society. Just look at the 
data.
  The lifetime risk of death from homicide in U.S. males is 1 in 164, 
about the same as the risk of death in battle faced by U.S. servicemen 
in the Vietnam war. For black males, the lifetime risk of death from 
homicide is 1 in 28, twice the risk of death in battle faced by Marines 
in Vietnam.
  As noted by Susan Baker and her colleagues in the book Epidemiology 
and Health Policy, edited by Sol Levine and Abraham Lilienfeld, there 
is a correlation between rates of private ownership of guns and gun-
related death rates; guns cause two-thirds of family homicides, and 
small, easily concealed weapons comprise the majority of guns used for 
homicides, suicides and unintentional death.
  Baker states that:

       * * * these facts of the epidemiology of firearm-related 
     deaths and injuries have important implications. Combined 
     with their lethality, the widespread availability of easily 
     concealed handguns for impetuous use by people who are angry, 
     drunk, or frightened appears to be a major determinant of the 
     high firearm death rate in the United States. Each 
     contributing factor has implications for prevention. 
     Unfortunately, issues related to gun control have evoked such 
     strong sentiments that epidemiologic data are rarely employed 
     to good advantage.

  Strongly held views on both sides of the gun control issue have made 
the subject difficult for epidemiologists. I would suggest that a good 
deal of energy is wasted in this never-ending debate, for gun control 
as we know it misses the point. We ought to focus on the bullets, not 
the guns.
  I would remind the Senate of our experience in controlling epidemics. 
Although the science of epidemiology traces its roots to antiquity--
Hippocrates stressed the importance of considering environmental 
influences on human diseases--the first modern epidemiological study 
was conducted by James Lind in 1747. His efforts led to the eventual 
control of scurvy. It wasn't until 1795 that the British Navy accepted 
his analysis and required limes in shipboard diets. Most solutions are 
not perfect. Disease is rarely eliminated. But might epidemiology be 
applied in the case of bullets to reduce suffering? I believe so.
  In 1854 John Snow and William Farr collected data that clearly showed 
cholera was caused by contaminated drinking water. Snow removed the 
handle of the Broad Street pump in London to prevent people from 
drawing water from this contaminated water source and the disease 
stopped in that population. His observations led to a legislative 
mandate that all London water companies filter their water by 1857. 
Cholera epidemics subsided. Now treatment of sewage prevents cholera 
from entering our rivers and lakes, and the disinfection of drinking 
water makes water distribution systems uninhabitable for cholera 
vibrio, identified by Robert Koch as the causative agent 26 years after 
Snow's study.
  In 1900, Walter Reed identified mosquitos as the carriers of yellow 
fever. Subsequent mosquito control efforts by another U.S. Army doctor, 
William Gorgas, enabled the United States to complete the Panama Canal. 
The French failed because their workers were too sick from yellow fever 
to work. Now that it is known that yellow fever is caused by a virus, 
vaccines are used to eliminate the spread of the disease.

  These pioneering epidemiology success stories showed the world that 
epidemics require an interaction between three things: the host--(the 
person who becomes sick or, in the case of bullets, the shooting 
victim); the agent--(the cause of sickness, or the bullet); and the 
environment--(the setting in which the sickness occurs or, in the case 
of bullets, violent behavior). Interrupt this epidemiological triad and 
you reduce or eliminate disease and injury.
  How might this approach apply to the control of bullet-related injury 
and death? Again, we are contemplating something different from gun 
control. There is a precedent here. In the middle of this century it 
was recognized that epidemiology could be applied to automobile death 
and injury. From a governmental perspective, this hypothesis was first 
adopted in 1959, late in the administration of Gov. Averell Harriman of 
New York State. In the 1960 Presidential campaign, I drafted a 
statement on the subject which was released by Senator John F. Kennedy 
as part of a general response to inquiries from the American Automobile 
Association. Then Senator Kennedy stated:

       Traffic accidents constitute one of the greatest, perhaps 
     the greatest of the nation's public health problems. They 
     waste as much as 2 percent of our gross national product 
     every year and bring endless suffering. The new highways will 
     do much to control the rise of the traffic toll, but by 
     themselves they will not reduce it. A great deal more 
     investigation and research is needed. Some of this has 
     already begun in connection with the highway program. It 
     should be extended until highway safety research takes its 
     place as an equal of the many similar programs of health 
     research which the federal government supports.

  Experience in the 1950's and early 1960's prior to passage of the 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, showed that traffic safety enforcement 
campaigns designed to change human behavior did not improve traffic 
safety. In fact, the death and injury toll mounted. I was Assistant 
Secretary of Labor in the mid-1960's when Congress was developing the 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and I was called to testify.

[[Page S578]]

  It was clear to me and others that motor vehicle injuries and deaths 
could not be limited by regulating driver behavior. Nonetheless, we had 
an epidemic on our hands and we needed to do something about it. My 
friend William Haddon, the first Administrator of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, recognized that automobile fatalities 
were caused not by the initial collision, when the automobile strikes 
some object, but by a second collision, in which energy from the first 
collision is transferred to the interior of the car, causing the driver 
and occupants to strike the steering wheel, dashboard, or other 
structures in the passenger compartment. The second collision is the 
agent of injury to the hosts--the car's occupants.
  Efforts to make automobiles crashworthy follow examples used to 
control infectious disease epidemics. Reduce or eliminate the agent of 
injury. Seatbelts, padded dashboards, and airbags are all specifically 
designed to reduce, if not eliminate, injury caused by the agent of 
automobile injuries, energy transfer to the human body during the 
second collision. In fact, we've done nothing revolutionary. All of the 
technology used to date to make cars crashworthy, including airbags, 
was developed prior to 1970.
  Experience shows the approach worked. Of course, it could have worked 
better, but it worked. Had we been able to totally eliminate the 
agent--the second collision--the cure would have been complete. 
Nonetheless, merely by focusing on simple, achievable remedies, we 
reduced the traffic death and injury epidemic by 30 percent. Motor 
vehicle deaths declined in absolute terms by 13 percent from 1980 to 
1990, despite significant increases in the number of drivers, vehicles, 
and miles driven. Driver behavior is changing, too. National seatbelt 
usage is up dramatically, 60 percent now compared to 14 percent in 
1984. These efforts have resulted in some 15,000 lives saved and 
100,000 injuries avoided each year.
  We can apply that experience to the epidemic of murder and injury 
from bullets. The environment in which these deaths and injuries occur 
is complex. Many factors likely contribute to the rise in bullet-
related injury. Here is an important similarity with the situation we 
faced 25 years ago regarding automobile safety. We found we could not 
easily alter the behavior of millions of drivers, but we could--
easily--change the behavior of three or four automobile manufacturers. 
Likewise, we simply cannot do much to change the environment--violent 
behavior--in which gun-related injury occurs, nor do we know how. We 
can, however, do something about the agent causing the injury: bullets. 
Ban them. At least the rounds used disproportionately to cause death 
and injury; that is, the .25 caliber, .32 caliber, and 9 millimeter 
bullets. These three rounds account for the ammunition used in about 13 
percent of licensed guns in New York City, yet they are involved in 
one-third of all homicides. They are not, as I have said, useful for 
sport or hunting. They are used for violence. If we fail to confront 
the fact that these rounds are used disproportionately in crimes, 
innocent people will continue to die.
  I have called on Congress during the past several sessions to ban or 
heavily tax these bullets. This would not be the first time that 
Congress has banned a particular round of ammunition. In 1986, it 
passed legislation written by the Senator from New York banning the so-
called ``cop-killer'' bullet. This round, jacketed with tungsten 
alloys, steel, brass, or any number of other metals, had been 
demonstrated to penetrate no fewer than four police flak jackets and an 
additional five Los Angeles County phone books at one time. In 1982, 
the New York Police Benevolent Association came to me and asked me to 
do something about the ready availability of these bullets. The result 
was the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act, which we introduced in 
1982, 1983, and for the last time during the 99th Congress. In the end, 
with the tacit support of the National Rifle Association, the measure 
passed the Congress and was signed by the President as Public Law 99-
408 on August 28, 1986. In the 1994 crime bill, we enacted my amendment 
to broaden the ban to include new thick steel-jacketed armor-piercing 
rounds.

  There are some 220 million firearms in circulation in the United 
States today. They are, in essence, simple machines, and with minimal 
care, remain working for centuries. However, estimates suggest that we 
have only a 4-year supply of bullets. Some 2 billion cartridges are 
used each year. At any given time there are some 7.5 billion rounds in 
factory, commercial, or household inventory.
  In all cases, with the exception of pistol whipping, gun-related 
injuries are caused not by the gun, but by the agents involved in the 
second collision: the bullets. Eliminating the most dangerous rounds 
would not end the problem of handgun killings. But it would reduce it. 
A 30-percent reduction in bullet-related deaths, for instance, would 
save over 10,000 lives each year and prevent up to 50,000 wounds.
  The bills I introduce today would begin the process. They would begin 
to control the problem by banning or taxing those rounds used 
disproportionately in crime--the .25-caliber, .32-caliber, and 9-
millimeter rounds. The bills recognize the epidemic nature of the 
problem, building on findings contained in the June 10, 1992 issue of 
the Journal of the American Medical Association which was devoted 
entirely to the subject of violence, principally violence associated 
with firearms.
  My seventh bill introduces legislation today to amend Title 18 of the 
United States Code to strengthen the existing prohibition on handgun 
ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor, commonly referred 
to as bullet-proof vests. This provision would require the Secretary of 
the Treasury and the Attorney General to develop a uniform ballistics 
test to determine with precision whether ammunition is capable of 
penetrating police body armor. The bill also prohibits the manufacture 
and sale of any handgun ammunition determined by the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the Attorney General to have armor-piercing capability.
  Mr. President, it has been seventeen years since I first introduced 
legislation in the Senate to outlaw armor-piercing, or ``cop-killer,'' 
bullets. In 1982, Phil Caruso of the Patrolman's Benevolent Association 
of New York City alerted me to the existence of a Teflon-coated bullet 
capable of penetrating the soft body armor police officers were then 
beginning to wear. Shortly thereafter, I introduced the Law Enforcement 
Officers Protection Act of 1982 to prohibit the manufacture, 
importation, and sale of such ammunition.
  At that time, armor-piercing bullets--most notably the infamous 
``Green Hornet''--were manufactured with a solid steel core. Unlike the 
softer lead composition of most other ammunition, this hard steel core 
prevented these rounds from deforming at the point of impact--thus 
permitting the rounds to penetrate the 18 layers of Kevlar in a 
standard-issue police vest or ``flak-jacket.'' These bullets could go 
through a bullet-proof vest like a hot knife through butter. My 
legislation simply banned any handgun ammunition made with a core of 
steel or other hard metals.
  Despite the strong support of the law enforcement community, it took 
four years before this seemingly non-controversial legislation was 
enacted into law. The National Rifle Association initially opposed it--
that is, until the NRA realized that a large number of its members were 
themselves police officers who strongly supported banning these 
insidious bullets. Only then did the NRA lend its grudging support. The 
bill passed the Senate on March 6, 1986 by a vote of 97-1, and was 
signed by President Reagan on August 8, 1986 (Public Law 99-408).
  That 1986 Act served us in good stead for 7 years. To the best of my 
knowledge, not a single law enforcement officer was shot with an armor-
piercing bullet. Unfortunately, the ammunition manufacturers eventually 
found a way around the 1986 law. By 1993, a new Swedish-made armor-
piercing round, the M39B, had appeared. This pernicious bullet evaded 
the 1986 statute's prohibition because of its unique composition. Like 
most common ammunition, it had a soft lead core, thus exempting it from 
the 1986 law. But this core was surrounded by a heavy steel jacket, 
solid enough to allow the bullet to penetrate body armor. Once again, 
our nation's law enforcement officers were at risk. Immediately upon 
learning of the existence of the new Swedish round, I introduced a bill 
to ban it.

[[Page S579]]

  Another protracted series of negotiations ensued before we were able 
to update the 1986 statute to cover the M39B. We did it with the 
support of law enforcement organizations, and with technical assistance 
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In particular, James 
O. Pasco, Jr., then the Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs at 
BATF, worked closely with me and my staff to get it done. The bill 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 1993 as an 
amendment to the 1994 Crime Bill.
  Despite these legislative successes, it was becoming evident that 
continuing ``innovations'' in bullet design would result in new armor-
piercing rounds capable of evading the ban. It was at this time that 
some of us began to explore in earnest the idea of developing a new 
approach to banning these bullets based on their performance, rather 
than their physical characteristics. Mind, this concept was not 
entirely new; the idea had been discussed during our efforts in 1986, 
but the NRA had been immovable on the subject. The NRA's leaders, and 
their constituent ammunition manufactures, felt that any such broad-
based ban based on a bullets ``performance standard'' would inevitably 
lead to the outlawing of additional classes of ammunition. They viewed 
it as a slippery slope, much as they have regarded the assault weapons 
ban as a slipper slope. The NRA had agreed to the 1986 and 1993 laws 
only because they were narrowly drawn to cover individual types of 
bullets.
  And so in 1993 I asked the ATF for the technical assistance necessary 
tow write into law an armor-piercing bullet ``performance standard.'' 
At the time, however, the experts at the ATF informed us that this 
could not be done. They argued that it was simply too difficult to 
control for the many variables that contribute to a bullet's capability 
to penetrate police body armor. We were told that it might be possible 
in the future to develop a performance-based test for armor-piercing 
capability, but at the time we had to be content with the existing 
content-based approach.
  Well. Two years passed and the Office of Law Enforcement Standards of 
the National Institute of Standard and Technology wrote a report 
describing the methodology for just such a armor-piercing bullet 
performance test. The report concluded that a test to determine armor-
piercing capability could be developed within six months.
  So we know it can be done, if only the agencies responsible for 
enforcing the relevant laws have the will. The legislation I am 
introducing requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 
with the Attorney General, to establish performance standards for the 
uniform testing of handgun ammunition. Such an objective standard will 
ensure that no rounds capable of penetrating police body armor, 
regardless of their composition, will ever be available to those who 
would use them against our law enforcement officers.
  I wish to assure the Senate that this measure would in no way 
infringe upon the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen. It would 
not affect legitimate sporting ammunition used in rifles. It would only 
restrict the availability of armor-piercing rounds, for which no one 
can seriously claim there is a genuine sporting use. These cop-killer 
rounds have no legitimate uses, and they have no business being in the 
arsenals of criminals. They are designed for one purpose; to kill 
police officers.
  The 1986 and 1993 cop-killer bullet laws I sponsored kept us one step 
ahead of the designers of new armor-piercing rounds. When the 
legislation I have introduced today is enacted--and I hope it will be 
early in the 106th Congress--it will put them out of the cop-killer 
bullet business permanently.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 152

       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 ``Real Cost of Destructive 
     Ammunition Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

       (a) Increase in Manufacturers Tax.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on firearms) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Shells, and cartridges.'' and inserting 
     ``Shells and cartridges not taxable at 10,000 percent.'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``Articles taxable at 10,000 percent.--
       ``Any jacketed, hollow point projectile which may be used 
     in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to produce, 
     upon impact, evenly-spaced sharp or barb-like projections 
     that extend beyond the diameter of the unfired projectile.''
       (2) Additional taxes added to the general fund.--Section 
     3(a) of the Act of September 2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669b(a)), 
     commonly referred to as the ``Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
     Restoration Act'', is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``There shall not be covered into the 
     fund the portion of the tax imposed by such section 4181 that 
     is attributable to any increase in amounts received in the 
     Treasury under such section by reason of the amendments made 
     by section 2(a)(1) of the Real Cost of Destructive Ammunition 
     Act, as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury.''

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL TAX FOR IMPORTERS, MANUFACTURERS, AND DEALERS 
                   OF HANDGUN AMMUNITION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Imposition of tax.--Section 5801 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special occupational tax on 
     importers, manufacturers, and dealers of machine guns, 
     destructive devices, and certain other firearms) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Special Rule for Handgun Ammunition.--
       ``(1) In general.--On 1st engaging in business and 
     thereafter on or before July 1 of each year, every importer 
     and manufacturer of handgun ammunition shall pay a special 
     (occupational) tax for each place of business at the rate of 
     $10,000 a year or fraction thereof.
       ``(2) Handgun ammunition defined.--For purposes of this 
     part, the term `handgun ammunition' shall mean any centerfire 
     cartridge which has a cartridge case of less than 1.3 inches 
     in length and any cartridge case which is less than 1.3 
     inches in length.''
       (2) Registration of importers and manufacturers of handgun 
     ammunition.--Section 5802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to registration of importers, manufacturers, 
     and dealers) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, and each 
     importer and manufacturer of handgun ammunition,'' after 
     ``dealer in firearms'', and
       (B) in the third sentence, by inserting ``, and handgun 
     ammunition operations of an importer or manufacturer,'' after 
     ``dealer''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter heading.--Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to machine guns, destructive devices, 
     and certain other firearms) is amended in the chapter heading 
     by inserting ``HANDGUN AMMUNITION,'' after ``CHAPTER 53--''.
       (2) Table of chapters.--The heading for chapter 53 in the 
     table of chapters for subtitle E of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:

``Chapter 53--Handgun ammunition, machine guns, destructive devices, 
              and certain other firearms.''
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on July 1, 1999.
       (2) All taxpayers treated as commencing in business on july 
     1, 1997.--Any person engaged on July 1, 1999, in any trade or 
     business which is subject to an occupational tax by reason of 
     the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall be treated for 
     purposes of such tax as having 1st engaged in a trade of 
     business on such date.
                                  ____


                                 S. 153

       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 ``Destructive Ammunition 
     Prohibition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) The term `destructive ammunition' means any jacketed, 
     hollow point projectile that may be used in a handgun and the 
     jacket of which is designed to produce, upon impact, sharp-
     tipped, barb-like projections that extend beyond the diameter 
     of the unfired projectile.''.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

       Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``or destructive'' after 
     ``armor piercing''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``or destructive'' after 
     ``armor piercing''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 154

       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 ``Handgun Ammunition Control 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page S580]]

       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following: ``Each licensed importer and 
     manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of 
     importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition 
     of ammunition at the place of business of such importer or 
     manufacturer for such period and in such form as the 
     Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall 
     include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition 
     shall annually prepare a summary report of imports, 
     production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during 
     the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form 
     specified by the Secretary, shall include the amounts, 
     calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and 
     shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later 
     than the close of business on the date specified by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Study of Criminal Use and Regulation of Ammunition.--
     The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the National 
     Academy of Sciences to--
       (1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of 
     the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and
       (2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a 
     report with recommendations on the potential for preventing 
     crime by regulating or restricting the availability of 
     ammunition.

     SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF 
                   AMMUNITION.

       Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a 
     fee of $10,000 per year;''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 155

       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 ``Violent Crime Control Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there is no reliable information on the amount of 
     ammunition available;
       (2) importers and manufacturers of ammunition are not 
     required to keep records to report to the Federal Government 
     on ammunition imported, produced, or shipped;
       (3) the rate of bullet-related deaths in the United States 
     is unacceptably high and growing;
       (4) three calibers of bullets are used disproportionately 
     in crime: 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets;
       (5) injury and death are greatest in young males, and 
     particularly young black males;
       (6) epidemiology can be used to study bullet-related death 
     and injury to evaluate control options;
       (7) bullet-related death and injury has placed increased 
     stress on the American family resulting in increased welfare 
     expenditures under title IV of the Social Security Act;
       (8) bullet-related death and injury have contributed to the 
     increase in medicaid expenditures under title XIX of the 
     Social Security Act;
       (9) bullet-related death and injury have contributed to 
     increased supplemental security income benefits under title 
     XVI of the Social Security Act;
       (10) a tax on the sale of bullets will help control bullet-
     related death and injury;
       (11) there is no central responsible agency for trauma, 
     there is relatively little funding available for the study of 
     bullet-related death and injury, and there are large gaps in 
     research programs to reduce injury;
       (12) current laws and programs relevant to the loss of life 
     and productivity from bullet-related trauma are inadequate to 
     protect the citizens of the United States; and
       (13) increased research in bullet-related violence is 
     needed to better understand the causes of such violence, to 
     develop options for controlling such violence, and to 
     identify and overcome barriers to implementing effective 
     controls.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to increase the tax on the sale of 9 millimeter, .25 
     caliber, and .32 caliber bullets (except with respect to any 
     sale to law enforcement agencies) as a means of reducing the 
     epidemic of bullet-related death and injury;
       (2) to undertake a nationally coordinated effort to survey, 
     collect, inventory, synthesize, and disseminate adequate data 
     and information for--
       (A) understanding the full range of bullet-related death 
     and injury, including impacts on the family structure and 
     increased demands for benefit payments under provisions of 
     the Social Security Act;
       (B) assessing the rate and magnitude of change in bullet-
     related death and injury over time;
       (C) educating the public about the extent of bullet-related 
     death and injury; and
       (D) expanding the epidemiologic approach to evaluate 
     efforts to control bullet-related death and injury and other 
     forms of violence;
       (3) to develop options for controlling bullet-related death 
     and injury;
       (4) to build the capacity and encourage responsibility at 
     the Federal, State, community, group, and individual levels 
     for control and elimination of bullet-related death and 
     injury; and
       (5) to promote a better understanding of the utility of the 
     epidemiologic approach for evaluating options to control or 
     reduce death and injury from nonbullet-related violence.
            TITLE I--BULLET DEATH AND INJURY CONTROL PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. BULLET DEATH AND INJURY CONTROL PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the Centers 
     for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention 
     and Control (referred to as the ``Center'') a Bullet Death 
     and Injury Control Program (referred to as the ``Program'').
       (b) Purpose.--The Center shall conduct research into and 
     provide leadership and coordination for--
       (1) the understanding and promotion of knowledge about the 
     epidemiologic basis for bullet-related death and injury 
     within the United States;
       (2) developing technically sound approaches for 
     controlling, and eliminating, bullet-related deaths and 
     injuries;
       (3) building the capacity for implementing the options, and 
     expanding the approaches to controlling death and disease 
     from bullet-related trauma; and
       (4) educating the public about the nature and extent of 
     bullet-related violence.
       (c) Functions.--The functions of the Program shall be--
       (1) to summarize and to enhance the knowledge of the 
     distribution, status, and characteristics of bullet-related 
     death and injury;
       (2) to conduct research and to prepare, with the assistance 
     of State public health departments--
       (A) statistics on bullet-related death and injury;
       (B) studies of the epidemic nature of bullet-related death 
     and injury; and
       (C) data on the status of the factors, including legal, 
     socioeconomic, and other factors, that bear on the control of 
     bullets and the eradication of the bullet-related epidemic;
       (3) to publish information about bullet-related death and 
     injury and guides for the practical use of epidemiological 
     information, including publications that synthesize 
     information relevant to national goals of understanding the 
     bullet-related epidemic and methods for its control;
       (4) to identify socioeconomic groups, communities, and 
     geographic areas in need of study, develop a strategic plan 
     for research necessary to comprehend the extent and nature of 
     bullet-related death and injury, and determine what options 
     exist to reduce or eradicate such death and injury;
       (5) to provide for the conduct of epidemiologic research on 
     bullet-related death and injury through grants, contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and other means, by Federal, State, 
     and private agencies, institutions, organizations, and 
     individuals;
       (6) to make recommendations to Congress, the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and other Federal, State, and 
     local agencies on the technical management of data 
     collection, storage, and retrieval necessary to collect, 
     evaluate, analyze, and disseminate information about the 
     extent and nature of the bullet-related epidemic of death and 
     injury as well as options for its control;
       (7) to make recommendations to Congress, the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and other Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, organizations, and individuals about options 
     for actions to eradicate or reduce the epidemic of bullet-
     related death and injury;
       (8) to provide training and technical assistance to the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and other Federal, 
     State, and local agencies regarding the collection and 
     interpretation of bullet-related data; and
       (9) to research and explore bullet-related death and injury 
     and options for its control.
       (d) Advisory Board.--
       (1) In general.--The Center shall have an independent 
     advisory board to assist in setting the policies for and 
     directing the Program.
       (2) Membership.--The advisory board shall consist of 13 
     members, including--
       (A) 1 representative from the Centers for Disease Control;
       (B) 1 representative from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     and Firearms;
       (C) 1 representative from the Department of Justice;
       (D) 1 member from the Drug Enforcement Agency;
       (E) 3 epidemiologists from universities or nonprofit 
     organizations;
       (F) 1 criminologist from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (G) 1 behavioral scientist from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (H) 1 physician from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (I) 1 statistician from a university or nonprofit 
     organization;
       (J) 1 engineer from a university or nonprofit organization; 
     and
       (K) 1 public communications expert from a university or 
     nonprofit organization.
       (3) Terms.--Members of the advisory board shall serve for 
     terms of 5 years, and may serve more than 1 term.
       (4) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government

[[Page S581]]

     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (5) Travel expenses.--A member of the advisory board that 
     is not otherwise in the Federal Government service shall, to 
     the extent provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, be 
     paid actual travel expenses and per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence expenses in accordance with section 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code, when the member is away from 
     the member's usual place of residence.
       (6) Chair.--The members of the advisory board shall select 
     1 member to serve as chair.
       (e) Consultation.--The Center shall conduct the Program 
     required under this section in consultation with the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of 
     Justice.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
     $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 for the purpose of carrying 
     out this section.
       (g) Report.--The Center shall prepare an annual report to 
     Congress on the Program's findings, the status of 
     coordination with other agencies, its progress, and problems 
     encountered with options and recommendations for their 
     solution. The report for December 31, 2000, shall contain 
     options and recommendations for the Program's mission and 
     funding levels for the fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and 
     beyond.
          TITLE II--INCREASE IN EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS

     SEC. 201. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
     ``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber 
     ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000 
     percent.''.
       (b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181 
     shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or 
     for the use of, the United States (or any department, agency, 
     or instrumentality thereof) or a State or political 
     subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality thereof).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after December 31, 1999.
                      TITLE III--USE OF AMMUNITION

     SEC. 301. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following: ``Each licensed importer and 
     manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of 
     importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition 
     of ammunition at the licensee's place of business for such 
     period and in such form as the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Director of the National Center for Injury 
     Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control 
     (for the purpose of ensuring that the information that is 
     collected is useful for the Bullet Death and Injury Control 
     Program), may by regulation prescribe. Such records shall 
     include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition 
     shall annually prepare a summary report of imports, 
     production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during 
     the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form 
     specified by the Secretary, in consultation with the Director 
     of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of 
     the Centers for Disease Control (for the purpose of ensuring 
     that the information that is collected is useful for the 
     Bullet Death and Injury Control Program), shall include the 
     amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed 
     of, and shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon 
     not later than the close of business on the date specified by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (b) Study of Criminal Use and Regulation of Ammunition.--
     The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the Centers for 
     Disease Control to--
       (1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of 
     the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and
       (2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a 
     report with recommendations on the potential for preventing 
     crime by regulating or restricting the availability of 
     ammunition.
                                  ____


                                 S. 156

       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 ``Violent Crime Reduction Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. UNLAWFUL ACTS.

       Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by in paragraph (8), by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) for any person to manufacture, transfer, or import 
     .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter ammunition, except that 
     this paragraph shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for 
     the use of the United States or any department or agency 
     thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political 
     subdivision thereof; and
       ``(B) any manufacture or importation for testing or for 
     experimenting authorized by the Secretary; and
       ``(10) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver 
     .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter ammunition, except that 
     this paragraph shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of 
     such ammunition for the use of the United States or any 
     department or agency thereof or any State or any department, 
     agency, or political subdivision thereof; and
       ``(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of 
     such ammunition for testing or for experimenting authorized 
     by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 3. LICENSING OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES.

       Section 923(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive 
     devices, armor piercing ammunition, or .25 or .32 caliber or 
     9 millimeter ammunition, a fee of $1,000 per year;''.

     SEC. 4. LICENSING OF NONDESTRUCTIVE DEVICES.

       Section 923(a)(1)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) of ammunition for firearms other than destructive 
     devices, or armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 
     millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $10 per 
     year.''.

     SEC. 5. IMPORTERS.

       Section 923(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) If the applicant is an importer--
       ``(A) of destructive devices, ammunition for destructive 
     devices, or armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 
     millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $1,000 per 
     year; or
       ``(B) of firearms other than destructive devices or 
     ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices, or 
     ammunition other than armor piercing or .25 or .32 caliber or 
     9 millimeter ammunition for any firearm, a fee of $50 per 
     year.''.

     SEC. 6. MARKING AMMUNITION AND PACKAGES.

       Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall 
     mark all .25 and .32 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition and 
     packages containing such ammunition for distribution, in the 
     manner prescribed by the Secretary by regulation.''.

     SEC. 7. USE OF RESTRICTED AMMUNITION.

       Section 929(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) inserting ``, or with .25 or .32 caliber or 9 
     millimeter ammunition,'' after ``possession of armor piercing 
     ammunition''; and
       (2) inserting ``, or .25 or .32 caliber or 9 millimeter 
     ammunition,'' after ``armor-piercing handgun ammunition''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the first day of the first calendar month that 
     begins more than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 157

       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 ``Real Cost of Handgun 
     Ammunition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new flush 
     sentence:
     ``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber 
     ammunition, the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000 
     percent.''
       (b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181 
     shall not apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or 
     for the use of, the United States (or any department, agency, 
     or instrumentality thereof) or a State or political 
     subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality thereof).''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to sales after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 158

       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 ``Law Enforcement Officers 
     Protection Amendment Act of 1999''.

[[Page S582]]

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING 
                   AMMUNITION.

       Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to 
     be capable of penetrating body armor.''.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF ARMOR PIERCING CAPABILITY OF 
                   PROJECTILES.

       Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     based on standards to be developed by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the 
     uniform testing of projectiles to determine whether such 
     projectiles are capable of penetrating National Institute of 
     Justice Level II-A body armor.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney 
     General to--
       (1) develop and implement performance standards for armor 
     piercing ammunition; and
       (2) promulgate regulations for performance standards for 
     armor piercing ammunition.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 159. A bill to amend chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code, 
to increase fees paid to Federal jurors, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                increase the fees paid to federal jurors

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill aimed 
at raising the fee Federal jurors are paid to that of $45.00 per day. 
According to the current statute, Federal jurors are paid $40.00 per 
day for the first thirty days of a trial and $50.00 for each day 
thereafter. They also receive $3.00 a day for transportation costs. The 
$40.00 per day a juror receives for his or her all day service is below 
the prevailing minimum wage, and the daily $3.00 transportation fee 
falls far below that required for parking or riding a bus or the 
subway.
  These inadequate sums place an undue hardship on those jurors who 
most need compensation: the self-employed, the commissioned, the 
temporary workers, and those who work for small employers often making 
it difficult for litigants to have representative jury panels. While 
undue hardship is often grounds for deferral or excusal from jury duty, 
it is important that we limit the financial hardship for those of our 
citizens engaged in this most important civic duty.
  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. 159

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

     SECTION 1. JUROR FEES.

       Section 1871(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``of $40 per day'' and inserting ``$45 
     per day.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 160. A bill to authorize the Architect of the Capitol to develop 
and implement a plan to improve the Capitol grounds through the 
elimination and modification of space alloted for parking; to the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.


          arc of park capitol grounds improvement act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just over 98 years ago, in March 1901, 
the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia was directed by Senate 
Resolution to ``report to the Senate plans for the development and 
improvement of the entire park system of the District of Columbia * * * 
(F)or the purpose of preparing such plans the committee * * * may 
secure the services of such experts as may be necessary for a proper 
consideration of the subject.''
  And secure ``such experts'' the committee assuredly did. The 
Committee formed what came to be known as the McMillan Commission, 
named for committee chairman, Senator James McMillan of Michigan. The 
Commission's membership was a ``who's who'' of late 19th and early 20th 
century architecture, landscape design, and art: Daniel Burnham, 
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles F. McKim, and Augustus St. Gaudens. 
The Commission traveled that summer to Rome, Venice, Vienna, Budapest, 
Paris, and London, studying the landscapes, architecture, and public 
spaces of the grandest cities in the world. The McMillan Commission 
returned and fashioned the city of Washington as we now know it.
  We are particularly indebted today for the Commission's preservation 
of the Mall. When the members left for Europe, the Congress had just 
given the Pennsylvania Railroad a 400-foot wide swath of the Mall for a 
new station and trackage. It is hard to imagine our city without the 
uninterrupted stretch of greenery from the Capitol to the Washington 
Monument, but such would have been the result. Fortunately, when in 
London, Daniel Burnham was able to convince Pennsylvania Railroad 
president Cassatt that a site on Massachusetts Avenue would provide a 
much grander entrance to the city. President Cassatt assented and 
Daniel Burnham gave us Union Station.
  But the focus of the Commission's work was the District's park 
system. The Commission noted in its report:

       Aside from the pleasure and the positive benefits to health 
     that the people derive from public parks, in a capital city 
     like Washington there is a distinct use of public spaces as 
     the indispensable means of giving dignity to Government 
     buildings and of making suitable connections between the 
     great departments . . . (V)istas and axes; sites for 
     monuments and museums; parks and pleasure gardens; fountains 
     and canals; in a word all that goes to make a city a 
     magnificent and consistent work of art were regarded as 
     essential in the plans made by L'Enfant under the direction 
     of the first President and his Secretary of State.

  Washington and Jefferson might be disappointed at the affliction now 
imposed on much of the Capitol Grounds by the automobile.
  Despite the ready and convenient availability of the city's Metrorail 
system, an extraordinary number of Capitol Hill employees drive to 
work. No doubt many must. But must we provide free parking? If there is 
one lesson learned from the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991, it is that free goods are always wasted. Free 
parking is a most powerful incentive to drive to work when the 
alternative is to pay for public transportation. Furthermore, much as 
expenses rise to meet income, newly provided parking spaces are 
instantly filled. At the foot of Pennsylvania Avenue is a scar of 
angle-parked cars, in parking spaces made available temporarily during 
construction of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Once 
completed, spaces in the building's garage would be made available to 
Senate employees and Pennsylvania Avenue would be restored. Not so. The 
demand for spaces has simply risen to meet the available supply, and 
the unit block of the Nation's main street remains a disaster.
  Today, I am introducing legislation to improve the Capitol Grounds 
through the near-complete elimination of surface parking. As the 
Architect of the Capitol eliminates these unsightly lots, they will be 
reconstructed as public parks, landscaped in the fashion of the Capitol 
Grounds. I envision what I call an arc of park sweeping around the 
Capitol from Second Street, Northeast, around to the Capitol Reflecting 
Pool, and thence back to First Street, Southeast. Delaware Avenue 
between Columbus Circle and Constitution Avenue would be closed to 
traffic and rebuilt as a pedestrian walkway, a grand pathway to the 
Capitol from Union Station.
  Finally, there is still the matter of parking. This legislation 
authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to construct underground 
parking facilities, as needed. These facilities, which will undoubtedly 
be expensive, will be financed simply by charging for the parking, a 
legitimate user fee.
  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. 160

       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 ``Arc of Park Capitol Grounds 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CAPITOL GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Architect of the Capitol shall 
     develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive plan 
     (referred to as the ``comprehensive

[[Page S583]]

     plan'') for the improvement of the grounds of the United 
     States Capitol as described in section 193a of title 40, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Arc of Park.--The comprehensive plan shall--
       (1) be consistent with the 1981 Report on the ``Master Plan 
     for the Future Development of the Capitol Grounds and Related 
     Areas'' prepared in accordance with Public Law 94-59 (July 
     25, 1975); and
       (2) result in an ``arc of park'' sweeping from Second 
     Street, Northeast to the Capitol Reflecting Pool to First 
     Street, Southeast, with the Capitol Building as its 
     approximate center.
       (c) Details.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for, at 
     a minimum--
       (1) elimination of all current surface parking areas, 
     excepting those areas which provide on-street parallel 
     parking spaces;
       (2) replacement of off-street surface parking areas with 
     public parks landscaped in a fashion appropriate to the 
     United States Capitol grounds;
       (3) reconstruction of Delaware Avenue, Northeast, between 
     Columbus Circle and Constitution Avenue as a thoroughfare 
     available principally to pedestrians as contemplated by the 
     Master Plan;
       (4) elimination of all but parallel parking on Pennsylvania 
     Avenue, between First and Third Streets, Northwest;
       (5) to the greatest extent practical, continuation of the 
     Pennsylvania Avenue tree line onto United States Capitol 
     Grounds and implementation of other appropriate landscaping 
     measures necessary to conform Pennsylvania Avenue between 
     First and Third Streets, Northwest, to the aesthetic 
     guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Avenue Development 
     Corporation;
       (6) closure of Maryland Avenue to through traffic between 
     First and Third Streets, Southwest, consistent with 
     appropriate access to and visitor parking for the United 
     States Botanic Garden; and
       (7) construction of additional underground parking 
     facilities, as needed, with--
       (A) the cost of construction and operation of such parking 
     facilities defrayed to the greatest extent practical by 
     charging appropriate usage fees, including time-of-day fees; 
     and
       (B) the parking facilities being made available to the 
     general public, with priority given to employees of the 
     Congress.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     construction and operation of any improvements under this Act 
     shall not be subject to--
       (1) any law of the District of Columbia or any State or 
     locality relating to taxes on sales, real estate, personal 
     property, special assessments, uses, or any other interest or 
     transaction (including Federal law); or
       (2) any law of the District of Columbia relating to use, 
     occupancy, or construction, including building costs, 
     permits, or inspection requirements (including Federal law).
       (b) Limitation.--The Architect of the Capitol shall comply 
     with appropriate recognized national life safety and building 
     codes in undertaking such construction and operation.

     SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL.

       The Architect of the Capitol--
       (1) shall be responsible for the structural, mechanical, 
     and custodial care and maintenance of the facilities 
     constructed under this Act and may discharge such 
     responsibilities directly or by contract; and
       (2) may permit the extension of steam and chilled water 
     from the Capitol Power Plant on a reimbursable basis to any 
     facilities or improvements constructed under this Act as a 
     cost of such improvements.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 161. A bill to provide for a transition to market-based rates for 
power sold by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


           power marketing administration reform act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Power Marketing 
Administration Reform Act of 1999, a bill to require that the Federal 
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA) sell electricity at market rates and recover all costs.
  Mr. President, in 1935 only 15 percent of rural Americans had access 
to electricity. President Roosevelt's administration established the 
PMAs to sell power to rural Americans below market rates because so 
many rural areas could not afford to install the transmission and 
generation equipment required to provide electricity. Commencement of 
the massive public works projects such as TVA filled a desperate need 
for jobs during the Depression years and brought electricity to the 
many areas of our country which lacked access to this most basic 
amenity of modern life.
  The PMAs served an essential function in lifting our nation out of 
the Depression, Mr. President, but that time has passed. Sixty years 
after its inception, public power is less expensive and more accessible 
than ever before. The discounted rates provided by public power are a 
benefit which goes to a relatively few recipients at a tremendous 
expense to the American taxpayer. Nearly 60 percent of Federal sales go 
to just four states: Tennessee, Alabama, Washington, and Oregon. PMAs 
have failed to recover their operating costs for too long, and it is 
taxpayers who bear the cost of the discrepancy between cost of 
generation and consumer rates. This discrepancy has brought about a 
fiscal shortfall and significant environmental damage.
  Reports over past years from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Inspector General of the 
U.S. Department of Energy confirm this view. In 1997, for instance, the 
GAO reported that the Bonneville Power Administration, the Rural 
Utilities Service, and three other PMAs cost American taxpayers $2.5 
billion in fiscal year 1996. In March 1998 the GAO showed that the 
Federal government incurred a net cost of $1.5 billion from 
electricity-related activities in the Southeastern, Southwestern, and 
Western PMAs between 1992 and 1996. Up to $1.4 billion of the 
approximately $7 billion of Federal investment in assets derived from 
electricity-related activities in these PMAs is at risk of nonrecovery.
  The GAO has also reported on fairness in lending to the PMAs. The 
Federal Treasury incurs approximately 9 percent in debt when lending to 
the PMAs, but recovers only 3.5 percent from the PMAs on their 
outstanding debt. This is a loss to the U.S. Treasury of 5.5 percent on 
interest payments alone. It is taxpayers who are required to account 
for this interest shortfall.
  Mr. President, my bill would provide for full cost recovery rates for 
power sold by the PMAs and the TVA. Under the bill, PMA and TVA rates 
would be recalculated to conform to market rates and be resubmitted to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval. The bill 
would also require that PMA and TVA transmission facilities are subject 
to open-access regulation by the FERC, and that FERC would be 
authorized to revise such rates when necessary to maintain a 
competitive environment. Cooperatives and public power entities will be 
given the right of first refusal of PMA and TVA power at market prices. 
Revenue accrued from the revisal of these rates will go first to the 
U.S. Treasury to recover all costs. The residual amount will then be 
disbursed by formula to the Treasury to mitigate damage to the 
environment attributed to the operation of PMAs and the TVA, and to 
support renewable electricity generating resources.
  Mr. President, the time has come for public power to be held 
accountable for the use of public dollars. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 161

       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 ``Power Marketing 
     Administration Reform Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the use of fixed allocations of joint multipurpose 
     project costs and the failure to provide for the recovery of 
     actual interest costs and depreciation have resulted in--
       (A) substantial failures to recover costs properly 
     recoverable through power rates by the Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority; 
     and
       (B) the imposition of unreasonable burdens on the taxpaying 
     public;
       (2) existing underallocations and underrecovery of costs 
     have led to inefficiencies in the marketing of Federally 
     generated electric power and to environmental damage; and
       (3) with the emergence of open access to power transmission 
     and competitive bulk power markets, market prices will 
     provide the lowest reasonable rates consistent with--
       (A) sound business principles;
       (B) maximum recovery of costs properly allocated to power 
     production; and

[[Page S584]]

       (C) encouraging the most widespread use of power marketed 
     by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to provide 
     for--
       (1) full cost recovery rates for power sold by the Federal 
     Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority; and
       (2) a transition to market-based rates for the power.

     SEC. 3. SALE OR DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL POWER BY FEDERAL POWER 
                   MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE TENNESSEE 
                   VALLEY AUTHORITY.

       (a) Accounting.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, shall develop and 
     implement procedures to ensure that the Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     use the same accounting principles and requirements 
     (including the accounting principles and requirements with 
     respect to the accrual of actual interest costs during 
     construction and pending repayment for any project and 
     recognition of depreciation expenses) as are applied by the 
     Commission to the electric operations of public utilities.
       (b) Development and Submission of Rates to the 
     Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act and periodically thereafter but not less frequently 
     than once every 5 years, each Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     submit to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a 
     description of proposed rates for the sale or disposition of 
     Federal power that will ensure the recovery of all costs 
     incurred by the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority, respectively, for the generation 
     and marketing of the Federal power.
       (2) Costs to be recovered.--The costs to be recovered under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall include all fish and wildlife expenditures 
     required under treaty and legal obligations associated with 
     the construction and operation of the facilities from which 
     the Federal power is generated and sold; and
       (B) shall not include any cost of transmitting the Federal 
     power.
       (c) Commission Review, Approval, or Modification.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     shall review and either approve or modify rates for the sale 
     or disposition of Federal power submitted to the Commission 
     by each Federal Power Marketing Administration and the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority under this section, in a manner 
     that ensures that the rates will recover all costs described 
     in subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Basis for review.--The review by the Commission under 
     paragraph (1) shall be based on the record of proceedings 
     before the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority, except that the Commission shall 
     afford all affected persons an opportunity for an additional 
     hearing in accordance with the procedures established for 
     ratemaking by the Commission under the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 791a et seq.).
       (d) Application of Rates.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning on the date of approval or 
     modification by the Commission of rates under this section, 
     each Federal Power Marketing Administration and the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority shall apply the rates, as approved or 
     modified by the Commission, to each existing contract for the 
     sale or disposition of Federal power by the Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority to 
     the maximum extent permitted by the contract.
       (2) Applicability.--This section shall cease to apply to a 
     Federal Power Marketing Administration or the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority as of the date of termination of all 
     commitments under any contract for the sale or disposition of 
     Federal power that were in existence as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (e) Accounting Principles and Requirements.--In developing 
     or reviewing the rates required by this section, the Federal 
     Power Marketing Administrations, the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority, and the Commission shall rely on the accounting 
     principles and requirements developed under subsection (a).
       (f) Interim Rates.--Until market pricing for the sale or 
     disposition of Federal power by a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority is fully 
     implemented, the full cost recovery rates required by this 
     section shall apply to--
       (1) a new contract entered into after the date of enactment 
     of this Act for the sale of power by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrator or the Tennessee Valley Authority; 
     and
       (2) a renewal after the date of enactment of this Act of an 
     existing contract for the sale of power by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (g) Transition to Market-Based Rates.--
       (1) In general.--If the transition to full cost recovery 
     rates would result in rates that exceed market rates, the 
     Secretary of Energy may approve rates for power sold by 
     Federal Power Marketing Administrations at market rates, and 
     the Tennessee Valley Authority may approve rates for power 
     sold by the Tennessee Valley Authority at market rates, if--
       (A) operation and maintenance costs are recovered, 
     including all fish and wildlife costs required under existing 
     treaty and legal obligations;
       (B) the contribution toward recovery of investment 
     pertaining to power production is maximized; and
       (C) purchasers of power under existing contracts consent to 
     the remarketing by the Federal Power Marketing Administration 
     or the Tennessee Valley Authority of the power through 
     competitive bidding not later than 3 years after the approval 
     of the rates.
       (2) Competitive bidding.--Competitive bidding shall be used 
     to remarket power that is subject to, but not sold in 
     accordance with, paragraph (1).
       (h) Market-Based Pricing.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall develop 
     and implement procedures to ensure that all power sold by 
     Federal Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority is sold at prices that reflect demand and 
     supply conditions within the relevant bulk power supply 
     market.
       (2) Bid and auction procedures.--The Secretary of Energy 
     shall establish by regulation bid and auction procedures to 
     implement market-based pricing for power sold under any power 
     sales contract entered into by a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority after the 
     date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including power that is under contract but that is declined 
     by the party entitled to purchase the power and remarketed 
     after that date.
       (i) Use of Revenue Collected Through Market-Based 
     Pricing.--
       (1) In general.--Revenue collected through market-based 
     pricing shall be disposed of as follows:
       (A) Revenue for operations, fish and wildlife, and project 
     costs.--Revenue shall be remitted to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to cover--
       (i) all power-related operations and maintenance expenses;
       (ii) all fish and wildlife costs required under existing 
     treaty and legal obligations; and
       (iii) the project investment cost pertaining to power 
     production.
       (B) Remaining revenue.--Revenue that remains after 
     remission to the Secretary of the Treasury under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be disposed of as follows:
       (i) Federal budget deficit.--50 percent of the revenue 
     shall be remitted to the Secretary of the Treasury for the 
     purpose of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
       (ii) Fund for environmental mitigation and restoration.--35 
     percent of the revenue shall be deposited in the fund 
     established under paragraph (2)(A).
       (iii) Fund for renewable resources.--15 percent of the 
     revenue shall be deposited in the fund established under 
     paragraph (3)(A).
       (2) Fund for environmental mitigation and restoration.--
       (A) Establishment.--
       (i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Fund for 
     Environmental Mitigation and Restoration'' (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the ``Fund''), consisting of funds 
     allocated under paragraph (1)(B)(ii).
       (ii) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered by a 
     Board of Directors consisting of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, or their designees.
       (B) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available for making 
     expenditures--
       (i) to carry out project-specific plans to mitigate damage 
     to, and restore the health of, fish, wildlife, and other 
     environmental resources that is attributable to the 
     construction and operation of the facilities from which power 
     is generated and sold; and
       (ii) to cover all costs incurred in establishing and 
     administering the Fund.
       (C) Project-specific plans.--
       (i) In general.--The Board of Directors of the Fund shall 
     develop a project-specific plan described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i) for each project that is used to generate power 
     marketed by the Federal Power Marketing Administration or the 
     Tennessee Valley Authority.
       (ii) Use of existing data, information, and plans.--In 
     developing plans under clause (i), the Board, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, shall rely on existing data, information, 
     and mitigation and restoration plans developed by--

       (I) the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation;
       (II) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service;
       (III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       (IV) the heads of other Federal, State, and tribal 
     agencies.

       (D) Maximum amount.--
       (i) In general.--The Fund shall maintain a balance of not 
     more than $200,000,000 in excess of the amount that the Board 
     of Directors of the Fund determines is necessary to cover the 
     costs of project-specific plans required under this 
     paragraph.
       (ii) Surplus revenue for deficit reduction.--Revenue that 
     would be deposited in the Fund but for the absence of such 
     project-specific plans shall be used by the Secretary

[[Page S585]]

     of the Treasury for purposes of reducing the Federal budget 
     deficit.
       (3) Fund for renewable resources.--
       (A) Establishment.--
       (i) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Fund for 
     Renewable Resources'' (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     ``Fund''), consisting of funds allocated under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(iii).
       (ii) Administration.--The Fund shall be administered by the 
     Secretary of Energy.
       (B) Use.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available for making 
     expenditures--
       (i) to pay the incremental cost (above the expected market 
     cost of power) of nonhydroelectric renewable resources in the 
     region in which power is marketed by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration; and
       (ii) to cover all costs incurred in establishing and 
     administering the Fund.
       (C) Administration.--Amounts in the Fund shall be expended 
     only--
       (i) in accordance with a plan developed by the Secretary of 
     Energy that is designed to foster the development of 
     nonhydroelectric renewable resources that show substantial 
     long-term promise but that are currently too expensive to 
     attract private capital sufficient to develop or ascertain 
     their potential; and
       (ii) on recipients chosen through competitive bidding.
       (D) Maximum amount.--
       (i) In general.--The Fund shall maintain a balance of not 
     more than $50,000,000 in excess of the amount that the 
     Secretary of Energy determines is necessary to carry out the 
     plan developed under subparagraph (C)(i).
       (ii) Surplus revenue for deficit reduction.--Revenue that 
     would be deposited in the Fund but for the absence of the 
     plan shall be used by the Secretary of the Treasury for 
     purposes of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
       (j) Preference.--
       (1) In general.--In making allocations or reallocations of 
     power under this section, a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     provide a preference for public bodies and cooperatives by 
     providing a right of first refusal to purchase the power at 
     market prices.
       (2) Use.--
       (A) In general.--Power purchased under paragraph (1)--
       (i) shall be consumed by the preference customer or resold 
     for consumption by the constituent end-users of the 
     preference customer; and
       (ii) may not be resold to other persons or entities.
       (B) Transmission access.--In accordance with regulations of 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a preference 
     customer shall have transmission access to power purchased 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Competitive bidding.--If a public body or cooperative 
     does not purchase power under paragraph (1), the power shall 
     be allocated to the next highest bidder.
       (k) Reforms.--The Secretary of Energy shall require each 
     Federal Power Marketing Administration to implement--
       (1) program management reforms that require the Federal 
     Power Marketing Administration to assign personnel and incur 
     expenses only for authorized power marketing, reclamation, 
     and flood control activities and not for ancillary activities 
     (including consulting or operating services for other 
     entities); and
       (2) annual reporting requirements that clearly disclose to 
     the public, the activities of the Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration (including the full cost of the power projects 
     and power marketing programs).
       (l) Contract Renewal.--Effective beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a Federal Power Marketing 
     Administration shall not enter into or renew any power 
     marketing contract for a term that exceeds 5 years.
       (m) Restrictions.--Except for the Bonneville Power 
     Administration, each Federal Power Marketing Administration 
     shall be subject to the restrictions on the construction of 
     transmission and additional facilities that are established 
     under section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
     of 1944'') (58 Stat. 890)).

     SEC. 4. TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDED BY FEDERAL POWER 
                   MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS AND TENNESSEE VALLEY 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     shall provide transmission service on an open access basis, 
     and at just and reasonable rates approved or established by 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under part II of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.), in the same manner 
     as the service is provided under Commission rules by any 
     public utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission 
     under that part.
       (b) Expansion of Capabilities or Transmissions.--Subsection 
     (a) does not require a Federal Power Marketing Administration 
     or the Tennessee Valley Authority to expand a transmission or 
     interconnection capability or transmission.

     SEC. 5. INTERIM REGULATION OF POWER RATE SCHEDULES OF FEDERAL 
                   POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS.

       (a) In General.--During the date beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which market-
     based pricing is implemented under section 3 (as determined 
     by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), the Commission 
     may review and approve, reject, or revise power rate 
     schedules recommended for approval by the Secretary of 
     Energy, and existing rate schedules, for power sales by a 
     Federal Power Marketing Administration.
       (b) Basis for Approval.--In evaluating rates under 
     subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in 
     accordance with section 3, shall--
       (1) base any approval of the rates on the protection of the 
     public interest; and
       (2) undertake to protect the interest of the taxpaying 
     public and consumers.
       (c) Commission Actions.--As the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission determines is necessary to protect the public 
     interest in accordance with section 3 until a full transition 
     is made to market-based rates for power sold by Federal Power 
     Marketing Administrations, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission may--
       (1) review the factual basis for determinations made by the 
     Secretary of Energy;
       (2) revise or modify those findings as appropriate;
       (3) revise proposed or effective rate schedules; or
       (4) remand the rate schedules to the Secretary of Energy.
       (d) Review.--An affected party (including a taxpayer, 
     bidder, preference customer, or affected competitor) may seek 
     a rehearing and judicial review of a final decision of the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under this section in 
     accordance with section 313 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 825l).
       (e) Procedures.--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     shall by regulation establish procedures to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 6. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Transfers from the Department of the Interior.--Section 
     302(a)(3) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7152(a)(3)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Use of Funds to Study Noncost-Based Methods of Pricing 
     Hydroelectric Power.--Section 505 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7152 note; 
     106 Stat. 1343) is repealed.

     SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

       Except as provided in section 3(l), this Act shall apply to 
     a power sales contract entered into by a Federal Power 
     Marketing Administration or the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     after July 23, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 163. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
certain coins to be acquired by individual retirement accounts and 
other individually directed pension plan accounts; to the Committee on 
Finance.


           certified u.s. legal tender coins allowed in iras

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
allowing certain U.S. legal tender coins to be qualified investments 
for an individual retirement account (IRA).
  Congress excluded ``collectibles'', such as antiques, gold and silver 
bullion, and legal tender coinage, as appropriate for contribution to 
IRAs in 1981. The primary reason was the concerns that individuals 
would get a tax break when they bought collectibles for their personal 
use. For example, a taxpayer might deduct the purchase of an antique 
rug for his/her living room as an IRA investment. Congress was also 
concerned about how the many different types of collectibles are 
valued.
  Over the years, however, certain coins and precious metals have been 
excluded from the definition of a collectible because they are 
independently valued investments that offer investors portfolio 
diversity and liquidity. For example, Congress excluded gold and silver 
U.S. American Eagles from the definition of collectibles in 1986, and 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took the further step of excluding 
certain precious metals bullion.
  My legislation would exclude form the definition of collectibles only 
those U.S. legal tender coins which meet the following three standards; 
certification by a nationally-recognized grading service, traded on a 
nationally-recognized network and held by a qualified trustee as 
described in the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, only investment 
quality coins that are independently valued and not held for personal 
use may be included in IRAs.
  There are several nationally-recognized, independent certification or 
grading services. Full-time professional graders (numismatists) examine 
each coin for authenticity and grade them according to established 
standards. Upon certification, the coin is sonically-sealed (preserved) 
to ensure that it remains in the same condition as when it was graded.

[[Page S586]]

  Legal tender coins are then traded via two independent electronic 
networks--the Certified Coin Exchange and Certified CoinNet. These 
networks are independent of each other and have no financial interest 
in legal tender coinage and precious metals markets. The networks 
function in precisely the same manner as the NASDAQ with a series of 
published ``bid'' and ``ask'' prices and last trades. The buys and 
sells are enforceable prices that must be honored as posted until 
updated.
  Mr. President, the liquidity provided through a bona fide national 
trading network, combined with published prices, make legal tender 
coinage a practical investment that offers investors diversification 
and liquidity. Investment in these tangible assets has become a safe 
and prudent course of action for both the small and large investor and 
should be given the same treatment under the law as other financial 
investments. I urge the Senate to enact this important legislation as 
soon as possible.
  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. 163

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN COINS NOT TREATED AS COLLECTIBLES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 408(m)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for 
     certain coins and bullion) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) any coin certified by a recognized grading service 
     and traded on a nationally recognized electronic network, or 
     listed by a recognized wholesale reporting service, and--
       ``(i) which is or was at any time legal tender in the 
     United States, or
       ``(ii) issued under the laws of any State, or''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 164. A bill to improve mathematics and science instruction; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


      legislation to improve american math and science achievement

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
intended to help students in those States that do not fare well in 
academic comparisons with students from other nations. It authorizes 
grants to States whose students continue to be outperformed by students 
in a majority of the nations which took the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS.
  TIMSS showed us that indisputably our students do not fare well in 
international competition. The most striking finding was that American 
students do worse, comparative speaking, the longer they are in our 
schools. Our fourth graders performed in the middle range of scores in 
math and were second to Japan in science. Our seniors are bringing up 
the rear.
  American high school seniors performed among the lowest of the 21 
countries in the study. In mathematics our students were outperformed 
by those of 14 countries, were statistically similar to 4 countries, 
and outperformed only 2 countries. In science our students were 
outperformed by those of 11 countries, were similar to 7 countries, and 
again outperformed only 2 countries. Asian countries such as Korea, 
Japan, and Singapore did not participate in the twelfth grade study. 
Just as well, for morale purposes. Their students embarrassed our 
students at the fourth and eighth grade levels.
  The two questions that come to mind are what did we expect and what 
are we to do?
  Our expectations were high at the beginning of the decade. In 
September 1989, President Bush met with the Nation's governors in 
Charlottesville to set out goals for education. Four months later he 
devoted a sizable portion of his State of the Union Address to setting 
forth the agreed-upon goals. Some were lofty, harmless, and 
unmeasurable: ``By the year 2000 every child must start school ready to 
learn.'' Most children are. ``Every adult must be a skilled, literate 
worker and citizen.'' We know what it means to be a skilled mechanic, 
but a skilled citizen? Others were lofty, measurable, and the product 
of a leakage of reality that was stupefying then as now. First and 
foremost that ``By the year 2000, U.S. students would be first in the 
world in math and science achievement.''
  President Bush was speaking to Congress in a vocabulary created in 
the 1960's by James S. Coleman, then professor of sociology at Johns 
Hopkins University. The ``Coleman Report'' introduced the language of 
educational outputs. Previously we spoke of inputs: student-teacher 
ration, money per student, and such. Coleman introduced the idea of 
outputs, and measuring our standing in the world is one such.
  With Coleman we had a new vocabulary for education, but sadly not a 
new understanding. The first finding of his remarkable report was 
``that the schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on 
the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of 
the students is taken into account.'' This was seismic. Family 
background is more important than schools. But 24 years later, in 1990, 
it had not been learned, or could still be ignored.

  Stating that our goal was to become the leader in math and science 
was folly. I wrote in the Winter 1991 Public Interest that ``on no 
account could the President's goals--the quantified, specific goals--
reasonably be deemed capable of achievement.'' I cited the general 
decline in high school graduation rates that began in 1970 and the lack 
of success we had in meeting very similar goals President Reagan set 
out in 1984. Most basically, we were ignoring Coleman's findings that 
we would have to start with the American family before we could expect 
improvements in American students.
  I concluded the Public Interest piece by saying, ``If, as forecast 
here, the year 2000 arrives and the United States is nowhere near 
meeting the educational goals set out in 1990, the potential will 
nonetheless exist for serous debate as to why what was basically a 
political plan went wrong. We might even consider how it might have 
turned out better.''
  Our children will not meet the goals set for math and science 
leadership. How can we help them do better? The TIMSS report says that 
it is too early to draw specific conclusions about how to improve 
performance in twelfth grade, that it will take some time to analyze 
all the data therein. I should thing the higher education community 
would be at the forefront of this effort, for the colleges are the most 
immediately affected by undereducated high school graduates. One 
student in five takes remedial courses in at least one subject.
  Without giving short shrift to helping our elementary school 
students, we must focus on finding ways to keep them at the level they 
have achieved by fourth grade as they continue through school. This 
bill would make a small contribution to that effort by providing grants 
of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to states whose students collectively fall 
below the median score among the nations whose eighth graders retake 
the TIMSS tests this year or next. The money would be used to improve 
mathematics or science education. The grants would be awarded 
competitively; states whose students' scores qualify them must propose 
constructive ways of using the grants, such as for equipment, teacher 
training, or other purposes.
  The Department of Education last year released Linking the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International 
Mathematics and Science Study: Eight grade results. This study showed 
how the states' NAEP scores and other nations' TIMSS scores could be 
compared. The Department of Education would use the same process to 
determine where states rank in comparision with the upcoming results of 
the TIMSS exams by a new group of eight graders around the world. Those 
states whose students score below the median in either math or science 
would be eligible to apply for these grants.
  Mr. President, money is not the answer to our dismal showing among 
the nations of the world. Better families is the place to start. These 
grants, however, would help those states that need help the most. I ask 
my colleagues for their support and ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page S587]]

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

                                 S. 164

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

     SECTION 1. GRANTS TO IMPROVE MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE 
                   INSTRUCTION.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Education is 
     authorized to award a grant to the Governor or State 
     educational agency of a State if the Secretary determines 
     that the average score of 8th grade students in the State on 
     the 1999 retake of the Third International Mathematics and 
     Science Study (TIMSS) is or would be lower than the median of 
     the scores of the countries participating in the 1999 retake 
     of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
       (b) Amount.--The Secretary of Education shall award a grant 
     under this section in an amount not less than $500,000 and 
     not more than $1,000,000.
       (c) Comparison.--The Secretary of Education shall use the 
     results of the most recent National Assessment of Educational 
     Progress for comparisons between States and countries with 
     respect to the 1999 retake of the Third International 
     Mathematics and Science Study.
       (d) Competitive Basis.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     under this section on a competitive basis.
       (e) Uses.--Each Governor or State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds to improve mathematics and science instruction in the 
     State.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003.

     SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Math and Science Learning 
     Improvement Act of 1999''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 165. A bill to require the Secretary of Education to correct 
poverty data to account for cost of living differences; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


 legislation to require poverty statistics be adjusted for local costs 
                               of living

  Mr. MOYNIHAM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with a 
simple purpose: to require that the formulas for distributing grants 
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act use poverty statistics 
adjusted for the costs of living in subnational areas. While residents 
of some states such as New York earn more as a whole than residents of 
many other states, they must also spend more. In some areas of New 
York, they spend twice as much for the same necessities as families in 
urban areas elsewhere in the nation. Children whose families live just 
above the poverty threshold in New York and other wealthier states are 
demonstrably worse off than children from families just below the 
poverty threshold in states where the cost of living is lower.
  As we begin the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act this year, I hope this disparity will be considered in 
the distribution of funds targeted to schools in areas with high 
incidences of poverty (primarily the Title One grants as now 
authorized).
  In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel of experts 
released a study on redefining poverty. Our poverty index dates back to 
the work of Social Security Administration economist Mollie Orshansky 
who, in the early 1960s, hit upon the idea of a nutritional standard, 
not unlike the ``pennyloaf'' of bread of the 18th century British poor 
laws. Our poverty standard would be three times the cost of the 
Department of Agriculture-defined minimally adequate ``food basket.''
  During consideration of the Family Support Act of 1988, I included a 
provision mandating the National Academy of Sciences to determine if 
our poverty measure is outdated and how it might be improved. The 
study, edited by Constance F. Citro and Robert T. Michael, is entitled 
``Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.'' A Congressional Research Service 
review of the report states: The NAS panel makes several 
recommendations which, if fully adopted, could dramatically alter the 
way poverty in the U.S. is measured, how federal funds are allotted to 
the States, and how eligibility for many Federal programs is 
determined. The recommended poverty measure would be based on more 
items in the family budget, would take major noncash benefits and taxes 
into account, and would be adjusted for regional differences in living 
costs.
  Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these 
substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute 
millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, States with high 
costs of living--states like New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey and California, just to name a few--are not 
getting their fair share of Federal dollars because differences in the 
cost of living are not factored into the allocation formula. And the 
poor of these high cost states are penalized because they happen to 
live there. It is time to correct this inequity. The ESEA 
reauthorization will be one of the most significant measures we take up 
this year. For the children most in need of good schools and a good 
education, we should use adjusted poverty rates in the ESEA formulas. A 
national poverty rate leads to inequities. Poverty rates adjusted for 
subnational areas would be a significant step towards correcting them. 
This bill would do so.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for their support and ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 165

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

     SECTION 1. POVERTY DATA.

       Title XIV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

                   ``Part I--Poverty Data Adjustments

     ``SEC. 14901. POVERTY DATA ADJUSTMENTS.

       ``Whenever the Secretary uses any data that relates to the 
     incidence of poverty and is produced or published by or for 
     the Secretary of Commerce for subnational, State or substate 
     areas, the Secretary shall adjust the data to account for 
     differences in the cost of living in the areas.''.

     SEC. 2. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``The Education Grant Formula 
     Adjustment Act of 1999''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 166. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to determine any 
surpluses or shortfalls in certain grant amounts made available to 
States by reason of an undercount in the most recent decennial census 
conducted by the Bureau of the Census; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


    legislation to provide the fiscal consequences of the undercount

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is 
intended to shed a little more light on the consequences of a census 
that is not adjusted for the undercount. The bill requires the 
Secretary of Commerce to notify each governor how much more or less 
Federal funding in his or her state would receive each fiscal year 
following a decennial census if the census were adjusted for the 
undercount and the adjusted figures were used in grant allocation 
formulas.
  This bill is not directly related to the controversy over sampling. 
The sampling proposal made by the Bureau of the Census is one way to 
eliminate the undercount, but there are other less controversial 
methods. Not uncontroversial, but less so.
   Mr. President, the taking of a census goes back centuries. I quote 
from the King James version of the Bible, chapter two of Luke: ``And it 
came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar 
Augustus that all the world should be taxed (or enrolled, according to 
the footnote) . . . And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own 
city.'' The early censuses were taken to enable the ruler or ruling 
government to tax or raise an army.
  The first census for more sociological reasons was taken in Nuremberg 
in 1449. So it was not a new idea to the Founding Fathers when they 
wrote it into the Constitution to facilitate fair taxation and accurate 
apportionment of the House of Representatives, the latter of which was 
the foundation of the Great Compromise.
  The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2:

       Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among 
     the several States which may be included within this Union, 
     according to their respective numbers, which shall be 
     determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, 
     including those bound to Service for a term of years, and 
     excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other 
     persons. The actual enumeration shall be made

[[Page S588]]

     within three years of the first meeting of the Congress of 
     the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten 
     years, in such manner as they shall direct by law.

  Opponents of adjustment often say that the Constitution calls for an 
``actual enumeration'', and this requires an actual headcount rather 
than any statistical inference about those we know we miss every time. 
That seems to take the phrase out of context. I note that we have not 
taken an ``actual enumeration'' the way the Founding Fathers envisioned 
since 1960, after which enumerators going to every door were replaced 
with mail-in responses. The Constitution provides for a postal system, 
but did not direct that the census be taken by mail. Yet we do it that 
way.
  Statistical work in the 1940s demonstrated that we can estimate the 
undercount, the number of people the census misses. The estimate for 
1940 was 5.4 percent of the population. After decreasing steadily to 
1.2 percent in 1980, the 1990 undercount increased to 1.8 percent, or 
more than four million people.
  More significantly, the undercount is not distributed evenly. The 
differential undercount, as it is known, of minorities was 4.4 percent 
for Blacks, 5.0 percent for Hispanics, 2.3 percent for Asian-Pacific 
islanders, and 4.5 percent for Native Americans, compared with 1.2 
percent for non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and 
non-black undercount was the largest since 1940. By disproportionately 
missing minorities, we deprive them of equal representation in Congress 
and of proportionate funding from Federal programs based on population. 
The Census Bureau estimates that the total undercount will reach 1.9 
percent in 2000 if the 1990 methods are used instead of sampling.
   Mr. President, I have some history with the undercount issue. In 
1966 when I became Director of the Joint Center for Urban Studies at 
MIT and Harvard, I asked Professor David Heer to work with me in 
planning a conference to publicize the non-white undercount in the 1960 
census and to foster concern about the problems of obtaining a full 
enumeration, especially of the urban poor. I ask that my forward to the 
report from that conference be printed following my remarks, for it is, 
save for some small numerical changes, disturbingly still relevant.
  My hope is that if governors and other interested parties learn the 
financial consequences of the undercount, support may grow for 
correcting it. It is regrettable that we don't do it, simply because we 
should. But if a yearly reminder of how the undercount affects formula 
grant programs helps change some minds, it is worth the effort.
  I ask my colleagues for their support and I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill and additional material, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 166

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Covered federal formula grant.--The term ``covered 
     Federal formula grant'' means a grant awarded by the Federal 
     Government on the basis of a formula that provides for the 
     distribution of funds to States.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     SEC. 2. CALCULATIONS OF SHORTFALLS AND SURPLUS AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Determination of funding amounts.--As soon as 
     practicable after receiving the information concerning the 
     fiscal year immediately preceding the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the heads of appropriate Federal agencies, shall 
     determine, for the immediately preceding fiscal year--
       (A) the amount of funds made available for that fiscal year 
     for each covered Federal formula grant program; and
       (B) for each covered Federal formula grant program, the 
     amount distributed to each grant recipient.
       (2) Information.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and not later than 120 days after the 
     end of each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each Federal 
     agency that administers a covered Federal formula grant 
     program shall submit to the Secretary--
       (A) the amount of funds made available for that program for 
     that fiscal year; and
       (B) for each State recipient of a covered Federal formula 
     grant, the amount distributed as a grant award under that 
     grant to that recipient.
       (b) Determinations for Formula Grant Programs that Received 
     the Greatest Amount of Funding.--Upon making the 
     determinations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     determine--
       (1) the 100 covered Federal formula grant programs that 
     received the greatest amounts of funding during the preceding 
     fiscal year; and
       (2) whether, on the basis of undercounting for the most 
     recent decennial census (as determined by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of the Census), any State recipient 
     of a grant award under paragraph (1) received an amount less 
     than or greater than the amount that the recipient would 
     otherwise have received if an adjustment to the grant award 
     had been made for that undercounting.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Upon making the determinations under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall prepare, for each State, 
     an annual report that includes--
       (A) a listing of any grant award under subsection (b)(1) 
     provided to that State that was an amount less than or 
     greater than amount that the State would otherwise have 
     received if an adjustment for undercounting referred to in 
     that subsection had been made; and
       (B) for each grant award listed under subparagraph (A), the 
     amount of the shortfall or surplus determined under 
     subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Distribution.--The Secretary shall provide to the 
     Governor of each State (or the equivalent official) a copy of 
     the report prepared under paragraph (1) for that State.
                                  ____


                     Social Statistics and the City

                           (By David M. Heer)


                                Foreword

       At one point in the course of the 1950's John Kenneth 
     Galbraith observed that it is the statisticians, as much as 
     any single group, who shape public policy, for the simple 
     reason that societies never really become effectively 
     concerned with social problems until they learn to measure 
     them. An unassuming truth, perhaps, but a mighty one, and one 
     that did more than he may know to sustain morale in a number 
     of Washington bureaucracies (hateful word!) during a period 
     when the relevant cabinet officers had on their own reached 
     very much the same conclusion--and distrusted their charges 
     all the more in consequence. For it is one of the ironies of 
     American government that individuals and groups that have 
     been most resistant to liberal social change have quite 
     accurately perceived that social statistics are all too 
     readily transformed into political dynamite, whilst in a 
     curious way the reform temperament has tended to view the 
     whole statistical process as plodding, overcautious, and 
     somehow a brake on progress. (Why must every statistic be 
     accompanied by detailed notes about the size of the 
     ``standard error''?)
       The answer, of course, is that this is what must be done if 
     the fact is to be accurately stated, and ultimately accepted. 
     But, given this atmosphere of suspicion on the one hand and 
     impatience on the other, it is something of a wonder that the 
     statistical officers of the federal government have with such 
     fortitude and fairness remained faithful to a high 
     intellectual calling, and an even more demanding public 
     trust.
       There is no agency of which this is more true than the 
     Bureau of the Census, the first, and still the most 
     important, information-gathering agency of the federal 
     government. For getting on, now, for two centuries, the 
     Census has collected and compiled the essential facts of the 
     American experience. Of late the ten-year cycle has begun to 
     modulate somewhat, and as more and more current reports have 
     been forthcoming, the Census has been quietly transforming 
     itself into a continuously flowing source of information 
     about the American people. In turn, American society has 
     become more and more dependent on it. It would be difficult 
     to find an aspect of public or private life not touched and 
     somehow shaped by Census information. And yet for all this, 
     it is somehow ignored. To declare that the Census is without 
     friends would be absurd. But partisans? When Census 
     appropriations are cut, who bleeds on Capitol Hill or in the 
     Executive Office of the President? The answer is almost 
     everyone in general, and therefore no one in particular. But 
     the result, too often, is the neglect, even the abuse, of an 
     indispensable public institution, which often of late has 
     served better than it has been served.
       The papers in this collection, as Professor Heer's 
     introduction explains, were presented at a conference held in 
     June 1967 with the avowed purpose of arousing a measure of 
     public concern about the difficultires encountered by the 
     Census in obtaining a full count of the urban poor, 
     especially perhaps the Negro poor. It became apparent, for 
     example, that in 1960 one fifth of nonwhite males aged 25-
     29 had in effect disappeared and had been left out of the 
     Census count altogether. Invisible men. Altogether, one 
     tenth of the non-white population had been ``missed.'' The 
     ramifications of this fact were considerable, and its 
     implications will suggest themselves immediately. It was 
     hoped that a public airing of the issue might lead to 
     greater public support to ensure that the Census would 
     have the resources in 1970 to do

[[Page S589]]

     what is, after all, its fundamental job, that of counting 
     all the American people. As the reader will see, the 
     scholarly case for providing this support was made with 
     considerable energy and candor. But perhaps the most 
     compelling argument arose from a chance remark by a 
     conference participant to the effect that if the decennial 
     census were not required by the Constitution, the Bureau 
     would doubtless never have survived the economy drives of 
     the nineteenth century. The thought flashed: the full 
     enumeration of the American population is not simply an 
     optional public service provided by government for the use 
     of sales managers, sociologists, and regional planners. It 
     is, rather, the constitutionally mandated process whereby 
     political representation in the Congress is distributed as 
     between different areas of the Nation. It is a matter not 
     of convenience but of the highest seriousness, affecting 
     the very foundations of sovereignty. That being the case, 
     there is no lawful course but to provide the Bureau with 
     whatever resources are necessary to obtain a full 
     enumeration. Inasmuch as Negroes and other ``minorities'' 
     are concentrated in specific urban locations, to 
     undercount significantly the population in those areas is 
     to deny residents their rights under Article I, Section 3 
     of the Constitution, as well, no doubt, as under Section 1 
     of the Fourteenth Amendment. Given the further, more 
     recent practice of distributing Federal, State, and local 
     categorical aid on the basis not only of the number but 
     also social and economic characteristics of local 
     populations, the constitutional case for full enumeration 
     would seem to be further strengthened.
       A sound legal case? Others will judge; and possibly one day 
     the courts will decide. But of one thing the conference had 
     no doubt: the common-sense case is irrefutable. America needs 
     to count all its people. (And reciprocally, all its people 
     need to make themselves available to be counted.) But if the 
     legal case adds any strength to the common-sense argument, it 
     remains only to add that should either of the arguments bring 
     some improvement in the future, it will be but another 
     instance of the generosity of the Carnegie Corporation, which 
     provided funds for the conference and for this publication.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 167. A bill to extend the authorization for the Upper Delaware 
Citizens Advisory Council and to authorize construction and operation 
of a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational 
River, New York and Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


        upper delaware scenic and recreational river legislation

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my 
friend and colleague Senator Schumer, a bill to extend the 
authorization for the Upper Delaware River Citizens Advisory Committee 
and authorize the construction of a visitors center. The Upper Delaware 
is a 73-mile stretch of free flowing water between Hancock and 
Sparrowbush, New York along the Pennsylvania border. The area is home 
to the Zane Gray Museum and to Roebling's Delaware Aqueduct, which is 
believed to be the oldest existing wire cable suspension bridge. The 
Upper Delaware is an ideal location for canoeing, kayaking, rafting, 
tubing, sightseeing, and fishing.
  In 1987 the Secretary of the Interior approved a management plan for 
the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River which called for the 
development of a visitors center at the south end of the river 
corridor. It would be owned and constructed by the National Park 
Service. In 1993 New York State authorized a lease with the Park 
Service for the construction of a visitor center on State-owned land in 
the town of Deerpark in the vicinity of Mongaup. This bill allows the 
Secretary to enter into such a lease and to construct and operate the 
visitor center.
  Mr. President, the many thousands of visitors to this wonderful river 
would benefit greatly from a place to go to find out about the 
recreational opportunities, the history, and the flora and fauna of the 
river. This bill would move that process along to its conclusion. It 
would also reauthorize the Citizens Advisory Council which ensures that 
the views and concerns of local residents are kept in mind when 
management decisions are made. My colleague from New York and I ask for 
the support of other Senators, and 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. 167

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR UPPER DELAWARE 
                   CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       Section 704(f)(1) of the National Parks and Recreation Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 note; Public Law 95-625) is amended 
     in the last sentence by striking ``20'' and inserting ``30''.

     SEC. 2. VISITOR CENTER FOR UPPER DELAWARE SCENIC AND 
                   RECREATIONAL RIVER.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on September 29, 1987, the Secretary of the Interior 
     approved a management plan for the Upper Delaware Scenic and 
     Recreational River, as required by section 704(c) of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 
     note; Public Law 95-625);
       (2) the management plan called for the development of a 
     primary visitor contact facility located at the southern end 
     of the river corridor;
       (3) the management plan determined that the visitor center 
     would be built and operated by the National Park Service;
       (4) section 704 of that Act limits the authority of the 
     Secretary of the Interior to acquire land within the boundary 
     of the river corridor; and
       (5) on June 21, 1993, the State of New York authorized a 
     99-year lease between the New York State Department of 
     Environmental Conservation and the National Park Service for 
     construction and operation of a visitor center by the Federal 
     Government on State-owned land in the town of Deerpark, 
     Orange County, New York, in the vicinity of Mongaup, which is 
     the preferred site for the visitor center.
       (b) Authorization of Visitor Center.--Section 704(d) of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1274 
     note; Public Law 95-625) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d) Acquisition of Land.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Visitor center.--For the purpose of constructing and 
     operating a visitor center for the segment of the Upper 
     Delaware River designated as a scenic and recreational river 
     by section 3(a)(19) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1274(a)(19)), subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary of the Interior may--
       ``(A) enter into a lease with the State of New York, for a 
     term of 99 years, for State-owned land within the boundaries 
     of the Upper Delaware River located at an area known as 
     `Mongaup' near the confluence of the Mongaup and Upper 
     Delaware Rivers in the State of New York; and
       ``(B) construct and operate the visitor center on the land 
     leased under subparagraph (A).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 168. A bill for the relief of Thomas J. Sansone, Jr.; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
will provide compensation under the National Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program (VICP) to Tommy Sansone, Jr. Tommy was injured by 
a DPT vaccine in June 1994 and continues to suffer seizures and brain 
damage to this day. Tommy is the untended and helpless victim of a drug 
designed to help him. He needs our help because while the Vaccine 
Injury Program is meant to make reparations for these injuries, it is 
hampered by regulations that challenge the worthiest of claims.
  Back in 1986, Congress passed the Vaccine Injury Act to take care of 
vaccine injuries because the shots that we required our children to get 
were not as safe as they could have been. Since the program was 
established, more than 1100 children have been compensated. Over the 
first ten years, a great percentage of those with seizures or brain 
damage or other symptoms were recognized to be DPT-injured, and, they 
were summarily compensated. But, by 1995, the Institutes of Medicine 
(IOM) and others concluded that because the symptoms had no unique 
clinical profile, they were not necessarily DPT injuries. So, HHS 
changed the definitions of encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain), 
and of vaccine injury. Those new definitions had unintended 
consequences. Now, the program that we set up to be expeditious and 
fair, uses criteria that are so strict that the fund from which these 
claims are paid pays fewer claims than before and the fund has 
ballooned to over $1.2 billion. As a result, families of children like 
Tommy find it nearly impossible to win a claim against the Vaccine 
Injury Compensation Program. The program is failing its mission.
  To be clear, VICP is not a medical insurance policy. The program is 
not designed to take care of those who cannot get or receive care. VICP 
is a compensation program, where the government makes amends for a 
failure in the system that it established. Claims are

[[Page S590]]

paid from a trust fund established from surcharges that are paid on 
each shot a child receives. The fund serves as an insurance policy 
against vaccine injuries. But, following the regulatory changes made in 
1995, the government is not recognizing even the most legitimate of 
claims. We are failing the very children we are trying to protect.
  Over the years after his DPT shot (the combined shot for diphtheria, 
pertussis and tetanus), Tommy suffers severe seizures and from brain 
damage that has hampered his mental development. When he wakes in the 
morning or from a nap, either his mother or father is at his side 
waiting for the inevitable. Tommy's eyes tear and his face cringes in 
agony as his entire body is wracked with a muscle-clenching seizure. 
His parents hold him helplessly until the seizure subsides, sometimes 
for as long as five minutes. Tommy will then look into his mother's 
loving eyes, and say, ``No more, mommy. Make them stop.''

  At the very least, Tommy's parents know that the strain of vaccine 
used on Tommy is now being phased out because of the rash of adverse 
reactions it caused. But this does nothing for Tommy or his parents, 
who have been in and out of countless hospitals, and consulted with 
doctors and experts at the Centers for Disease Control and the Health 
Resources and Services Administration. Their claim for compensation was 
dismissed in the Federal Court of Claims, but they and Tommy's doctor 
feel (and I agree with them) that they should have known more about the 
potential dangers of the DPT vaccine that Tommy received on June 1, 
1994. No one told them that there was a chance that the DPT vaccine 
could cause such trauma. No one told them about ``hot lots,'' an 
unofficial term for a batch of shots that has had an abundance of 
adverse reactions. The lot that Tommy received is known to have had 44 
such reactions from March-November 1994, including 2 deaths. These are 
reactions beyond the short-lived fever and rashes that accompany many 
vaccines. Their doctor didn't know about the availability of the 
``new'' acellular strain of pertussis vaccine that is replacing the 
whole cell version that had been used since the 1930s. Sure, it costs a 
couple of dollars more, but who wouldn't choose that for their child--
given the choice?
  Tommy's claim would have been covered before the 1995 changes, but 
that is not the case any longer. He's the victim of a bad DPT vaccine, 
yet his case continues to be denied because the first seizure didn't 
occur within 72 hours of the shot. It occurred 18 days later, and he 
suffers to this day. Tommy also has brain damage (encephalopathy) 
because of the DPT shot, but it doesn't fit that new definition either. 
He cried and moaned at a shrill pitch from the moment of the shot until 
his first seizure, but that doesn't matter either. For the first six 
months of his life, Tommy was in all ways normal, but for 4 and a half 
years since the DPT vaccine he and his family have suffered. As a 
parent and grandparent, I would do anything to protect my family from 
such pain and suffering. Tom Sansone, Sr. has done everything he knows 
how to help his son. Now he has turned to me because he knows I am in a 
position to help and I will not relent in my pursuit of relief for the 
Sansone family. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should take 
care of Tommy, but it doesn't. This bill will enable us to ensure that 
it does.
  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. 168

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

     SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR VACCINE-RELATED INJURY.

       (a) Cause of Injury.--In consideration of the petition 
     filed under subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq.) (relating to the 
     National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) by the legal 
     representatives of Thomas J. Sansone, Jr., including the 
     claims contained in that petition that the injury described 
     in that petition was cause by a vaccine covered in the 
     Vaccine Injury Table specified in section 2114 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14) and given on June 1, 1994, such injury 
     is deemed to have been caused by such vaccine for the 
     purposes of subtitle 2 of title XXI of such Act.
       (b) Payment.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall pay compensation to Thomas J. Sansone, Jr. for the 
     injury referred to in subsection (a) in accordance with 
     section 2115 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300aa-15).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, 
        and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 169. A bill to improve pay, retirement, and educational assistance 
benefits for members of the Armed Forces; and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


     the military recruiting and retention improvement act of 1999

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to introduce with 
my colleagues, Senators Robb, Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Bingaman, 
Lieberman, Landrieu, Reed, and Daschle--The Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act of 1999. I strongly believe that this bill 
represents an excellent step toward providing the men and women of the 
military a clear signal that we the people of the United States and we 
the members of the Congress of the United States value their 
contributions, understand their needs and concerns, and understand our 
obligations to provide for those who have answered the calling to 
defend our Nation.
  The signal that we send to the people in the military and to the 
people of the United States should be one of hope and opportunity, and 
one that understands the critical needs of military members and their 
families. Twenty-five years ago Americans opted to end the draft and to 
establish an all-volunteer military force to provide for our national 
security. That policy carried with it a requirement that we invest the 
needed resources to bring into existence a competent and professional 
military. Currently, all services are having difficulty in attracting 
and retaining qualified individuals. Seasoned, well-qualified personnel 
are leaving in alarming numbers. Specifically, the Navy is not making 
its recruiting goals. The Army cites pay and retirement, and overall 
quality of life as three of the top four reasons soldiers are leaving. 
The Air Force is currently 850 pilots short. The Marine Corps is 
hampered by inadequate funding of the pay and retirement and quality of 
life accounts in meeting its readiness and modernizing needs. All 
services, including the Guard and Reserve Components, are experiencing 
similar recruiting and retention problems. These shortfalls must be 
addressed if our Nation is to continue to have a highly capable, 
cutting edge military force.
  In light of our recent successful operations around the world, in the 
Persian Gulf and elsewhere, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that 
we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve 
in our armed forces, which is the goal of the legislation I am 
introducing today. Equally important, this bill, for the first time in 
a long time, addresses the immediate family members of our brave 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. The Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act of 1999 addresses the concerns of Secretary 
of Defense Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress regarding 
recruiting a strong, viable military force for the 21st Century. It 
also significantly assists in retaining the right military personnel 
for the 21st Century. If we fail today to address these key issues, now 
when we have the combination of a strong economy, a relatively positive 
budget outlook, and a world which is largely at peace, we may well have 
missed a key window of opportunity. The bill we are introducing today 
goes a long way toward eliminating the deficiencies that we all have 
recently heard so much about from the Chiefs and a myriad of experts 
who are greatly concerned about the readiness of our military force, 
especially as we look a few years ahead.

  Military experts, defense journalists, former Secretaries of Defense, 
former Service Chiefs, former theater Commanders in Chief, research and 
development specialists and even civilian industry leaders agree: the 
number one factor undergirding our superpower military status is the 
people of our Armed Forces. This critical ingredient means something 
different today than it did on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles 
of Vietnam, or in fact even on the deserts of Kuwait. Today, the

[[Page S591]]

people of our military are as dedicated, as committed, as patriotic as 
any force we have ever fielded. They are, in fact, smarter, better 
trained, and more technically adept than any who we have ever counted 
upon to defend our Nation. Operation Desert Fox proved this fact. This 
flawless, but dangerous and stressful, operation involved 40,000 troops 
from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 shops performed around 
the clock strikes and support. Six hundred aircraft sorties were flown 
in four days, and over 300 of these were night strike operations. And 
this massive effort was carried out without a single loss of American 
or British life!
  In contrast to this and other post-Vietnam successes, consider the 
problems which face the people in uniform. New global security threats 
and our strong economy each exert enormous pressures on the people in 
the military and their families. By some measures the pay for our 
military personnel lags 13 percent behind the civilian pay raises over 
the last 20 years. Yet, we ask our military to train on highly 
technical equipment, to commit themselves in harm's way, to leave their 
families, and to execute flawless operations. Sometimes these 
operations are new and different from any past military operations, but 
they can be just as dangerous. Meanwhile, some of our servicemen and 
women qualify for food stamps, do not have the same educational 
opportunities as their civilian counterparts, must deal with confusing 
and changing health benefits and/or can not find affordable housing. 
Something is badly wrong with this picture, and the Congress and the 
Administration must work together to set things right.
  Specifically, we need to recruit good people, continue to train them, 
and retain them in the military. This is difficult at best with the 
changes in our society, the rapidly changing threats to our security, 
and a prosperous economy. As I heard a service member say during a 
hearing I held at Ft. Gordon, Georgia last year, we recruit an 
individual, but we retain a family.

  Some of the recruiting and retention problems of today's United 
States military are well documented. Others need to be more thoroughly 
explored. They all need to be addressed. The Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act of 1999 is but the first step. It is the 
beginning. I caution my colleagues that today's servicemen and women, 
and their families, are intelligent and are quick to recognize 
duplicity in the words and actions of our civilian and military 
leadership. Our military's most important assets--its people--are 
leaving the military, and many of America's best are not even 
considering joining the military. We must proceed expeditiously, with 
firm purpose and unified non-partisanship if we are to reverse these 
dangerous trends.
  This bill responds to current data which provide some insight into 
how we can more effectively respond to today's youth and their service 
in the military. This 106th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to 
respond to today's military personnel problems. We must keep our focus 
on current and future personnel issues, including recognizing and 
responding to the need to retain a family. Our legislation does so.
  Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today 
includes all three parts of the Department of Defense's proposed pay 
and retirement package. It incorporates some of the recommendations 
made by the Congressionally mandated Principi Commission, and it 
provides some additional innovative ideas for addressing these key 
personnel issues, now and into the future.
  First, our bill provides a 4.8% pay raise across-the-board for all 
military members, effective January 1, 2000, and carries out the stated 
objective of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of bringing 
military pay more in line with private sector wages. This increase 
raises military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the 
annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and represents the 
largest increase in military pay since 1982. Furthermore, and also in 
keeping with DoD's current plans, we would provide an annual increase 
in military pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the 
ECI in each year from FY2001 to FY2006.
  Another of the Joint Chiefs' recommendations included in our 
legislation is the targeted pay raise for mid-grade officers and 
enlisted personnel, and also for key promotion points. These raises, 
amounting to between 4.8 percent and 10.3 percent, which includes the 
January 1, 2000, pay raise and would be effective July 1, 2000.

  The third part of our legislation taken from the DOD plan is a 
revision in the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, which would 
restore the 50 percent basic pay benefit for military members who 
retire at 20 years of service.
  I am proud to say that in addition to the pay and retirement benefits 
package proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, our 
legislation includes several key recommendations from the recent report 
of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance, also known as the Principi Commission. These 
provisions are specifically designed to assist the military services in 
their recruiting and retention efforts.
  Information and data that we are seeing indicate that education 
benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to enter 
the armed services. This may be the single most important step this 
Congress can take in assisting recruitment. Improvements in the 
Montgomery GI Bill are needed, and our bill represents a vital move in 
that direction.
  In keeping with the Principi Commission, our legislation would 
increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and 
eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to 
contribute $1,200 of their own money in order to participate in the 
program. These changes should dramatically increase the attractiveness 
of the GI Bill to potential recruits,and give our Service Secretaries a 
powerful recruiting incentive.
  Our legislation also adopts the Principi Commission recommendations 
to allow service members to transfer their earned GI Bill benefits to 
one or more immediate family members. Mr. President, this idea is 
innovative, it is powerful and it sends the right message to both those 
young people we are trying to attract into the military and those we 
are trying to retain.
  The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 
includes a provision that would allow military members to participate 
in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to Federal civil servants. 
Under this proposal, which adopts another recommendation of the 
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 
Assistance, military members would be permitted to contribute up to 5 
percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of any enlistment or  
reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.

  Another section of our legislation extends for three years--through 
December 31, 2002--the authority for the military services to pay a 
number of bonuses and special incentive pays that are fundamental to 
recruiting and retaining highly skilled military members. The authority 
to pay these bonuses and special pay expires at the end of this year. 
By renewing this authority now through the end of 2002, we will provide 
military managers with these crucial retention tools. By acting now and 
for three years, the military members themselves will have greater 
confidence that these pay incentives will be available.
  Mr. President, based on our initial estimates, it is my understanding 
that the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us 
to increase the funding for national defense above the levels in the 
President's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. However, more 
precise costing will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office 
over the next several weeks.
  I know that all Members of the United States Senate are committed to 
the well-being of our servicemen and women and their families. They are 
doing their duty with honor and dignity. They are serving our country 
around the globe. They, along with their families, deserve our 
commitment. The bill we are introducing today is fair and will ensure 
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in 
our armed forces. It represents the beginning of a process to provide 
hope and opportunity to those who wear the uniform

[[Page S592]]

of our Services. The President has announced a very good plan, as has 
the distinguished Majority Leader. We must move forward, together, in 
addressing these important personnel and readiness issues.
  In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Levin, and 
the other members of the Armed Services Committee who are co-sponsoring 
this legislation. We are all absolutely committed to the welfare of our 
servicemen and women and their families. They provide for us, and it is 
time for us to provide our obligation to them. I look forward to 
working with Senator Levin, Chairman Warner, and all of our colleagues 
on the Armed Services Committee in the months ahead to honor that 
obligation. I know I speak for myself and all of my co-sponsors in 
pledging to do our utmost to achieve that goal.
  Mr. President, I now ask an unanimous consent that a summary and the 
text of the Military Recruitment and Retention Improvement Act of 1999 
be printed into the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 169

       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 ``Military Recruiting and 
     Retention Improvement Act of 1999''.
                      TITLE I--PAY AND ALLOWANCES

     SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE AND RESTRUCTURING OF 
                   BASIC PAY.

       (a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--Any adjustment 
     required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in 
     the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of the 
     uniformed services by section 203(a) of such title to become 
     effective during fiscal year 2000 shall not be made.
       (b) January 1, 2000, Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on 
     January 1, 2000, the rates of monthly basic pay for members 
     of the uniformed services shall be increased by 4.8 percent.
       (c) Basic Pay Reform.--Effective on July 1, 2000, the rates 
     of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services 
     are as follows:
       

                        COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   6,594.30   6,810.30   6,953.10   6,993.30    7,171.80
O-7.............   5,479.50   5,851.80   5,851.50   5,894.40    6,114.60
O-6.............   4,061.10   4,461.60   4,754.40   4,754.40    4,772.40
O-5.............   3,248.40   3,813.90   4,077.90   4,127.70    4,291.80
O-4.............   2,737.80   3,333.90   3,556.20   3,606.04    3,812.40
O-3 \3\.........   2,544.00   2,884.20   3,112.80   3,364.80    3,525.90
O-2 \3\.........   2,218.80   2,527.20   2,910.90   3,000.00    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   1,926.30   2,004.90   2,423.10   2,423.10    2,423.10
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   7,471.50   7,540.80   7,824.60   7,906.20    8,150.10
O-7.............   6,282.00   6,475.80   6,669.00   6,863.10    7,471.50
O-6.............   4,976.70   5,004.00   5,004.00   5,169.30    5,791.20
O-5.............   4,291.80   4,420.80   4,659.30   4,971.90    5,286.00
O-4.............   3,980.40   4,251.50   4,464.00   4,611.00    4,758.90
O-3 \3\.........   3,702.60   3,850.20   4,040.40   4,139.10    4,139.10
O-2 \3\.........   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10    2,423.10
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00  $10,655.1
                                     0  $10,707.6
                                                0  $10,930.2
                                                           0  $11,318.40
O-9.............       0.00   9,319.50   9,453.60   9,647.70    9,986.40
O-8.............   8,503.80   8,830.20   9,048.00   9,048.00    9,048.00
O-7.............   7,985.40   7,985.40   7,985.40   7,985.40    8,025.60
O-6.............   6,086.10   6,381.30   6,549.00   6,719.10    7,049.10
O-5.............   5,436.00   5,583.60   5,751.90   5,751.90    5,751.90
O-4.............   4,808.70   4,808.70   4,808.70   4,808.70    4,808.70
O-3 \3\.........   4,139.10   4,139.10   4,139.10   4,139.10    4,139.10
O-2 \3\.........   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Basic pay for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for
  level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ While serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
  Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
  Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant
  of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be
  $12,441.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under
  section 205 of title 37, United States Code. Nevertheless, basic pay
  for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for level V of
  the Executive Schedule.
\3\ Does not apply to commissioned officers who have been credited with
  over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant
  officer.


  COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
                   ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00  $3,364.80   $3,525.90
O-2E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   3,009.00    3,071.10
O-1E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   2,423.10    2,588.40
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $3,702.60  $3,850.20  $4,040.40  $4,200.30   $4,291.80
O-2E............   3,168.60   3,333.90   3,461.40   3,556.20    3,556.20
O-1E............   2,683.80   2,781.30   2,877.60   3,009.00    3,009.00
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $4,416.90  $4,416.90  $4,416.90  $4,416.90   $4,416.90
O-2E............   3,556.20   3,556.20   3,556.20   3,556.20    3,556.20
O-1E............   3,009.00   3,009.00   3,009.00   3,009.00    3,009.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            WARRANT OFFICERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade      2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
W-4..............   2,592.00   2,788.50   2,868.60   2,947.50   3,083.40
W-3..............   2,355.90   2,555.40   2,555.40   2,588.40   2,694.30
W-2..............   2,063.40   2,232.60   2,232.60   2,305.80   2,423.10
W-1..............   1,719.00   1,971.00   1,971.00   2,135.70   2,232.60
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14    Over 16
                  ------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
W-4..............   3,217.20   3,352.80   3,485.10   3,622.20   3,753.60
W-3..............   2,814.90   2,974.20   3,071.10   3,177.00   3,298.20
W-2..............   2,555.40   2,852.60   2,749.80   2,844.30   2,949.00
W-1..............   2,332.80   2,433.30   2,533.20   2,634.00   2,734.80
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24    Over 26
                  ------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00  $4,475.10  $4,628.70  $4,782.90  $4,937.40
W-4..............   3,888.00   4,019.00   4,155.60   4,289.70   4,427.10
W-3..............   3,418.50   3,539.10   3,659.40   3,780.00   3,900.90
W-2..............   3,058.40   3,163.80   3,270.90   3,378.30   3,378.30
W-1..............   2,835.00   2,910.90   2,910.90   2,910.90   2,910.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            ENLISTED MEMBERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade      2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\..........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
E-8..............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00
E-7..............   1,765.80   1,927.80   2,001.00   2,073.00   2,147.70
E-6..............   1,518.90   1,678.20   1,752.60   1,824.30   1,899.30
E-5..............   1,332.60   1,494.00   1,566.00   1,640.40   1,714.50
E-4..............   1,242.90   1,373.10   1,447.20   1,520.10   1,593.90
E-3..............   1,171.50   1,260.60   1,334.10   1,335.90   1,335.90
E-2..............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40
E-1..............  \5\ 1,005
                         .60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14    Over 16
                  ------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S593]]

 
E-9 \4\..........      $0.00  $3,015.30  $3,083.40  $3,169.80  $3,271.50
E-8..............   2,528.40   2,601.60   2,669.70   2,751.60   2,840.10
E-7..............   2,220.90   2,294.10   2,367.30   2,439.30   2,514.00
E-6..............   1,973.10   2,047.20   2,118.60   2,191.50   2,244.60
E-5..............   1,789.50   1,861.50   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20
E-4..............   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90
E-3..............   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90
E-2..............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40
E-1..............   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24    Over 26
                  ------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\..........  $3,373.20  $3,473.40  $3,609.30  $3,744.00  $3,915.80
E-8..............   2,932.50   3,026.10   3,161.10   3,295.50   3,483.60
E-7..............   2,588.10   2,660.40   2,787.60   2,926.20   3,134.40
E-6..............   2,283.30   2,283.30   2,285.70   2,285.70   2,285.70
E-5..............   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20
E-4..............   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90
E-3..............   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90
E-2..............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,123.20   1,127.40
E-1..............   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60  1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty
  Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant
  Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
  Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative
  years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
  Code.
\5\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
  months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.

     SEC. 102. PAY INCREASES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2006 AT 
                   ECI PLUS ONE-HALF PERCENT.

       Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 1009 of title 37, 
     United States Code, the percentage of the increase in the 
     rates of monthly basic pay that takes effect under that 
     section during each of fiscal years 2001 through 2006 shall 
     be the percentage equal to the sum of one percent plus the 
     percentage increase calculated as provided under subsection 
     (a) of section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, for such 
     fiscal year (without regard to whether rates of pay under the 
     statutory pay systems are actually increased by the 
     percentage calculated under such section 5303(a) during such 
     fiscal year).

     SEC. 103. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO 
                   PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.

       (a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002,''.
       (b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (c) Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.--
     Sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code, 
     are each amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (d) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending 
     Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (e) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (f) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``any 
     fiscal year beginning before October 1, 1998, and the 15-
     month period beginning on that date and ending on December 
     31, 1999'' and inserting ``the 15-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1999, and any 
     year beginning after December 31, 1999, and ending before 
     January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 104. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL 
                   PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.

       (a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically 
     Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain 
     High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
     Section 308h(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2002''.
       (g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (h) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health 
     Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section 
     16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 105. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL 
                   PAY AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES, 
                   REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.

       (a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section 
     2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2002''.
       (b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section 
     302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2002''.
       (c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section 
     302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``December 31, 2002''.
                         TITLE II--RETIRED PAY

     SEC. 201. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY MULTIPLIER FOR 
                   POST-JULY 31, 1986 MEMBERS RETIRING WITH LESS 
                   THAN 30 YEARS OF SERVICE.

       Section 1409(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 202. MODIFIED ``CPI-1'' COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

       Paragraph (3) of section 1401a(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--The Secretary shall 
     increase the retired pay of each member and former member who 
     first became a member of a uniformed service on or after 
     August 1, 1986, by the percent equal to the difference 
     between the percent determined under paragraph (2) and 1 
     percent, except that, if the percent determined under 
     paragraph (2) is less than 3 percent, the Secretary shall 
     increase the retired pay by the lesser of the percent so 
     determined or 2 percent.''.

     SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Computation of Retired Pay.--(1) Chapter 71 of title 
     10, United States Code, is further amended--
       (A) in section 1409(b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting thereof ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (B) in section 1410, by striking ``if--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``if increases in the 
     retired pay of the member or former member under section 
     1401a(b) of this title had been computed as provided in 
     paragraph (2) of that section (rather than under paragraph 
     (3) of that section).''
       (2)(A) The heading for section 1410 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1410. Members entering on or after August 1, 1986: 
       restoration of COLA increases to full-COLA amounts at age 
       62''.

       (B) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1410. Members entering on or after August 1, 1986: restoration of 
              COLA increases to full-COLA amounts at age 62.''.
       (b) Survivor Benefit Plan.--Chapter 73 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 1447(6)(A), by striking ``(determined 
     without regard to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of 
     this title)'';
       (2) in section 1451(h), by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) in section 1452(c), by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1999.
                     TITLE III--THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN

     SEC. 301. PARTICIPATION IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

       (a) Authority.--Subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 8440e. Members of the uniformed services in active 
       service

       ``(a) Participation Authorized.--(1) A member of the armed 
     forces in active service may participate in the Thrift 
     Savings Plan in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) An election to contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund 
     under paragraph (1) may be made only during a period provided 
     under section 8432(b) for individuals subject to this 
     chapter.
       ``(b) Applicability of Thrift Savings Plan Provisions.--
     Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions 
     of this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter shall 
     apply with respect to members of the uniformed services 
     making contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund as if such 
     members were employees within the meaning of section 
     8401(11).
       ``(c) Maximum Contribution From Basic Pay.--The amount 
     contributed by a member of the uniformed services for any pay 
     period out of basic pay may not exceed--
       ``(1) for any pay period 5 percent of such member's basic 
     pay for such pay period, plus
       ``(2) an amount equal to the amount of any enlistment or 
     reenlistment bonus paid to the member under section 308, 
     308a, or 308f of title 37 in connection with an enlistment 
     for active service.
       ``(d) Agency Contributions Prohibited.--No contribution 
     under section 8432(c) of this title may be made for the 
     benefit of a member of the uniformed services making 
     contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(e) Certain Transfers Not Considered Separations.--A 
     transfer of a member from one armed force to another armed 
     force without a break in active service of more than 30 days 
     shall not be considered to be a separation from service for 
     the purposes of establishing an entitlement of the member to 
     a withdrawal from the member's account under the Thrift 
     Savings Plan.

[[Page S594]]

       ``(f) Regulations.--The Executive Director, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Defense, may prescribe 
     regulations to carry out this section.
       ``(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `armed forces' has the meaning given the 
     term in subsection (a)(4) of section 101 of title 10;
       ``(2) the term `active service' has the meaning given the 
     term in subsection (d)(3) of such section; and
       ``(3) the term `basic pay' means basic pay that is payable 
     under section 204 of title 37.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 8440d 
     the following:


``8440e. Members of the uniformed services in active service.''.

     SEC. 302. NONDUPLICATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 8432b(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Each employee'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), each 
     employee'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4)
       ``(4) No contribution may be made under this section for a 
     period for which an employee made a contribution under 
     section 8440e.''.
                 TITLE IV--MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS

     SEC. 401. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   FULL-TIME EDUCATION.

       (a) Increase.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$528'' and 
     inserting ``$600''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$429'' and 
     inserting ``$488''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect to educational assistance allowances paid for months 
     after September 1999. However, no adjustment in rates of 
     educational assistance shall be made under subsection (g) of 
     section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2000.

     SEC. 402. TERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY.

       (a) Repeals.--(1) Section 3011 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (b).
       (2) Section 3012 of such title is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     shall apply to individuals whose initial obligated period of 
     active duty under section 3011 or 3012 of title 38, United 
     States Code, as the case may be, begins on or after such 
     date.
       (b) Termination of Reductions in Progress.--Any reduction 
     in the basic pay of an individual referred to in section 
     3011(b) of title 38, United States Code, by reason of such 
     section 3011(b), or of any individual referred to in section 
     3012(c) of such title by reason of such section 3012(c), as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act shall cease 
     commencing with the first month beginning after such date, 
     and any obligation of such individual under such section 
     3011(b) or 3012(c), as the case may be, as of the day before 
     such date shall be deemed to be fully satisfied as of such 
     date.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3034(e)(1) of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``as soon as practicable'' and all that follows 
     through ``such additional times'' and inserting ``at such 
     times''.

     SEC. 403. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 3014 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary shall 
     pay''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection (b):
       ``(b)(1) When the Secretary determines that it is 
     appropriate to accelerate payments under the regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to paragraph (6), the Secretary may make 
     payments of basic educational assistance allowance under this 
     subchapter on an accelerated basis.
       ``(2) The Secretary may pay a basic educational assistance 
     allowance on an accelerated basis only to an individual 
     entitled to payment of the allowance under this subchapter 
     who has made a request for payment of the allowance on an 
     accelerated basis.
       ``(3) In the event an adjustment under section 3015(g) of 
     this title in the monthly rate of basic educational 
     assistance will occur during a period for which a payment of 
     an allowance is made on an accelerated basis under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) pay on an accelerated basis the amount the allowance 
     otherwise payable under this subchapter for the period 
     without regard to the adjustment under that section; and
       ``(B) pay on the date of the adjustment any additional 
     amount of the allowance that is payable for the period as a 
     result of the adjustment.
       ``(4) The entitlement to a basic educational assistance 
     allowance under this subchapter of an individual who is paid 
     an allowance on an accelerated basis under this subsection 
     shall be charged at a rate equal to one month for each month 
     of the period covered by the accelerated payment of the 
     allowance.
       ``(5) A basic educational assistance allowance shall be 
     paid on an accelerated basis under this subsection as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the case of an allowance for a course leading to a 
     standard college degree, at the beginning of the quarter, 
     semester, or term of the course in a lump-sum amount 
     equivalent to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance 
     otherwise payable under this subchapter for the quarter, 
     semester, or term, as the case may be, of the course.
       ``(B) In the case of an allowance for a course other than a 
     course referred to in subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) at the later of (I) the beginning of the course, or 
     (II) a reasonable time after the request for payment by the 
     individual concerned; and
       ``(ii) in any amount requested by the individual concerned 
     up to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance otherwise 
     payable under this subchapter for the period of the course.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for 
     purposes of making payments of basic educational allowance on 
     an accelerated basis under this subsection. Such regulations 
     shall specify the circumstances under which accelerated 
     payments should be made and include requirements relating to 
     the request for, making and delivery of, and receipt and use 
     of such payments.''.

     SEC. 404. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authority To Transfer to Family Member.--Subchapter II 
     of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational 
       assistance

       ``(a) The Secretary may, for the purpose of enhancing 
     recruiting and retention, and at the Secretary's sole 
     discretion, permit an individual entitled to educational 
     assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer such 
     individual's entitlement to such assistance, in whole or in 
     part, to the individuals specified in subsection (b).
       ``(b) An individual's entitlement to educational assistance 
     may be transferred when authorized under subsection (a) as 
     follows:
       ``(1) To the individual's spouse.
       ``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
       ``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(c)(1) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement 
     to educational assistance under this section shall--
       ``(A) designate the individual or individuals to whom such 
     entitlement is being transferred and the percentage of such 
     entitlement to be transferred to each such individual; and
       ``(B) specify the period for which the transfer shall be 
     effective for each individual designated under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(2) The aggregate amount of the entitlement transferable 
     by an individual under this section may not exceed the 
     aggregate amount of the entitlement of such individual to 
     educational assistance under this subchapter.
       ``(3) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement 
     under this section may elect to modify or revoke the transfer 
     at any time before the use of the transferred entitlement. An 
     individual shall make the election by submitting written 
     notice of such election to the Secretary.
       ``(d)(1) The use of any entitlement transferred under this 
     section shall be charged against the entitlement of the 
     individual making the transfer at the rate of one month for 
     each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual 
     using entitlement transferred under this section shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this chapter in such use as if 
     such individual were entitled to the educational assistance 
     covered by the transferred entitlement in the individual's 
     own right.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child 
     shall complete the use of any entitlement transferred to the 
     child under this section before the child attains the age of 
     26 years.
       ``(e) In the event of an overpayment of educational 
     assistance with respect to an individual to whom entitlement 
     is transferred under this section, such individual and the 
     individual making the transfer under this section shall be 
     jointly and severally liable to the United States for the 
     amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of 
     this title.
       ``(f) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for 
     purposes of this section. Such regulations shall specify the 
     manner and effect of an election to modify or revoke a 
     transfer of entitlement under subsection (c)(3).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 3019 the following new item:

``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
                            TITLE V--REPORT

     SEC. 501. ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVES ON 
                   RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.

       (a) Requirement for Report.--On December 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
     that sets forth the Secretary's assessment of the effects 
     that the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by 
     the Act are having on

[[Page S595]]

     recruitment and retention of personnel for the Armed Forces.
       (b) First Report.--The first report under this section 
     shall be submitted not later than December 1, 2000.

 The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999--Summary


                           military pay raise

       4.8% effective January 1, 2000.
       Pay raises for FY 2001-2006 ECI + 0.5%.


                            pay table reform

       Targeted raise--weighted to mid-career NCO/Officers.
       Minimum 4.8%.
       Maximum 10.3%.
       Effective July 1, 2000.


                          military retirement

       Restore 50% basic pay retirement benefit at 20 years of 
     service as proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs.


                    montgomery gi bill enhancements

       Eliminate $1200 contribution required of members who elect 
     to participate in the GI Bill.
       Provide Services with discretionary authority to permit 
     members to transfer benefits to immediate family members.
       Increase monthly GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 for 
     members who serve at least 3 years, and from $429 to $488 for 
     members who serve less than 3 years.
       Permit accelerated lump sum benefits for entire term, 
     semester or quarter, or for entire courses not leading to 
     college degree.


                          thrift savings plan

       Allow members to contribute up to 5% of basic pay, and all 
     or any part of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the 
     Federal civilian employees Thrift Savings Plan.


        extension of critical bonus and special pay authorities

       Extend for three years (through December 31, 2002) 
     authority to pay bonuses and special pays critical to 
     recruiting and retention of military members. Authority to 
     pay these bonuses and special pays expires December 31, 1999 
     under current law.


                      annual reporting requirement

       Require DOD to report annually on the impact of these 
     programs on recruiting and retention.
       Critical Bonus and Special Pay Authorities Extended Through 
     December 31, 1999:
       Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.
       Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.
       Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.
       Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.
       Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.
       Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.
       Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.
       Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.
       Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending Period 
     of Active Service.
       Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.
       Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.
       Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically Short 
     Wartime Specialties.
       Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain High 
     Priority Units.
       Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health 
     Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.
       Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.
       Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.
       Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to lend my support to the 
Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. For the 
first time since the late 1970's, military readiness is suffering 
significantly. We are now paying the price for asking our people to do 
much more with less and less. As the Service Chiefs have testified, the 
feedback from our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is clear and 
unambiguous. Low pay, the 40 percent retirement system, military health 
and education benefits that could stand a shot in the arm--we now have 
plenty of evidence these things are keeping us from retaining our best 
and brightest. Equally troubling, our recruiting picture across the 
services is dismal. These downward trends cannot continue. The Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns that ``there is no more shock 
absorbency left in the system,'' and further that if the trends 
continue, we will ``find ourselves in a nosedive that might cause 
irreparable damage to this great force.'' The Army and Air Force Chiefs 
of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps all agree that we are only five years away from a hollow 
force. Put simply, we are placing at risk the future readiness of the 
finest fighting force in the world.
  Mr. President, this bill provides the resources to begin to reverse 
the steady downward spirals we've seen in military recruiting and 
retention. It is also a strong signal to our most important asset--our 
men and women in uniform and their families--that we are serious about 
taking care of them. In my view, it is nothing more than adequately 
compensating our people for the job they are already performing. And it 
is exactly the kind of ``fix'' we in the Congress can, and should, 
support.
  I would like to make one additional point. While we have many 
pressing longer-term concerns, such as modernizing and recapitalizing 
our forces for the next century and doing something about the billions 
of dollars of excess infrastructure the services continue to carry, we 
simply can't afford to take a ``wait and see'' approach when it comes 
to taking care of our people. To do otherwise places at risk our future 
readiness and everything we've worked for, like the ability to mount an 
operation like ``Desert Fox'' and execute it brilliantly. We can't let 
that happen.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Cleland, 
Senator Robb, and a number of my colleagues today in introducing The 
Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. Secretary 
Cohen, General Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs have told us that the 
single greatest challenge they face right now is recruiting and 
retaining the people we need to man our military services. This 
legislation will go a long way to ensuring that we continue to attract 
and retain the high quality people that make up our military services 
today.
  Just last month, the men and women of our Armed Forces demonstrated 
once again that they are by far the best trained, best equipped, best 
disciplined and most highly skilled and motivated military force in the 
world. Operation Desert Fox was a large-scale military operation that 
was carried out flawlessly. It involved 40,000 troops from bases 
virtually around the world. Over 40 ships performed strike and support 
roles. Over 600 aircraft sorties were flown in 4 days, and 300 of these 
were night strike operations.
  General Zinni, the commander in charge of Operation Desert Fox, 
pointed out that even in peacetime an exercise of this scale is very 
dangerous and stressful. To have achieved all of the objectives of 
Operation Desert Fox without a single United States or British casualty 
and without any degradation of our ongoing efforts in Bosnia, Korea, 
and other critical areas around the world was truly remarkable.
  Mr. President, the key to the success of Operation Desert Fox--and 
the key to the strength and capability of our Armed Forces--is the men 
and women who serve in uniform. We must do everything we can to ensure 
that we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to 
serve in our Armed Forces.
  Over the past year, there have been growing indications that the 
military services were beginning to have problems in both recruiting 
and retention, particularly retaining highly skilled mid-grade officers 
and enlisted whose skills are in demand in the private sector. To 
address these problems, last month Secretary Cohen and General Shelton 
announced a package of improvements in military pay and retirement 
benefits that will be part of President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 
budget. In testimony before the Armed Services Committee on January 5 
of this year, General Shelton and all of thee Joint Chiefs said that 
enactment of this package of pay and benefits was their highest 
priority.
  Mr. President, the bill my colleagues and I are introducing today 
includes all three parts of the Defense Department's pay and retirement 
package, as well as some of the key recommendations from the recent 
report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance.
  First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise for all military 
members of 4.8 percent, effective January 1, 2000. This is slightly 
higher than the 4.4 percent recommended by Secretary Cohen and the 
Joint Chiefs, but it carries out their stated objective of increasing 
military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point above the annual 
increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). This 4.8 percent increase 
will be the largest increase in military pay since 1982.
  In addition, our legislation calls for annual increases in military 
pay of one-half percent above the annual increase in the ECI in each 
year of the Future Years Defense Plan. Again, this reflects DOD's 
current plan, and is designed to bring military pay more in

[[Page S596]]

line with private sector wages as measured by the ECI.
  The second part of DOD's plan included in our legislation is a 
targeted pay raise that would be effective July 1, 2000. Taken in 
conjunction with the January 1 4.8-percent across-the-board pay 
increase, this targeted pay raise increases the pay of mid-grade 
officers and enlisted personnel, and also for key promotions points, 
between 4.8 and 10.3 percent.
  The third part of the DOD plan included in this legislation is a 
revision to the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986. This portion of 
the legislation would restore the 50-percent basic pay benefit for 
military members who retire at 20 years of service.
  In addition to the package of pay and retirement benefits proposed by 
Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, the legislation we are 
introducing today includes several key recommendations from the recent 
report of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance specifically designed to help the military 
services recruiting and retention efforts.
  The most important of these recommendations is a series of 
improvements to the Montgomery GI Bill. Education benefits are a very 
important attraction for young people entering the armed forces. Our 
legislation would increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 
per month and eliminate the current requirement for entering service 
members to contribute $1,200 of their own money to participate in the 
program. Both of these changes were recommended by the Congressional 
Commission of Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance to 
increase the attractiveness of the GI Bill to potential new recruits.
  The Commission also recommended, and our legislation includes, a 
provision to allow service members to transfer their earned GI bill 
benefits to one or more immediate family members. It is my view, Mr. 
President, that this will prove to be a very powerful recruiting and 
retention incentive.

  This legislation also includes a provision that would allow military 
members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to 
Federal civil servants. Under our proposal, which follows the 
recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and 
Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to 
contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of 
any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Finally, this legislation includes a very important provision that 
extends for 3 years--through December 31, 2002--the authority for the 
military services to pay a number of bonuses and special and incentive 
pays that are critical to recruiting and retaining highly skilled 
military members. Under current law, the authority to pay these bonuses 
and special pays runs out at the end of this year. Renewing this 
authority now through the end of 2002 will reassure military personnel 
managers--and military members themselves--that these crucial 
authorities will continue to be available to them.
  Mr. President, detailed costing of this legislation will have to be 
done by the Congressional Budget Office over the next several weeks. In 
my view, however, the provisions contained in this legislation will not 
require us to increase the funding for national defense above the 
levels I understand will be proposed in President Clinton's FY2000-2006 
Future Years Defense Plan. We should be able to accommodate any 
increase in funding necessary for these initiatives from lower priority 
programs.
  I believe this package of pay and benefits is fair and will ensure 
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in 
our armed forces. All of us are committed to the well-being of our 
military members and their families. There may be some aspects of this 
legislation that require improvement or modification, and that can be 
done as the Armed Services Committee begins to review this bill and any 
other bills that are introduced to address the concerns we all have in 
this area.
  In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of the author of this 
legislation, Senator Max Cleland. Fortunately for the Senate and for 
the men and women of our armed forces, he will continue to serve as the 
Ranking Democratic member of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed 
Services Committee during the 106th Congress. Senator Robb of our 
Committee has also played an important role in drafting this 
legislation. Both Senator Cleland and Senator Robb have a tremendous 
commitment to the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and 
their families.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Cleland, 
Senator Robb, and all of the cosponsors of this legislation and with 
all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months 
ahead to secure enactment of this important legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us commend our troops for their 
superb performance. Their extraordinary efforts last year in Operation 
Desert Fox, Hurricane Mitch, Operation Provide Comfort, and in Kenya, 
and Tanzania highlighted only a few of their significant contributions 
to the Nation in 1998.
  America continues to rely heavily on its Armed Forces, and we want 
our service members and families to know how proud we in Congress are 
of their contributions to our country and to our national defense. We 
are deeply indebted to them for their service, and we have the highest 
respect for their dedication, their patriotism, and their courage.
  This past year once again demonstrated the importance of guaranteeing 
that our military forces are well prepared to meet any challenge. 
However, I am very concered about the future readiness of our Armed 
Forces. I am troubled by reports of declining readiness, poor 
retention, and recruiting shortfalls.
  Two years ago the Army reduced its recuiting standards, and now the 
Navy has followed suit. Secretary of the Navy Danzig has announced that 
the Navy is lowering its educational standards for new recruits. This 
and other reductions in personnel standards by the Navy are taking 
place because the Navy fell short of its recruiting goals last year for 
the first time since the draft ended in 1973. Secretary Danzig also 
recently announced that retention of Naval Officers is so low that the 
Navy will have 50 percent fewer officers than required to man its ships 
in the coming years. These are serious concerns that must be addressed, 
and this legislation does so.
  Congress must do all it can to provide for our men and women in the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. They have worked hard for us. 
Now we must provide the support they need to do their jobs and care for 
their families.
  The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act is a 
substantial step toward meeting these urgent needs of our service 
members, and will encourage more of these highly skilled and well-
trained men and women to remain in the military ranks. I also hope that 
the provisions in this act will encourage more of the Nation's young 
men and women to join the military and serve their country in that way.
  Our proposal increases base pay for our troops.
  It contains pay table reforms and guaranteed pay raises above 
inflation.
  It restores equity to the military retirement system by providing 
active duty service members 50 percent retirement after 20 years of 
service.
  It allows service members to transfer hard-earned educational 
benefits to others in their family.
  It provides stability by extending authorities for bonus pay and 
special pay.
  I'm reminded of the words of President Kennedy during an address at 
the U.S. Naval Academy in August of 1963. That is what he said about a 
career in the Navy:

       I can imagine a no more rewarding career. And any man who 
     may be asked in this century what he did to make his life 
     worth while, I think can respond with a good deal of pride 
     and satisfaction: ``I served in the United States Navy.''

  My brother was a Navy man, but I'm sure that veterans of all the 
other services in those years felt the same way.
  I want to do all I can to see that our service men and women feel the 
same way today and on into the next century. These personnel issues are 
important, and Congress has to deal with them effectively and 
responsibly. The

[[Page S597]]

Military Recruiting and Retirement Improvement Act moves our Nation in 
the right direction, and I look forward to early and favorable action 
on it by the Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Cleland and 
Senator Levin for their leadership in developing and offering this 
bill, and I am pleased to join the other Democratic members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee in cosponsoring this initiative aimed 
at addressing the problem of attracting and retaining the right men and 
women in the right numbers for our military. The effectiveness of our 
military, and its readiness to act immediately to protect our national 
interests, must always be a priority concern of Congress, as the 
continuing challenges around the world today demonstrate. There are few 
things that we will do this year that are more important, because the 
security of our country rests squarely on the shoulders of the men and 
women that provide our defenses and protect our interests. The 
outstanding performance of our forces in Desert Fox shows that the 
American military remains more than equal to the task, and that we have 
what is unequivocally the number one force in the world. In fact, it 
may well be the best we have ever fielded. Even at the height of the 
cold war, with the largest military budgets ever, it is difficult to 
see those units being able to routinely execute the range of complex 
operations with the expertise that our units today are doing.
  Nonetheless, our military faces readiness problems, many of them 
serious. They include falling recruiting and retention of critical 
skills, aging equipment that costs more to keep operating at acceptable 
levels of reliability, a need for more support services for a force 
with a high percentage of married personnel, and frequent deployments. 
Some of these problems will get much more serious unless we act to fix 
them soon. The military Chiefs of Staff deserve credit for persevering 
in keeping these challenges to our readiness before us. President 
Clinton also deserves credit for his decision to increase the defense 
budget to address these important problems.
  But if this increase only fixes the worst of the short term readiness 
problems and diverts us from seriously addressing the hard long-term 
questions of readiness and modernization that face us, it could do us 
as much harm as good. And if it generates a partisan debate over who 
can increase the defense budget the most, we will be rightly criticized 
for trying to solve our increasingly complex security problems by 
throwing money at them, which makes no more sense as a response to our 
military problems than it did for our social problems.
  I think what we are spending money on is just as important as how 
much we are spending. First, we must demand 100 percent cost 
effectiveness, the elimination of waste and redundancy, and that 
includes closing down military facilities (bases and depots) that don't 
make military-economic sense anymore. Second, as we evaluate our 
readiness we must persistently ask, ready for what? What are the 
threats we face today and what are the emerging threats we will face 
tomorrow. If we do not develop and field the right organizations, 
weapons, and concepts to meet future challenges, and as a result fail 
to successfully meet one of those future challenges to our security, it 
will not matter much to remind ourselves how ready we were in 1999 when 
the threats are probably less than they will be then.
  As Under Secretary of Defense Gansler has pointed out, the money 
projected to be added to the defense budget, or any increase we can 
reasonably foresee, won't be enough to completely pay for both 
increasing current readiness and meeting the modernization requirements 
of all the Services. So it is extremely important that we take 
extraordinary measures to be sure that we are spending our money 
wisely.
  There is no doubt that spending our money to adequately and fairly 
compensate our military men and women is the wisest use of our defense 
dollars. Therefore I am very proud that we have recognized this fact by 
offering this bill outside the normal defense authorization process. 
Doing so signals the importance we place on our military personnel. I 
think it is a good bill. I support spending what is necessary. And I 
think we have gotten it mostly right.
  However, I consider this a good point of departure, not a final 
product. I believe we have not yet done all of the critical analysis 
necessary to know where the priority should go within the broad 
category of pay and allowances to most effectively attract and retain 
the right people. I hope the Senate Armed Services Committee will make 
this task our highest priority when it is referred to our committee for 
action. I am sure we will act in a completely bipartisan way to arrive 
at the best result possible. It is a proud bipartisan tradition of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that attracting, retaining, and 
providing adequately for our men and women in uniform is among our most 
important responsibilities.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues as an original 
cosponsor of Senator Cleland's Military Recruiting and Retention 
Improvement Act of 1999.
  I am glad we are introducing this bill today because it demonstrates 
our interest and support for one of the greatest needs of our fighting 
men and women--improved pay and benefits. As my colleagues know, this 
is one of the most serious issues likely to come before the Armed 
Services Committee this year.
  Last week, I attended my first hearing as a new member of the 
committee. I carefully listened to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as they 
outlined their priorities for the fiscal year 2000 budget. Without 
exception, each named recruitment and retaining skilled personnel as 
their top priority. The Joint Chiefs asked us unequivocally to address 
this issue, and I believe the bill we introduce today places us on the 
proper path.
  This bill will make a difference to men and women when they are 
deciding to begin or continue a military career. The 4.8 percent pay 
increase will make their daily lives easier and more enjoyable. 
Reforming the pay table to provide increases in salaries for midcareer 
NCOs and officers will not only reward these dedicated men and women 
for the years they have served our country, but provide an incentive 
for them to continue their valued work. Renewing the various bonuses 
for three more years will let our men and women in uniform know that we 
realize and appreciate the sacrifices they make performing dangerous 
missions for months at a time far from home.
  Perhaps the most unique provisions of the Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act are the educational benefits. Military 
personnel would no longer have to contribute $1,200 to take advantage 
of the Montgomery GI bill and they would received increased monthly 
benefits. In addition, the Service Secretaries would be given the 
discretion to allow military personnel who qualify to transfer their 
education benefit to a spouse or child. Education is vital in today's 
society, yet financing needed training is an enormous burden to 
shoulder. I believe that many of our men and women in uniform choose to 
leave the service because they must find a job which will allow them to 
pay for their children's education. With the provisions in this bill, 
military personnel can continue their careers and more readily afford 
the cost of educating their children.
  Mr. President, taking care of America's military personnel is one of 
the most serious responsibilities Congress has. Every day our men and 
women in uniform risk their lives to defend our country and the 
principles we champion. It is our obligation to let them know that we 
appreciate the sacrifices they make on our behalf. If we do not, the 
entire country will suffer.
  Finding the best ways to improve our troop's quality of life is a 
difficult and complex task. The Military Recruiting and Retention 
Improvement Act is a sound proposal, but it is only the beginning to a 
comprehensive solution. We will not find a solution if Democrats and 
Republicans do not work together. Indeed, care of America's troops has 
always been an issue in which we have been united and it is my sincere 
hope that this tradition can continue in the 106th Congress.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning 
the Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act introduced today 
by my

[[Page S598]]

esteemed colleague, Senator Cleland. During the last session, the Joint 
Chiefs testified to the need for improving pay and retirement for 
military personnel as a means to improvement recruitment and retention 
of service members. This bill proposes some important steps to 
implement those needs, including the extension of critical bonus and 
special pay authorities, and deserves careful consideration by the 
members of the Senate. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the 
way to improve recruitment and retention goes beyond a bigger paycheck. 
Senator Cleland's bill includes an important provision directed toward 
other motivations to choose military service. I'm speaking of 
enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill for education benefits.
  Mr. President, this bill will provide major new educational benefits 
to service members and their families that will serve as an incentive 
to attract high quality recruits to the military. By improving the 
educational attainment of service personnel and their families, the 
nation stands to benefit in the long term with a better educated 
workforce. Surely, we are now able to observe the benefits of full GI 
bill assistance for veterans of World War II, the Korean War and the 
Vietnam war who were able to receive sufficient resource to complete 
college and postgraduate degree programs in compensation for military 
service. The nation as a whole has prospered by the talented and 
trained workforce who benefitted from the GI bill.
  Senator Cleland's bill goes beyond even those benefits which, I 
believe were only extended to service members themselves. According to 
the legislation proposed, the military services can choose to permit 
service members to transfer those educational benefits to immediate 
family members should they choose not to use them for themselves. 
Again, I believe the nation's labor force will benefit greatly from 
such flexibility, not to mention the families of our men and women in 
uniform.
  Educational benefits provided by the Military Recruiting and 
Retention Improvement Act would be increased to reflect the rising cost 
of education. Monthly benefits would increase from $528 to $600 per 
month for member who serve at least three years, and from $429 to $498 
per month for those who serve less than three years. Lump sum tuition 
assistance could also be provided under certain circumstances.
  Mr. President, these matters are really matters requiring bipartisan 
cooperation in the Congress that will benefit our service personnel and 
the Nation. I understand that Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, has introduced similar legislation to that offered 
by Senator Cleland, myself, and others. I am hopeful that we will 
review these bills in detail in the Armed Services Committee to 
determine the best way to proceed to improve recruitment and retention 
that lies at the heart of both bills. As I indicated, recruitment and 
retention are affected by a wide variety of causes, only some of which 
may be financial. Senator Cleland's bill calls for an annual report on 
the impact of the provisions of the bill on recruitment and retention. 
I believe such an assessment is required. I believe as well, that 
before the Senate approves legislation, however, it needs to have a 
more informed view of factors affecting recruitment and retention and 
of the potential impact of increasing assistance to military personnel 
on pay and benefits provided to defense and government civilian 
employees. A report is due soon from the Department of Defense 
addressing some of those issues. I urge my colleague to pay close 
attention to its findings and seek answers to the additional questions 
I have posed in determining how to proceed with legislation that meets 
national security and budgetary requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. 
        Mack):
  S. 170. A bill to permit revocation by members of the clergy of their 
exemption from Social Security coverage; to the Committee on Finance.


          open season for clergy to enroll in social security

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing a 
bill to allow qualified members of the clergy of all faiths to 
participate in the Social Security program.
  This bill would provide a two-year ``open season'' during which 
certain ministers who previously had filed for an exemption from Social 
Security coverage could revoke their exemption. These members of the 
clergy would become subject to self-employment taxes, and their 
earnings would be credited for Social Security and Medicare purposes.
  Before 1968, a minister was exempt from Social Security coverage 
unless he or she chose to elect coverage. Since 1968, ministers have 
been covered by Social Security unless they file an irrevocable 
exemption with the Internal Revenue Service, usually within two years 
of beginning their ministry.
  On two other occasions, in 1977 and again in 1986, ministers were 
given a similar opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social 
Security coverage. Despite the existence of these brief ``open season'' 
periods, many exempt ministers did not take advantage of or have not 
had the opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social Security 
coverage. Because the exemption from Social Security is irrevocable, 
there is no way for them to gain access to the program under current 
law.
  Only an ``individual who is a duly ordained, commissioned, or 
licensed minister of a church, or a member of a religious order who has 
not taken a vow of poverty,'' would be able to revoke his or her 
exemption from Social Security, under my bill. Of course, this measure 
would not permit ministers who already have reached retirement age to 
gain access to the Social Security program.
  This bill primarily would benefit modestly paid clergy, who are among 
the most likely to need Social Security benefits upon retirement. Many 
chose not to participate in the Social Security program early in their 
careers, before they fully understood the ramifications of filing for 
an exemption.
  If enacted, this measure would raise about $45 million over the next 
five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO has 
scored the bill as a revenue raiser and, as a result, it will require 
no budget offset. Over the long-term, the legislation would cost money, 
but I do not expect its costs to be that significant because CBO has 
estimated that only about 3,500 members of the clergy would exercise 
the option that this bill provides.
  The need for this legislation was brought to my attention by the 
distinguished bishop in Manchester, New Hampshire, Reverend Bishop 
O'Neil. He made me aware of the hardships facing individual ministers 
who may or may not have any retirement income. The bill also has the 
endorsement of the U.S. Catholic Conference.
  I want to thank my principal cosponsors, Senators Moynihan and Mack, 
for their support of this much-needed legislation. Let me also point 
out that this measure is identical to Title 8 of H.R. 3433, the Ticket-
to-Work Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 410 
to 1 last June.
  In closing, this bill gives members of the clergy a limited 
opportunity to enroll in the Social Security system, similar to those 
provided by Congress in 1977 and 1986. Mr. President, I hope that all 
of my colleagues will support this legislation, which is so important 
to a number of clergy in the United States.
  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. 170

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

     SECTION 1. REVOCATION BY MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY OF EXEMPTION 
                   FROM SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1402(e)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any exemption which has been 
     received under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code by a duly 
     ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, a 
     member of a religious order, or a Christian Science 
     practitioner, and which is effective for the taxable year in 
     which this Act is enacted, may be revoked by filing an 
     application therefor (in such form and manner, and with such 
     official, as may be prescribed in regulations made under 
     chapter 2 of such Code), if such application is filed no 
     later than the due date of the Federal income tax return 
     (including any extension thereof) for the applicant's second 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 1999.

[[Page S599]]

     Any such revocation shall be effective (for purposes of 
     chapter 2 of such Code and title II of the Social Security 
     Act), as specified in the application, either with respect to 
     the applicant's first taxable year beginning after December 
     31, 1999, or with respect to the applicant's second taxable 
     year beginning after such date, and for all succeeding 
     taxable years; and the applicant for any such revocation may 
     not thereafter again file application for an exemption under 
     such section 1402(e)(1). If the application is filed after 
     the due date of the applicant's Federal income tax return for 
     a taxable year and is effective with respect to that taxable 
     year, it shall include or be accompanied by payment in full 
     of an amount equal to the total of the taxes that would have 
     been imposed by section 1401 of such Code with respect to all 
     of the applicant's income derived in that taxable year which 
     would have constituted net earnings from self-employment for 
     purposes of chapter 2 of such Code (notwithstanding paragraph 
     (4) or (5) of section 1402(c) of such Code) but for the 
     exemption under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to service performed (to the extent specified in such 
     subsection) in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999, and with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable 
     under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the 
     wages and self-employment income of any individual for months 
     in or after the calendar year in which such individual's 
     application for revocation (as described in such subsection) 
     is effective (and lump-sum death payments payable under such 
     title on the basis of such wages and self-employment income 
     in the case of deaths occurring in or after such calendar 
     year).

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Bob 
Smith of New Hampshire, in introducing a bill to allow certain members 
of the clergy who are currently exempt from Social Security an open 
season to ``opt in.''
  Under section 1402 of the Internal Revenue Code, a member of the 
clergy who is conscientiously, or because of religious principles, 
opposed to participation in a public insurance program generally, may 
elect to be exempt from Social Security coverage and payroll taxes by 
filing an application of exemption with the Internal Revenue Service 
within two years of beginning the ministry. To be eligible for the 
exemption, the member of the clergy must be an ``individual who is a 
fully ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, or a 
member of a religious order who has not taken a vow of poverty.'' Once 
elected this exemption is irrevocable.
  This legislation would allow members of the clergy who are not 
eligible for Social Security a two-year open season in which they could 
revoke their exemption. At the time of exemption, many clergy did not 
fully understand the ramifications of their actions, and it is not 
until later in life, when they are blocked from coverage, that they 
realize their need for Social Security and Medicare. This decision to 
``opt in'' would be irrevocable and all post-election earnings would be 
subject to the payroll tax and credited for the purposes of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would 
affect approximately 3,500 members of the clergy and would increase 
revenues by about $45 million over the next five years. Similar 
legislation was passed both in the 1977 Social Security Amendments 
(Section 316) and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Section 1704).
  This bill has been endorsed by the United States Catholic Conference 
and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is a simple but 
much-needed measure, and I urge every member of the Senate to support 
it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Cleland).
  S. 171. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit the concentration 
of sulfur in gasoline used in motor vehicles; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


           the acid deposition and ozone control act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 172. A bill to reduce acid deposition under the Clean Air Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                     the clean gasoline act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills 
which will make significant reductions in the pollutants which most 
degrade our national air quality. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control 
Act of 1999 and the Clean Gasoline Act of 1999 would reduce sulfur 
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions through national ``cap and trade'' 
programs, and reduce the sulfur content in gasoline, respectively.
  We have come a long way since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 
Since that last reauthorization effort, we have successfully reduced 
emissions of the pollutants we set out to regulate and tremendously 
expanded our understanding of the causes and effects of major 
environmental problems such as acid deposition, ozone pollution, 
decreased visibility, and eutrophication of coastal waters. We can be 
proud of these accomplishments, but we have along way to go yet. Since 
1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emissions reductions required under the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage to 
human health and sensitive ecosystems. We have also learned that 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), which we largely ignored nine years 
ago, are significant contributors to our nation's many air quality 
deficiencies. And finally, we have demonstrated that legislation 
containing regulatory flexibility and market incentives is preferable 
to the traditional ``command and control'' approach. My bills seek to 
build upon this new body of knowledge by combining the best and most 
current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most 
effective and efficient regulatory framework.
  The scientific data indicate that the 1990 Amendments did not go far 
enough to prevent continued human health and ecosystem damage from 
SO2 and NOX. We now know that ozone pollution, 
caused in large part by NOX emissions, can have a terrible 
effect on human respiratory functions. The Harvard University School of 
Public Health's 1996 study of ozone pollution established a strong link 
between ground level ozone pollution and 30,000-50,000 emergency room 
visits during the 1993 and 1994 ozone seasons. Ecosystems continue to 
suffer, too. The 1998 report of the National Acid Precipitation 
Assessment Program (NAPAP) indicates that sulfate concentrations of 
surface waters in the Southern Appalachian Mountains have been 
increasing steadily for more than a decade, making for an increasingly 
inhospitable environment for trout and other fish species. There are 
other types of problems, too. Visitors to our nation's national parks 
and wilderness areas find that it is more difficult than ever before to 
enjoy these scenic vistas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see 
through the haze which clogs the air in our national parks.
  Scientists have produced volumes of scientific literature on ozone, 
acid deposition, regional haze, and other air quality problems over the 
past decade. We now know much more about the causes of these problems 
than we did in 1990. We know that NOX emissions, which we 
underestimated as a cause of air pollution, in fact play an important 
role in the formation of ground level ozone, acide deposition, and 
nitrogen deposition. We know that sulfur dioxide not only contributes 
significantly to acid deposition, but also to reduced visibility in our 
great scenic vistas.
  The most recent NAPAP report reflects this changing body of 
knowledge. The NAPAP report notes that NOX make a highly 
significant contribution to the occurrence of acid deposition and 
nitrogen saturation on both land and water. According to NAPAP, a 
majority of Adirondack lakes have not shown recovery from high acidity 
levels first detected decades ago. Forests, streams, and rivers outside 
of New York, in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great Smoky Mountains 
of Tennessee, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of 
California are also now showing the effects of acidification and 
nitrogen saturation.
  And mountains are not the only ecosystems affected. The Ecological 
Society of America, the nation's leading professional society of 
ecologists, issued a report in late 1997 which notes that airborne 
deposition of nitrogen accounts for a significant percentage of the 
nitrogen content of coastal water bodies stretching from the Gulf Coast 
up and around the entire length of the eastern seaboard. The Chesapeake 
Bay is believed to receive 27 percent of its

[[Page S600]]

nitrogen load directly from the atmosphere. For Tampa Bay, the figure 
is 28 percent. For the coastal waters of the Newport River in North 
Carolina, more than 35 percent.
  Clearly, any serious effort to address these problems must address 
NOX emissions and further reduce SO2 emissions. 
My bills address the major sources of NOX and 
SO2. The Acide Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1998 
would affect ``stationary sources'' of NOX and 
SO2, mainly electric utilities, and the Clean Gasoline Act 
of 1999 would affect ``mobile sources'', mainly cars and trucks, of NOx 
and other tailpipe emissions.


 Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act: Controlling Stationary Sources

  When we designed the SO2 Allowance Program in 1990, our 
task was simplified by the fact that over 85 percent of SO2 
emissions originated in fossil fuel-fired electric utilities. Utility 
emissions account for just under 30 percent of total NOX 
emissions, a smaller share, but large enough to merit attention. My 
bill establishes a year-round cap-and-trade program for NOX 
emissions from the utility sector and mandates a further 50 percent cut 
in emissions of SO2 through the existing cap and trade 
program. Because of the human health risks of urban ozone pollution 
during the summer months, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act 
requires utilities to surrender two allowances for each ton of 
NOX emitted between May and September. During the remainder 
of the year, only one allowance is required to produce one ton of 
NOX emissions. In this way, utilities are encouraged to make 
the greatest reductions during the summer, when the collective risk to 
human health from these emissions is higher.
  In light of the impressive success and cost effectiveness of the cap 
and trade program which regulates SO2, the Acid Deposition 
and Ozone Control Act is designed to build onto it as seamlessly as 
possible by establishing a ``Phase III'' under the existing program. 
Under the proposed Phase III, total utility emissions of SO2 
would be reduced to just under 4.5 million tons per year, significantly 
reducing acid deposition and improving visibility in our Nation's 
scenic vistas.


       The Clean Gasoline Act of 1999: Addressing Mobile Sources

  This bill establishes a national, year-round cap on the sulfur 
content of gasoline sold in the United States. The bill would extend 
the so-called California gasoline sulfur standard nationwide. The 
benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur would be dramatic and virtually 
immediate.
  The presence of sulfur in gasoline increases vehicle emissions 
because sulfur poisons the catalytic converter used in the vehicle's 
emissions control system. Sulfur is a pollutant only: its presence (or 
absence) does not effect engine performance. In the 1970's, we fought 
to remove lead from gasoline to make possible the introduction of 
catalytic converters. Until recently, we did not appreciate that sulfur 
is a catalyst poison, too. All vehicles in the national fleet with 
catalytic converters--virtually all vehicles--produce higher levels of 
NOX because of the high levels of sulfur in the gasoline 
they burn.
  The cost of gasoline would rise under this bill--by a nickel a gallon 
at the retail level, at most. For a car driven 15,000 miles per year 
that achieves 15 miles per gallon, the cost of the Clean Gasoline Act 
would be $50 annually. Keep in mind, however, that gasoline prices, 
adjusted for inflation, are cheaper now than they have been at any time 
since 1950, the beginning point of our analysis. And the benefits to 
human health and the environment of reducing gasoline sulfur far 
outweigh this modest cost.
  A recent study by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control 
Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) found that reducing gasoline sulfur levels to 
40 parts per million, the California standard, would bring an air 
quality benefit equivalent to removing nearly 54 million vehicles from 
our national fleet. New York City alone would have a benefit equal to 
removing 3 million vehicles from its streets. We must not pass up the 
opportunity to make such large gains in emissions reductions for such a 
minor cost.
  As I mentioned earlier, I am proud of what we accomplished in 
enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The SO2 Allowance 
Program established by that legislation has achieved extraordinary 
benefits at program compliance costs less than half of initial 
projections. The efficacy of the approach is proven. The current 
science indicates, however, that we did not go far enough in 1990 in 
setting our emissions reduction targets. The bills I have introduced 
endeavor to build upon our accomplishments thus far, and to begin the 
work which remains to be done. I encourage my colleagues to join myself 
and Mr. Schumer in sponsoring the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act 
of 1999, and to join myself and Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
Boxer, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Jeffords in sponsoring the Clean Gasoline 
Act of 1999.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 171

       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 ``Clean Gasoline Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the National Air Quality and Emissions 
     Trends Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, dated 
     1996, motor vehicles account for a major portion of the 
     emissions that degrade the air quality of the United States: 
     49 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, 26 percent of 
     emissions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
     smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10), and 78 
     percent of carbon monoxide emissions;
       (2)(A) failure to control gasoline sulfur concentration 
     adversely affects catalytic converter function for all 
     vehicles in the national vehicle fleet; and
       (B) research performed collaboratively by the auto and oil 
     industries demonstrates that when sulfur concentration in 
     motor vehicle gasoline is reduced from 450 parts per million 
     (referred to in this section as ``ppm'') to 50 ppm--
       (i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 18 percent;
       (ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 19 percent; 
     and
       (iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 8 percent;
       (3)(A) recent studies conducted by the the Association of 
     International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Coordinating 
     Research Council confirm that sulfur in vehicle fuel impairs 
     to an even greater degree the emission controls of Low-
     Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section as ``LEVs'') 
     and Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section 
     as ``ULEVs'');
       (B) because sulfur-induced impairment of advanced 
     technology emission control systems is not fully reversible 
     under normal in-use driving conditions, a nationwide, year-
     round sulfur standard is necessary to prevent impairment of 
     vehicles' emission control systems as the vehicles travel 
     across State lines;
       (C) industry research on LEVs and ULEVs demonstrates that 
     when gasoline sulfur concentration is lowered from 330 ppm to 
     40 ppm--
       (i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 34 percent;
       (ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent; 
     and
       (iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 51 percent;
       (D) failure to control sulfur in gasoline will inhibit the 
     introduction of more fuel-efficient technologies, such as 
     direct injection engines and ``NOx trap'' after-
     treatment technology, which require fuel with a very low 
     concentration of sulfur;
       (E) the technology for removing sulfur from fuel during the 
     refining process is readily available and currently in use; 
     and
       (F) the reduction of sulfur concentrations in fuel to the 
     level required by this Act is a cost-effective means of 
     improving air quality;
       (4)(A) gasoline sulfur levels in the United States--
       (i) average between 300 and 350 ppm and range as high as 
     1000 ppm; and
       (ii) are far higher than the levels allowed in many other 
     industrialized nations, and higher than the levels allowed by 
     some developing nations;
       (B) the European Union recently approved a standard of 150 
     ppm to take effect in 2000, to be phased down to 30 through 
     50 ppm by 2005;
       (C) Japan has a standard of 50 ppm; and
       (D) gasoline and diesel fuel in Australia, New Zealand, 
     Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Finland have significantly 
     lower sulfur concentrations than comparable gasoline and 
     diesel fuel in the United States;
       (5)(A) California is the only State that regulates sulfur 
     concentration in all gasoline sold; and
       (B) in June 1996, California imposed a 2-part limitation on 
     sulfur concentration in gasoline: a 40 ppm per gallon 
     maximum, or a 30 ppm per gallon annual average with an 80 ppm 
     per gallon maximum;

[[Page S601]]

       (6)(A) a 1998 regulatory impact analysis by the California 
     Air Resources Board reports that air quality improved 
     significantly in the year following the introduction of low 
     sulfur gasoline; and
       (B) the California Air Resources Board credits low sulfur 
     gasoline with reducing ozone levels by 10 percent on the 
     South Coast, 12 percent in Sacramento, and 2 percent in the 
     Bay Area; and
       (7)(A) reducing sulfur concentration in gasoline to the 
     level required by this Act is a cost-effective pollution 
     prevention measure that will provide significant and 
     immediate benefits; and
       (B) unlike vehicle hardware requirements that affect only 
     new model years, sulfur control produces the benefits of 
     reduced emissions of air pollutants across the vehicle fleet 
     immediately upon implementation.

     SEC. 3. SULFUR CONCENTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GASOLINE.

       (a) In General.--Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7545) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (n) the following:
       ``(o) Sulfur Concentration Requirements for Gasoline.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B), effective 
     beginning 4 years after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, a person shall not manufacture, sell, supply, 
     offer for sale or supply, dispense, transport, or introduce 
     into commerce motor vehicle gasoline that contains a 
     concentration of sulfur that is greater than 40 parts per 
     million per gallon of gasoline.
       ``(B) Alternative method of measuring compliance.--A person 
     shall not be considered to be in violation of paragraph (1) 
     if the person manufactures, sells, supplies, offers for sale 
     or supply, dispenses, transports, or introduces into 
     commerce, during any 1-year period, motor vehicle gasoline 
     that contains a concentration of sulfur that is greater than 
     40 but less than or equal to 80 parts per million per gallon 
     of gasoline, if the average concentration of sulfur in the 
     motor vehicle gasoline manufactured, sold, supplied, offered 
     for sale or supply, dispensed, transported, or introduced 
     into commerce by the person during the period is less than 30 
     parts per million per gallon of gasoline.
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this paragraph.
       ``(2) Lower sulfur concentration.--
       ``(A) Report.--
       ``(i) Initial report.--Not later than 6 years after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     submit to Congress a report that documents the effects of use 
     of low sulfur motor vehicle gasoline on urban and regional 
     air quality.
       ``(ii) Followup report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the initial report under clause (i), the 
     Administrator shall submit a report updating the information 
     contained in the initial report.
       ``(B) Regulation.--After the date of the initial report 
     under subparagraph (A)(i), the Administrator may promulgate a 
     regulation to establish maximum and average allowable sulfur 
     concentrations in motor vehicle gasoline that are lower than 
     the concentrations specified in paragraph (1) if the 
     Administrator determines that--
       ``(i) research conducted after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection indicates that significant air quality 
     benefits would result from a reduction in allowable sulfur 
     concentration in motor vehicle gasoline; or
       ``(ii) advanced vehicle technologies have been developed 
     that can significantly reduce emissions of air pollutants 
     from motor vehicles but that require motor vehicle gasoline 
     with a lower concentration of sulfur than that specified in 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Penalties and Injunctions.--Section 211(d) of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (n)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(n), or (o)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and (n)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(n), and (o)''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 172

       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 ``Acid Deposition and Ozone 
     Control Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) reductions of atmospheric nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide from utility plants, in addition to the reductions 
     required under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 
     are needed to reduce acid deposition and its serious adverse 
     effects on public health, natural resources, building 
     structures, sensitive ecosystems, and visibility;
       (2) nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide contribute to the 
     development of fine particulates, suspected of causing human 
     mortality and morbidity to a significant extent;
       (3) regional nitrogen oxide reductions of 50 percent in the 
     Eastern United States, in addition to the reductions required 
     under the Clean Air Act, may be necessary to protect 
     sensitive watersheds from the effects of nitrogen deposition;
       (4) without reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide, the number of acidic lakes in the Adirondacks in the 
     State of New York is expected to increase by up to 40 percent 
     by 2040; and
       (5) nitrogen oxide is highly mobile and can lead to ozone 
     formation hundreds of miles from the emitting source.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize the current scientific understanding that 
     emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, and the acid 
     deposition resulting from emissions of nitrogen oxide and 
     sulfur dioxide, present a substantial human health and 
     environmental risk;
       (2) to require reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur 
     dioxide emissions;
       (3) to support the efforts of the Ozone Transport 
     Assessment Group to reduce ozone pollution;
       (4) to reduce utility emissions of nitrogen oxide by 70 
     percent from 1990 levels; and
       (5) to reduce utility emissions of sulfur dioxide by 50 
     percent after the implementation of phase II sulfur dioxide 
     requirements under section 405 of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7651d).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Affected facility.--The term ``affected facility'' 
     means a facility with 1 or more combustion units that serve 
     at least 1 electricity generator with a capacity equal to or 
     greater than 25 megawatts.
       (3) NOx allowance.--The term ``NOx 
     allowance'' means a limited authorization under section 4(3) 
     to emit, in accordance with this Act, quantities of nitrogen 
     oxide.
       (4) MMBTU.--The term ``mmBtu'' means 1,000,000 British 
     thermal units.
       (5) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Nitrogen Oxide 
     Allowance Program established under section 4.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the 48 contiguous 
     States and the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 4. NITROGEN OXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a 
     program to be known as the ``Nitrogen Oxide Allowance 
     Program''.
       (2) Scope.--The Program shall be conducted in the 48 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
       (3) NOx allowances.--
       (A) Allocation.--The Administrator shall allocate under 
     paragraph (4)--
       (i) for each of calendar years 2002 through 2004, 5,400,000 
     NOx allowances; and
       (ii) for calendar year 2005 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, 3,000,000 NOx allowances.
       (B) Use.--Each NOx allowance shall authorize an 
     affected facility to emit--
       (i) 1 ton of nitrogen oxide during each of the months of 
     October, November, December, January, February, March, and 
     April of any year; or
       (ii) \1/2\ ton of nitrogen oxide during each of the months 
     of May, June, July, August, and September of any year.
       (4) Allocation.--
       (A) Definition of total electric power.--In this paragraph, 
     the term ``total electric power'' means all electric power 
     generated by utility and nonutility generators for 
     distribution, including electricity generated from solar, 
     wind, hydro power, nuclear power, cogeneration facilities, 
     and the combustion of fossil fuel.
       (B) Allocation of allowances.--The Administrator shall 
     allocate annual NOx allowances to each of the 
     States in proportion to the State's share of the total 
     electric power generated in all of the States.
       (C) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a list of each State's NOx 
     allowance allocation--
       (i) by December 1, 2000, for calendar years 2002 through 
     2004;
       (ii) by December 1, 2002, for calendar years 2005 through 
     2007; and
       (iii) by December 1 of each calendar year after 2002, for 
     the calendar year that begins 61 months thereafter.
       (5) Intrastate distribution.--
       (A) In general.--A State may submit to the Administrator a 
     report detailing the distribution of NOx 
     allowances of the State to affected facilities in the State--
       (i) not later than September 30, 2001, for calendar years 
     2002 through 2004;
       (ii) not later than September 30, 2003, for calendar years 
     2005 through 2012; and
       (iii) not later than September 30 of each calendar year 
     after 2013, for the calendar year that begins 61 months 
     thereafter.
       (B) Action by the administrator.--If a State submits a 
     report under subparagraph (A) not later than September 30 of 
     the calendar year specified in subparagraph (A), the 
     Administrator shall distribute the NOx allowances 
     to affected facilities in the State as detailed in the 
     report.
       (C) Late submission of report.--A report submitted by a 
     State after September 30 of a specified year shall be of no 
     effect.
       (D) Distribution in absence of a report.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to subsection (e), if a State does 
     not submit a report under subparagraph (A) not later than 
     September 30 of the calendar year specified in subparagraph 
     (A), the Administrator shall, not later than November 30 of 
     that calendar year, distribute the NOx allowances 
     for the calendar years specified in subparagraph (A) to each 
     affected facility in the State in proportion to

[[Page S602]]

     the affected facility's share of the total electric power 
     generated in the State.
       (ii) Determination of facility's share.--In determining an 
     affected facility's share of total electric power generated 
     in a State, the Administrator shall consider the net electric 
     power generated by the facility and the State to be--

       (I) for calendar years 2002 through 2004, the average 
     annual amount of electric power generated, by the facility 
     and the State, respectively, in calendar years 1997 through 
     1999;
       (II) for calendar years 2005 through 2012, the average 
     annual amount of electric power generated, by the facility 
     and the State, respectively, in calendar years 1999 through 
     2001; and
       (III) for calendar year 2013 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, the amount of electric power generated, by the 
     facility and the State, respectively, in the calendar year 5 
     years previous to the year for which the determination is 
     made.

       (E) Judicial review.--A distribution of NOx 
     allowances by the Administrator under subparagraph (D) shall 
     not be subject to judicial review.
       (b) NOx Allowance Transfer System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate a 
     NOx allowance system regulation under which a 
     NOx allowance allocated under this Act may be 
     transferred among affected facilities and any other person.
       (2) Establishment.--The regulation shall establish the 
     NOx allowance system under this section, including 
     requirements for the allocation, transfer, and use of 
     NOx allowances under this Act.
       (3) Use of nox allowances.--The regulation 
     shall--
       (A) prohibit the use (but not the transfer in accordance 
     with paragraph (5)) of any NOx allowance before 
     the calendar year for which the NOx allowance is 
     allocated; and
       (B) provide that the unused NOx allowances shall 
     be carried forward and added to NOx allowances 
     allocated for subsequent years.
       (4) Certification of transfer.--A transfer of a 
     NOx allowance shall not be effective until a 
     written certification of the transfer, signed by a 
     responsible official of the person making the transfer, is 
     received and recorded by the Administrator.
       (c) NOx Allowance Tracking System.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations for issuing, 
     recording, and tracking the use and transfer of 
     NOx allowances that shall specify all necessary 
     procedures and requirements for an orderly and competitive 
     functioning of the NOx allowance system.
       (d) Permit Requirements.--A NOx allowance 
     allocation or transfer shall, on recordation by the 
     Administrator, be considered to be a part of each affected 
     facility's operating permit requirements, without a 
     requirement for any further permit review or revision.
       (e) New Source Reserve.--
       (1) In general.--For a State for which the Administrator 
     distributes NOx allowances under subsection 
     (a)(5)(D), the Administrator shall place 10 percent of the 
     total annual NOx allowances of the State in a new 
     source reserve to be distributed by the Administrator--
       (A) for calendar years 2002 through 2005, to sources that 
     commence operation after 1998;
       (B) for calendar years 2006 through 2011, to sources that 
     commence operation after 2000; and
       (C) for calendar year 2012 and each calendar year 
     thereafter, to sources that commence operation after the 
     calendar year that is 5 years previous to the year for which 
     the distribution is made.
       (2) Share.--For a State for which the Administrator 
     distributes NOx allowances under subsection 
     (a)(5)(D), the Administrator shall distribute to each new 
     source a number of NOx allowances sufficient to 
     allow emissions by the source at a rate equal to the lesser 
     of the new source performance standard or the permitted level 
     for the full nameplate capacity of the source, adjusted pro 
     rata for the number of months of the year during which the 
     source operates.
       (3) Unused nox allowances.--
       (A) In general.--During the period of calendar years 2000 
     through 2005, the Administrator shall conduct auctions at 
     which a NOx allowance remaining in the new source 
     reserve that has not been distributed under paragraph (2) 
     shall be offered for sale.
       (B) Open auctions.--An auction under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be open to any person.
       (C) Conduct of auction.--
       (i) Method of bidding.--A person wishing to bid for a 
     NOx allowance at an auction under subparagraph (A) 
     shall submit (by a date set by the Administrator) to the 
     Administrator (on a sealed bid schedule provided by the 
     Administrator) an offer to purchase a specified number of 
     NOx allowances at a specified price.
       (ii) Sale based on bid price.--A NOx allowance 
     auctioned under subparagraph (A) shall be sold on the basis 
     of bid price, starting with the highest priced bid and 
     continuing until all NOx allowances for sale at 
     the auction have been sold.
       (iii) No minimum price.--A minimum price shall not be set 
     for the purchase of a NOx allowance auctioned 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (iv) Regulations.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, shall promulgate a regulation 
     to carry out this paragraph.
       (D) Use of nox allowances.--A NOx 
     allowance purchased at an auction under subparagraph (A) may 
     be used for any purpose and at any time after the auction 
     that is permitted for use of a NOx allowance 
     under this Act.
       (E) Proceeds of auction.--The proceeds from an auction 
     under this paragraph shall be distributed to the owner of an 
     affected source in proportion to the number of allowances 
     that the owner would have received but for this subsection.
       (f) Nature of NOx Allowances.--
       (1) Not a property right.--A NOx allowance shall 
     not be considered to be a property right.
       (2) Limitation of nox allowances.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator 
     may terminate or limit a NOx allowance.
       (g) Prohibitions.--
       (1) In general.--After January 1, 2000, it shall be 
     unlawful--
       (A) for the owner or operator of an affected facility to 
     operate the affected facility in such a manner that the 
     affected facility emits nitrogen oxides in excess of the 
     amount permitted by the quantity of NOx allowances 
     held by the designated representative of the affected 
     facility; or
       (B) for any person to hold, use, or transfer a 
     NOx allowance allocated under this Act, except as 
     provided under this Act.
       (2) Other emission limitations.--Section 407 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651f) is repealed.
       (3) Time of use.--A NOx allowance may not be 
     used before the calendar year for which the NOx 
     allowance is allocated.
       (4) Permitting, monitoring, and enforcement.--Nothing in 
     this section affects--
       (A) the permitting, monitoring, and enforcement obligations 
     of the Administrator under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 
     et seq.); or
       (B) the requirements and liabilities of an affected 
     facility under that Act.
       (h) Savings Provisions.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) affects the application of, or compliance with, the 
     Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) for an affected 
     facility, including the provisions related to applicable 
     national ambient air quality standards and State 
     implementation plans;
       (2) requires a change in, affects, or limits any State law 
     regulating electric utility rates or charges, including 
     prudency review under State law;
       (3) affects the application of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 791a et seq.) or the authority of the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission under that Act; or
       (4) interferes with or impairs any program for competitive 
     bidding for power supply in a State in which the Program is 
     established.

     SEC. 5. INDUSTRIAL SOURCE MONITORING.

       Section 412(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651k(a)) is 
     amended in the first sentence by inserting ``, or of any 
     industrial facility with a capacity of 100 or more mmBtu's 
     per hour,'' after ``The owner and operator of any source 
     subject to this title''.

     SEC. 6. EXCESS EMISSIONS PENALTY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Liability.--The owner or operator of an affected 
     facility that emits nitrogen oxides in any calendar year in 
     excess of the NOx allowances the owner or operator 
     holds for use for the facility for that year shall be liable 
     for the payment of an excess emissions penalty.
       (2) Calculation.--The excess emissions penalty shall be 
     calculated by multiplying $6,000 by the quantity that is 
     equal to--
       (A) the quantity of NOx allowances that would 
     authorize the nitrogen oxides emitted by the facility for the 
     calendar year; minus
       (B) the quantity of NOx allowances that the 
     owner or operator holds for use for the facility for that 
     year.
       (3) Overlapping penalties.--A penalty under this section 
     shall not diminish the liability of the owner or operator of 
     an affected facility for any fine, penalty, or assessment 
     against the owner or operator for the same violation under 
     any other provision of law.
       (b) Excess Emissions Offset.--
       (1) In general.--The owner or operator of an affected 
     facility that emits nitrogen oxide during a calendar year in 
     excess of the NOx allowances held for the facility 
     for the calendar year shall offset in the following calendar 
     year a quantity of NOx allowances equal to the 
     number of NOx allowances that would authorize the 
     excess nitrogen oxides emitted.
       (2) Proposed plan.--Not later than 60 days after the end of 
     the year in which excess emissions occur, the owner or 
     operator of an affected facility shall submit to the 
     Administrator and the State in which the affected facility 
     is located a proposed plan to achieve the offset required 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Condition of permit.--On approval of the proposed plan 
     by the Administrator, as submitted, or as modified or 
     conditioned by the Administrator, the plan shall be 
     considered a condition of the operating permit for the 
     affected facility without further review or revision of the 
     permit.
       (c) Penalty Adjustment.--The Administrator shall annually 
     adjust the amount of the penalty specified in subsection (a) 
     to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

     SEC. 7. SULFUR DIOXIDE ALLOWANCE PROGRAM REVISIONS.

       Section 402 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7651a) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page S603]]

       ``(3) Allowance.--The term `allowance' means an 
     authorization, allocated to an affected unit by the 
     Administrator under this title, to emit, during or after a 
     specified calendar year--
       ``(A) in the case of allowances allocated for calendar 
     years 1997 through 2004, 1 ton of sulfur dioxide; and
       ``(B) in the case of allowances allocated for calendar year 
     2005 and each calendar year thereafter, \1/2\ ton of sulfur 
     dioxide.''.

     SEC. 8. REGIONAL ECOSYSTEMS.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report identifying 
     objectives for scientifically credible environmental 
     indicators, as determined by the Administrator, that are 
     sufficient to protect sensitive ecosystems of the Adirondack 
     Mountains, mid-Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, and 
     Southern Blue Ridge Mountains and water bodies of the Great 
     Lakes, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, and the Chesapeake 
     Bay.
       (2) Acid neutralizing capacity.--The report under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) include acid neutralizing capacity as an indicator; and
       (B) identify as an objective under paragraph (1) the 
     objective of increasing the proportion of water bodies in 
     sensitive receptor areas with an acid neutralizing capacity 
     greater than zero from the proportion identified in surveys 
     begun in 1984.
       (3) Updated report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Administrator shall submit to Congress a report updating the 
     report under paragraph (1) and assessing the status and 
     trends of various environmental indicators for the regional 
     ecosystems referred to in paragraph (1).
       (4) Reports under the national acid precipitation 
     assessment program.--The reports under this subsection shall 
     be subject to the requirements applicable to a report under 
     section 103(j)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7403(j)(3)(E)).
       (b) Regulations.--
       (1) Determination.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Administrator shall determine whether emissions reductions 
     under section 4 are sufficient to ensure achievement of the 
     objectives stated in subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Promulgation.--If the Administrator determines under 
     paragraph (1) that emissions reductions under section 4 are 
     not sufficient to ensure achievement of the objectives 
     identified in subsection (a)(1), the Administrator shall 
     promulgate, not later than 2 years after making the finding, 
     such regulations, including modification of nitrogen oxide 
     and sulfur dioxide allowance allocations or any such measure, 
     as the Administrator determines are necessary to protect the 
     sensitive ecosystems described in subsection (a)(1).

     SEC. 9. GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER PROVISIONS.

       Except as expressly provided in this Act, compliance with 
     this Act shall not exempt or exclude the owner or operator of 
     an affected facility from compliance with any other law.

     SEC. 10. MERCURY EMISSION STUDY AND CONTROL.

       (a) Study and Report.--The Administrator shall--
       (1) study the practicality of monitoring mercury emissions 
     from all combustion units that have a capacity equal to or 
     greater than 250 mmBtu's per hour; and
       (2) not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.
       (b) Regulations Concerning Monitoring.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of submission of the report under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall promulgate a 
     regulation requiring the reporting of mercury emissions from 
     units that have a capacity equal to or greater than 250 
     mmBtu's per hour.
       (c) Emission Controls.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     commencement of monitoring activities under subsection (b), 
     the Administrator shall promulgate a regulation controlling 
     electric utility and industrial source emissions of mercury.
       (2) Factors.--The regulation shall take into account 
     technological feasibility, cost, and the projected reduction 
     in levels of mercury emissions that will result from 
     implementation of this Act.

     SEC. 11. DEPOSITION RESEARCH BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
                   AGENCY.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     competitive grant program to fund research related to the 
     effects of nitrogen deposition on sensitive watersheds and 
     coastal estuaries in the Eastern United States.
       (b) Chemistry of Lakes and Streams.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than September 30, 2001, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives a report on the health and 
     chemistry of lakes and streams of the Adirondacks that were 
     subjects of the report transmitted under section 404 of 
     Public Law 101-549 (commonly known as the ``Clean Air Act 
     Amendments of 1990'') (104 Stat. 2632).
       (2) Following report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the report under paragraph (1), the Administrator 
     shall submit a report updating the information contained in 
     the initial report.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) to carry out subsection (a), $1,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2005; and
       (2) to carry out subsection (b), $1,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2007, and 2008.
                                  ____

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 173. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise 
amendments made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           amendments to the immigration and nationality act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that 
will amend several parts of our existing immigration laws, specifically 
those that fall under the umbrella of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. These changes are aimed at making our immigration laws not only 
fairer but more efficient.
  The first change will amend Section 240(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. In 1996, the laws applying to criminal aliens were 
made overly restrictive. For example, all persons guilty of aggravated 
felonies--the number of crimes that fall into this category was greatly 
expanded and made retroactive in 1996--are now ineligible for virtually 
any form of leniency. This means that many people, who have led 
exemplary lives for many years, now find themselves deportable for 
offenses committed decades ago. They are also subject to mandatory 
detention and have no chance for an immigration judge to evaluate their 
individual circumstances. This is unfair.
  My second change amends Section 240A.(1)(a) of the same act. At 
present, the Attorney General has the authority to stop the deportation 
of a lawful resident who has been in this country for seven years. The 
1996 changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act now bar this relief 
for anyone convicted of an aggravated felony. This provision has led to 
many injustices because of the sheer number of offenses that are now 
aggravated felonies. I propose that we deny relief only to those who 
have been convicted of aggravated felonies that carry a penalty of five 
years or more in prison.
  In conjunction with this, I propose that we amend Section 240A(d)(1). 
This provision says that the time for determining the above seven years 
residency period stops when an aggravated crime is or was committed. 
This has barred relief for people with ancient convictions but many 
good years of citizenship since then. This should be changed so that 
the countable residence period stops only when formal immigration 
charges are filed because of the crime and not when the crime is or was 
committed.
  Another of my amendments made the transitional rules permanent 
governing Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This 
section now requires that all criminal aliens be detained from the time 
of their release on criminal charges until their deportation hearing. 
This requirement was so harsh and expensive that Congress provided a 
two-year transition period, ending on October 1998, that allowed 
immigration judges to use their discretion in evaluating whether or not 
an individual was a risk of flight or a danger to the community. This 
discretion should be continued because it is fair and because it will 
empty our jails of those who will return for their hearings and who 
pose no threat to our communities.
  I also propose that we restore judicial review in deportation cases. 
The 1996 reforms ostensibly banned criminal aliens from seeking a 
judicial review of their cases. The courts have reached many different 
outcomes over this ban and the situation, frankly, is a mess. I believe 
that criminal aliens should have the right to have their convictions 
reviewed by a United States circuit court of appeals.
  Similiarly, I believe that aliens should have the right to legal 
counsel when they are faced with removal. The law now provides that an 
alien is entitled to counsel if he can afford to retain one. In 
reality, this has created great expense and delay for the Federal 
government because cases are often continued for lengthy periods while 
aliens try to find pro bono counsel or counsel they can afford. My bill 
creates a pilot program in selected Immigration and Nationalization 
districts

[[Page S604]]

where free, expert counsel would be provided to aliens. A study of the 
impact on overall Department of Justice costs would be required to 
decide if this program should be extended nationwide.
  My last amendments are concerned with who should be admitted to this 
country. The most objectionable element of our current admission system 
is the delay--estimated to be five years--for a vitally important 
family reunion category, part A of the second family-based preference 
(FS-2A). This category, for admission of spouses and minor children of 
lawful, permanent residents, is now limited to 114,000 per year. 
Nuclear families should live together. To obtain more spaces for the 
FS-2A preference, the diversity lottery visas should be eliminated, 
freeing 55,000 spaces annually.
  Lastly, I believe that the EB-5 preference for investors should be 
repealed. The rich should not be able to buy their way into this 
country. This category was added in 1990 to encourage investment. 
Instead, this provision has led to the creation of some highly 
questionable investment schemes that have cost the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service untold hours and resources in attempting to 
reign them in. Moreover, the evidence of new jobs being created is very 
thin and not worth the administrative costs.
  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. 173

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

       (a) Cancellation of Removal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 240A(a)(3) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony 
     punishable by imprisonment for a period of not less than five 
     years.''.
       (2) Termination of continuous period.--Section 240A(d)(1) 
     of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``or when'' and all that follows through ``earliest''.
       (b) Custody Rules.--
       (1) In general.--Section 236(c)(2) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(2)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Release.--The Attorney General may release an alien 
     described in paragraph (1) only if the alien is an alien 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) or (iii) and--
       ``(A) the alien was lawfully admitted to the United States 
     and satisfies the Attorney General that the alien will not 
     pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property 
     and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding; or
       ``(B) the alien was not lawfully admitted to the United 
     States, cannot be removed because the designated country of 
     removal will not accept the alien, and satisfies the Attorney 
     General that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety 
     of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for 
     any scheduled proceeding.''.
       (2) Repeal.--Section 303(b) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is repealed.
       (c) Judicial Review.--Section 242(a)(2)(C) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``no court shall have jurisdiction to 
     review any'' and inserting ``a court of appeals for the 
     judicial circuit in which a final order of removal was issued 
     shall have jurisdiction to review the''.
       (d) Right to Counsel.--Section 292 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2), in''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In any removal proceedings before an immigration 
     judge and in any appeal proceedings before the Attorney 
     General from any such removal proceedings (in three 
     designated districts), the person concerned shall have the 
     privilege of being represented by court-appointed counsel who 
     shall be paid by the United States and who are authorized to 
     practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose.''.
       (e) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act are repealed:
       (1) Section 203(b)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)).
       (2) Section 203(c) (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).
       (3) Section 201(a)(3) and 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(a)(3), 
     1151(e)).
       (4) Section 204(a)(1)(F) and (G) (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F) 
     and (G)).
       (5) Section 216A (8 U.S.C. 1186b).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 174. A bill to provide funding for States to correct Y2K problems 
in computers that are used to administer State and local government 
programs; to the Committee on Finance.


  y2k state and local gap (government assistance programs) act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Y2K 
State and Local Government Assistance Programs (GAP) Act of 1999.'' I 
am pleased to have Senators Robert F. Bennett (R-UT) and Christopher J. 
Dodd (D-CT), the Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the 
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, as original 
cosponsors of this legislation. This bill provides a matching grant for 
states to work on the millennium computer problem. While the Federal 
government and large corporations are expected to have their computers 
intact on January 1, 2000, state governments lag behind in fixing the 
problem. Failure of state computers could have a devastating effect on 
those individuals who rely on essential state-administered poverty 
programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and child welfare and support. 
These individuals cannot go a day, a week, or a month without these 
programs working properly. I am hopeful that the bill Senators Bennett, 
Dodd, and I are introducing today will help states fix their computers, 
particularly those computers used to administer Federal welfare 
programs.
  It has been almost three years since I asked the Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) to study and produce a report on the 
implications of the Y2K problem. CRS issued the report to me with the 
following comments: ``The Year 2000 problem is indeed serious, and 
fixing it will be costly and time-consuming. The problem deserves the 
careful and coordinated attention of the Federal government, as well as 
the private sector, in order to avert major disruptions on January 1, 
2000.'' I wrote the President on July 31, 1996 to relay the findings of 
CRS and make him aware of this grave problem. In the letter, I warned 
the president of the ``extreme negative economic consequences of the 
Y2K Time Bomb,'' and suggested that ``a presidential aide be appointed 
to take responsibility for assuring that all Federal agencies, 
including the military, be Y2K compliant by January 1, 1999 [leaving a 
year for `testing'] and that all commercial and industrial firms doing 
business with the Federal government must also be compliant by that 
date.''
  Since that time, the government has taken some of the necessary steps 
to combat the millennium bug. The President created the Year 2000 
Conversion Council and appointed John Koskinen to head it. The Senate, 
under the leadership of Chairman Bennett and Vice Chairman Dodd, 
established the Special Committee on the Y2K problem. And 
Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA) continues to due an excellent job in 
keeping the government focused on the issue. Thanks in part to the work 
of these individuals, we have made tremendous progress on the 
millennium bug. Y2K experts have become optimistic enough to dismiss 
doomsday predictions of widespread power outages, telephone failures, 
and grounded jetliners in the U.S. Businesses and Federal agencies that 
were lagging in their repair work last year have redoubled their 
efforts in recent months; telephone and electric networks, which are 
crucial to the operation of almost all large computer systems, are in 
better-than-expected shape; and technicians have found remarkably few 
date-related problems with the electronic circuitry in a host of other 
``day-to-day'' devices, from subway cars to elevators.

  Mr. Koskinen predicts that the bug's impact will be similar to a 
powerful winter storm--minor inconveniences for many people and severe, 
but short-term, disruptions for some communities. I agree with Mr. 
Koskinen and other Y2K experts. I do not expect the four horsemen, 
armed with flood and catastrophe, to be riding in on January 1, 2000. 
But experts agree that state governments are not making sufficient 
progress in fixing the problem. It is for this reason that Senators 
Bennett, Dodd, and I are introducing this bill today.
  The ``Y2K State and Local GAP Act of 1999'' provides funding for 
states to address the Y2K problem. The bill stipulates that certain 
Federal poverty programs--Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),

[[Page S605]]

food stamps, child support enforcement, child care, and child welfare 
programs--be listed as priority programs. The people dependent on these 
programs will be the most adversely affected by the problem if state 
computers crash. To be eligible for Federal support money, states must 
submit a plan describing their Y2K development and implementation 
program. A state that is awarded a grant under this legislation is 
required to expend $1 for every $2 provided by the Federal government. 
The matching requirement will give states and local governments 
incentive to work on their computers. And the numbers indicate that 
states need a great amount of incentive and help on this issue.
  According to a National Association of State Information Resource 
Executives survey, some states have not yet completed work on any of 
their critical systems, and those systems responsible for administering 
poverty programs are a real concern. A November 1998 General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report found that most of the systems used to administer 
poverty programs are not ready for the new millennium--84 percent of 
Medicaid systems, 76 percent of food stamps, and 75 percent of TANF 
systems were not compliant. Since these programs are administered at 
the state and local level, it is these computers which ensure that 
benefit payments are on time and accurate. Given the lack of means of 
those assisted by the programs, the possible disruption of benefit 
payments should be a cause for concern--a billion dollars in benefits 
payments might not be delivered because of the millennial malady.
  Historically the fin de siecle has caused quite a stir. Prophets, 
prelates, monks, mathematicians, and soothsayers warn Anno Domini 2000 
will draw the world to its catastrophic conclusion. I am confident that 
the Y2K problem will not play a part in this. But we must continue to 
work on this problem with purpose and dedication. Disraeli wrote: ``Man 
is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures 
of men.'' We created the Y2K problem and we must fix it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Y2K State and Local 
Government Assistance Programs Act of 1999 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 174

       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 ``Y2K State and Local GAP 
     (Government Assistance Programs) Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Welfare programs.--The welfare programs are as follows:
       (A) TANF.--The State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       (B) Medicaid.--The program of medical assistance under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et 
     seq.).
       (C) Food stamps.--The food stamp program, as defined in 
     section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(h)).
       (D) WIC.--The program of assistance under the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and 
     children (WIC) under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
     1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).
       (E) Child support enforcement.--The child support and 
     paternity establishment program established under part D of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
       (F) Child welfare.--A child welfare program or a program 
     designed to promote safe and stable families established 
     under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.).
       (G) Child care.--The Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) (including funding 
     provided under section 418 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 618)).
       (2) Y2K.--The term ``Y2K compliant'' means, with respect to 
     information technology, that the information technology 
     accurately processes (including calculating, comparing, and 
     sequencing) date and time data from, into, and between the 
     20th and 21st centuries and the years 1999 and 2000, and leap 
     year calculations, to the extent that other information 
     technology properly exchanges date and time data with it.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO STATES TO MAKE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
                   PROGRAMS Y2K COMPLIANT.

       (a) Authority To Award Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall award grants in accordance with this section 
     to States for purposes of making grants to assist the States 
     and local governments in making programs administered by the 
     States and local governments Y2K compliant. The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall give priority to grant requests that relate to 
     making Federal welfare programs Y2K compliant.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) Number of grants.--No more than 75 grants may be 
     awarded under this section.
       (B) Per state limitation.--Not more than 2 grants 
     authorized under this section may be awarded per State.
       (C) Application deadline.--45 days after enactment.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--A State, through the State Governor's 
     Office, may submit an application for a grant authorized 
     under this section at such time within the constraints of 
     paragraph Sec. 3(a)(2)(C) and in such manner as the Secretary 
     of Commerce may determine.
       (2) Information required.--An application for a grant 
     authorized under this section shall contain the following:
       (A) A description of a proposed plan for the development 
     and implementation of a Y2K compliance program for the 
     State's programs or for a local government program, including 
     a proposed budget for the plan and a request for a specific 
     funding amount.
       (B) A description or identification of a proposed funding 
     source for completion of the plan (if applicable) and 
     maintenance of the system after the conclusion of the period 
     for which the grant is to be awarded.
       (c) Conditions for Approval of Applications.--
       (1) Matching requirement.--
       (A) In general.--A State awarded a grant under this section 
     shall expend $1 for every $2 awarded under the grant to carry 
     out the development and implementation of a Y2K compliance 
     program for the State's programs under the proposed plan.
       (B) Waiver for hardship.--The Secretary of Commerce may 
     waive or modify the matching requirement described in 
     subparagraph (A) in the case of any State that the Secretary 
     of Commerce determines would suffer undue hardship as a 
     result of being subject to the requirement.
       (C) Non-federal expenditures.--
       (i) Cash or in kind.--State expenditures required under 
     subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including equipment, or services.
       (ii) No credit for pre-award expenditures.--Only State 
     expenditures made after a grant has been awarded under this 
     section may be counted for purposes of determining whether 
     the State has satisfied the matching expenditure requirement 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Considerations.--In evaluating an application for a 
     grant under this section the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     consider the extent to which the proposed system is feasible 
     and likely to achieve the purposes described in subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (d) Length of Awards.--No grant may be awarded under this 
     section for a period of more than 2 years.
       (e) Availability of Funds.--Funds provided to a State under 
     a grant awarded under this section shall remain available 
     until expended without fiscal year limitation.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Annual report from grantees.--Each State that is 
     awarded a grant under this section shall submit an annual 
     report to the Secretary of Commerce that contains a 
     description of the ongoing results of the independent 
     evaluation of the plan for, and implementation of, the 
     compliance program funded under the grant.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     termination of all grants awarded under this section, the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress a final report 
     evaluating the programs funded under such grants.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $40,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 1999 to 2001 funded from the Y2K Emergency 
     Supplemental Funds appropriated in the FY99 Omnibus Act, 
     Public Law 105-277.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 175. A bill to repeal the habeas corpus requirement that a Federal 
court defer to State court judgments and uphold a conviction regardless 
of whether the Federal court believes that the State court erroneously 
interpreted constitutional law, except in cases where the Federal court 
believes that the State court acted in an unreasonable manner; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       habeas corpus legislation

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce this bill to repeal an 
unprecedented provision--unprecedented until the 104th Congress--to 
tamper with the constitutional protection of habeas corpus.
  The provision reads:

       (d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 
     person in custody pursuant to the judgment of State court 
     shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was 
     adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless 
     the adjudication of the claim--
       (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 
     involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 
     Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 
     States; or
       (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 
     unreasonable determination of the facts

[[Page S606]]

     in light of the evidence presented in the State court 
     proceeding.

  In 1996 we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional 
protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated, 
an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we introduced a 
virus that will surely spread throughout our system of laws.
  Article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution stipulates, ``The 
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless 
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require 
it.''
  We are mightily and properly concerned about the public safety, which 
is why we enacted the counter-terrorism bill. But we have not been 
invaded, Mr. President, and the only rebellion at hand appears to be 
against the Constitution itself. We are dealing here, sir, with a 
fundamental provision of law, one of those essential civil liberties 
which precede and are the basis of political liberties.
  The writ of habeas corpus is often referred to as the ``Great Writ of 
Liberty.'' William Blackstone (1723-80) called it ``the most celebrated 
writ in English law, and the great and efficacious writ in all manner 
of illegal imprisonment.''
  I repeat what I have said previously here on the Senate floor: If I 
had to choose between living in a country with habeas corpus but 
without free elections, or a country with free elections but without 
habeas corpus, I would choose habeas corpus every time. To say again, 
this is one of the fundamental civil liberties on which every 
democratic society of the world has built political liberties that have 
come subsequently.
  I make the point that the abuse of habeas corpus--appeals of capital 
sentences--is hugely overstated. A 1995 study by the Department of 
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics determined that habeas corpus 
appeals by death row inmates constitute 1 percent of all Federal habeas 
filings. Total habeas filings make up 4 percent of the caseload of 
Federal district courts. And most Federal habeas petitions are disposed 
of in less than 1 year. The serious delays occur in State courts, which 
take an average of 5 years to dispose of habeas petitions. If there is 
delay, the delay is with the State courts.
  It is troubling that Congress has undertaken to tamper with the Great 
Writ in a bill designed to respond to the tragic circumstances of the 
Oklahoma City bombing 1995. Habeas corpus has little to do with 
terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing was a Federal crime and has been 
tried in Federal courts.
  Nothing in our present circumstance requires the suspension of habeas 
corpus, which was the practical effect of the provision in that bill. 
To require a Federal court to defer to a State court's judgment unless 
the State court's decision is ``unreasonably wrong'' effectively 
precludes Federal review. I find this disorienting.
  Anthony Lewis has written of the habeas provision in that bill: ``It 
is a new and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a 
constitutional decision is not to be noticed.'' We have agreed to this; 
to what will we be agreeing next? I restate Mr. Lewis' observation, a 
person of great experience, long a student of the courts, ``It is a new 
and remarkable concept in law: that mere wrongness in a constitutional 
decision is not to be noticed.'' Backward reels the mind.
  On December 8, 1995, four former U.S. Attorneys General, two 
Republicans and two Democrats, all persons with whom I have the honor 
to be acquainted, Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr., Edward H. Levi, Nicholas 
Katzenbach, and Elliot Richardson--I served in administrations with Mr. 
Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Richardson; I have the deepest regard for 
them--wrote President Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 December 8, 1995.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The habeas corpus provisions in the 
     Senate terrorism bill, which the House will soon take up, are 
     unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to 
     expedite the death penalty review process, the litigation 
     and constitutional rulings will in fact delay and 
     frustrate the imposition of the death penalty. We strongly 
     urge you to communicate to the Congress your resolve and 
     your duty under the constitution, to prevent the enactment 
     of such unconstitutional legislation and the consequent 
     disruption of so critical of part of our criminal 
     punishment system.
       The constitutional infirmities reside in three provisions 
     of the legislation: one requiring federal courts to defer to 
     erroneous state court rulings on federal constitutional 
     matters, one imposing time limits which could operate to 
     completely bar any federal habeas corpus review at all, and 
     one prevent the federal courts from hearing the evidence 
     necessary to decide federal courts from hearing the evidence 
     necessary to decide a federal constitutional question. They 
     violate the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial 
     powers of Article III, and due process. None of these 
     provisions appeared in the bill that you and Senator Biden 
     worked out in the last Congress together with representatives 
     of prosecutors' organizations.
       The deference requirement would bar any federal court from 
     granting habeas corpus relief where a state court has 
     misapplied the United States Constitution, unless the 
     constitutional error rose to a level of ``unreasonableness.'' 
     The time-limits provisions set a single period of the filing 
     of both state and federal post-conviction petitions (six 
     months in a capital case and one year in other cases), 
     commencing with the date a state conviction become final on 
     direct review. Under these provisions, the entire period 
     could be consumed in the state process, through no fault of 
     the prisoner or counsel, thus creating an absolute bar to the 
     filing of federal habeas corpus petition. Indeed, the period 
     could be consumed before counsel had even been appointed in 
     the state process, so that the inmate would have no notice of 
     the time limit or the fatal consequences of consuming all of 
     it before filing a state petition.
       Both of these provisions, by flatly barring federal habeas 
     corpus review under certain circumstances, violate the 
     Constitution's Suspension Clause, which provides: ``The 
     privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be 
     suspended, unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion 
     the public safety may require it'' (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1). 
     Any doubt as to whether this guarantee applies to persons 
     held in state as well as federal custody was removed by the 
     passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the amendment's 
     framers' frequent mention of habeas corpus as one of the 
     privileges and immunities so protected.
       The preclusion of access to habeas corpus also violates Due 
     Process. A measure is subject to proscription under the due 
     process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so 
     rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to 
     be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical 
     practice.'' Medina v. California, 112 S. Ct. 2572, 2577 
     (1992). Independent federal court review of the 
     constitutionality of state criminal judgments has existed 
     since the founding of the Nation, first by writ of error, and 
     since 1867 by writ of habeas corpus. Nothing else is more 
     deeply rooted in America's legal traditions and conscience. 
     There is no case in which ``a state court's incorrect legal 
     determination has ever been allowed to stand because it was 
     reasonable,'' Justice O'Connor found in Wright v. West, 112 
     S. Ct. 2482, 2497; ``We have always held that federal courts, 
     even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what 
     the law is.'' Indeed, Alexander Hamilton argued, in The 
     Federalist No. 84, that the existence of just two 
     protections--habeas corpus and the prohibition against ex 
     post facto laws--obviated the need to add a Bill of Rights to 
     the Constitution.
       The deference requirement may also violate the powers 
     granted to the judiciary under Article III. By stripping the 
     federal courts of authority to exercise independent judgment 
     and forcing them to defer to previous judgments made by state 
     courts, the provision runs afoul of the oldest constitutional 
     mission of the federal courts: ``the duty . . . to say want 
     the law is.'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 
     (1803). Although Congress is free to alter the federal 
     courts' jurisdiction, it cannot order them how to interpret 
     the Constitution, or dictate any outcome in the merits. 
     United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871). In 
     1996, the Supreme Court reiterated that Congress has no power 
     to assign ``rubber stamp work'' to an Article III court, 
     ``Congress may be free to establish a . . . scheme that 
     operates without court participation,'' the Court said, ``but 
     that is a matter quite different from instructing a court 
     automatically to enter a judgment pursuant to a decision the 
     court has not authority to evaluate.'' Gutierrez de Martinez 
     v. Lamagno, 115 S. Ct 2227, 2234.
       Finally, in prohibiting evidentiary hearings where the 
     constitutional issue raised does not go to guilt or 
     innocence, the legislation again violates Due Process. A 
     violation of constitutional rights cannot be judged in a 
     vacuum. The determination of the facts assumes ``and 
     importance fully as great as the validity of the substantive 
     rule of law to be applied.'' Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 
     474 (1974).
       Prior to 1996, the last time habeas corpus legislation was 
     debated at length in constitutional terms was in 1968. A bill 
     substantially eliminating federal habeas corpus review for 
     state prisoners was defeated because, as Republican Senator 
     Hugh Scott put it at the end of debate, ``if Congress tampers 
     with the great writ, its action would have about as much 
     chance of being held constitutional as the celebrated 
     celluloid dog chasing the asbestos cat through hell.''

[[Page S607]]

       In more recent years, the habeas reform debate has been 
     viewed as a mere adjunct of the debate over the death 
     penalty. But when the Senate took up the terrorism bill this 
     year, Senator Moynihan sought to reconnect with the large 
     framework of constitutional liberties: ``If I had to live in 
     a country which had habeas corpus but not free elections,'' 
     he said, ``I would take habeas corpus every time,'' Senator 
     Chafee noted that his uncle, a Harvard law scholar, has 
     called habeas corpus ``the most important human rights 
     provision in the Constitution,'' With the debate back on 
     constitutional grounds, Senator Biden's amendment to delete 
     the deference requirement nearly passed, with 46 votes.
       We respectfully ask that you insist, first and foremost, on 
     the preservation of independent federal review, i.e., on the 
     rejection of any requirement that federal courts defer to 
     state court judgments on federal constitutional questions. We 
     also urge that separate time limits be set for filing federal 
     and state habeas corpus petitions--a modest change which need 
     not interfere with the setting of strict time limits--and 
     that they begin to run only upon the appointment of competent 
     counsel. And we urge that evidentiary hearings be permitted 
     wherever the factual record is deficient on an important 
     constitutional issue. Congress can either fix the 
     constitutional flaws now, or wait through several years of 
     litigation and confusion before being sent back to the 
     drawing board. Ultimately, it is the public's interest in the 
     prompt and fair disposition of criminal cases which will 
     suffer. The passage of an unconstitutional bill helps no one.
       We respectfully urge you, as both President and a former 
     professor of constitutional law, to call upon Congress to 
     remedy these flaws before sending the terrorism bill to your 
     desk. We request an opportunity to meet with you personally 
     to discuss this matter so vital to the future of the Republic 
     and the liberties we all hold dear.
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin R. Civiletti, Jr.,
       Baltimore, MD.
     Edward H. Levi,
       Chicago, IL.
     Nicholas deB. Katzenback,
       Princeton, NJ.
     Elliot L. Richardson,
       Washington, DC.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Let me read excerpts from the letter:

       The habeas corpus provisions in the Senate bill * * * are 
     unconstitutional. Though intended in large part to expedite 
     the death penalty review process, the litigation and 
     constitutional rulings will in fact delay and frustrate the 
     imposition of the death penalty * * *
       The constitutional infirmities * * * violate the Habeas 
     Corpus Suspension Clause, the judicial powers of Article III, 
     and due process * * *.
       * * * A measure is subject to proscription under the due 
     process clause if it ``offends some principle of justice so 
     rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to 
     be ranked as fundamental,'' as viewed by ``historical 
     practice.''

  That language is Medina versus California, a 1992 decision. To 
continue,

       Independent federal court review of the constitutionality 
     of state criminal judgments has existed since the founding of 
     the Nation, first by writ of error, and since 1867 by writ of 
     habeas corpus.
       Nothing else is more deeply rooted in America's legal 
     traditions and conscience. There is no clause in which ``a 
     state court's incorrect legal determination has ever been 
     allowed to stand because it was reasonable.''

  That is Justice O'Connor, in Wright versus West. She goes on, as the 
attorneys general quote. ``We have always held that federal courts, 
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law 
is.''
  If I may interpolate, she is repeating the famous injunction of 
Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison. The attorneys general go on 
to say,

       Indeed Alexander Hamilton argued, in The Federalist No. 84, 
     that the existence of just two protections--habeas corpus and 
     the prohibition against ex post facto laws--obviated the need 
     to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

  The letter from the Attorneys General continues, but that is the gist 
of it. I might point out that there was, originally, an objection to 
ratification of the Constitution, with those objecting arguing that 
there had to be a Bill of Rights added. Madison wisely added one during 
the first session of the first Congress. But he and Hamilton and Jay, 
as authors of The ``Federalist Papers,'' argued that with habeas corpus 
and the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the Constitution, 
there would be no need even for a Bill of Rights. We are glad that, in 
the end, we do have one. But their case was surely strong, and it was 
so felt by the framers.
  To cite Justice O'Connor again: ``A state court's incorrect legal 
determination has never been allowed to stand because it was 
reasonable.''
  Justice O'Connor went on: ``We have always held that Federal courts, 
even on habeas, have an independent obligation to say what the law 
is.''
  Mr. President, we can fix this now. Or, as the Attorneys General 
state, we can ``wait through several years of litigation and confusion 
before being sent back to the drawing board.'' I fear that we will not 
fix it now.
  We Americans think of ourselves as a new nation. We are not. Of the 
countries that existed in 1914, there are only eight which have not had 
their form of government changed by violence since then. Only the 
United Kingdom goes back to 1787 when the delegates who drafted our 
Constitution established this Nation, which continues to exist. In 
those other nations, sir, a compelling struggle took place, from the 
middle of the 18th century until the middle of the 19th century, and 
beyond into the 20th, and even to the end of the 20th in some 
countries, to establish those basic civil liberties which are the 
foundation of political liberties and, or those, none is so precious as 
habeas corpus, the ``Great Writ.''
  Here we are trivializing this treasure, putting in jeopardy a 
tradition of protection of individual rights by Federal courts that 
goes back to our earliest foundation. And the virus will spread. Why 
are we in such a rush to amend our Constitution? Why do we tamper with 
provisions as profound to our traditions and liberty as habeas corpus? 
The Federal courts do not complain. It may be that because we have 
enacted this, there will be some prisoners who are executed sooner than 
they otherwise would have been. You may take satisfaction in that or 
not, as you choose, but we have begun to weaken a tenet of justice at 
the very base of our liberties. The virus will spread.
  This is new. It is profoundly disturbing. It is terribly dangerous. 
If I may have the presumption to join in the judgment of four Attorneys 
General, Mr. Civiletti, Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Richardson--
and I repeat that I have served in administrations with three of them--
this matter is unconstitutional and should be repealed from law.
  Seventeen years ago, June 6, 1982, to be precise, I gave the 
commencement address at St. John University Law School in Brooklyn. I 
spoke of the proliferation of court-curbing bills at that time. I 
remarked:

       * * * some people--indeed, a great many people--have 
     decided that they do not agree with the Supreme Court and 
     that they are not satisfied to Debate, Legislate, Litigate.
       They have embarked upon an altogether new and I believe 
     quite dangerous course of action. A new triumvirate hierarchy 
     has emerged. Convene (meaning the calling of a constitutional 
     convention), Overrule (the passage of legislation designed to 
     overrule a particular Court ruling, when the Court's ruling 
     was based on an interpretation of the Constitution), and 
     Restrict (to restrict the jurisdiction of certain courts to 
     decide particular kinds of cases).
       Perhaps the most pernicious of these is the attempt to 
     restrict courts' jurisdictions, for it is * * * profoundly at 
     odds with our Nation's customs and political philosophy.
       It is a commonplace that our democracy is characterized by 
     majority rule and minority rights. Our Constitution vests 
     majority rule in the Congress and the President while the 
     courts protect the rights of the minority.
       While the legislature makes the laws, and the executive 
     enforces them, it is the courts that tell us what the laws 
     say and whether they conform to the Constitution.
       This notion of judicial review has been part of our 
     heritage for nearly two hundred years. There is not a more 
     famous case in American jurisprudence than Marbury v. Madison 
     and few more famous dicta than Chief Justice Marshall's that 
     ``It is emphatically the province and the duty of the 
     judicial department to say what the law is.''
       But in order for the court to interpret the law, it must 
     decide cases. If it cannot hear certain cases, then it cannot 
     protect certain rights.

  We need to deal resolutely with terrorism. And we have. But under the 
guise of combating terrorism, we have diminished the fundamental civil 
liberties that Americans have enjoyed for two centuries; therefore the 
terrorists will have won.
  My bill will repeal this dreadful, unconstitutional provision now in 
public law. I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled ``First 
in Damage to Constitutional Liberties,'' by Nat Hentoff from the 
Washington Post of November 16, 1996; and the article entitled 
``Clinton's Sorriest Record'' from the New York Times of October 14, 
1996; be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S608]]

             [From the Washington Post, November 16, 1996]

              First in Damage to Constitutional Liberties

                            (By Nat Hentoff)

       There have been American presidents to whom the 
     Constitution has been a nuisance to be overruled by any means 
     necessary. In 1798, only seven years after the Bill of Rights 
     was ratified, John Adams triumphantly led Congress in the 
     passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which imprisoned a 
     number of journalists and others for bringing the president 
     or Congress into ``contempt or disrepute.'' So much for the 
     First Amendment.
       During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln actually suspended 
     the writ of habeas corpus. Alleged constitutional guarantees 
     of peaceful dissent were swept away during the First World 
     War--with the approval of Woodrow Wilson. For example, there 
     were more than 1,900 prosecutions for anti-war books, 
     newspaper articles, pamphlets and speeches. And Richard Nixon 
     seemed to regard the Bill of Rights as primarily a devilish 
     source of aid to his enemy.
       No American president, however, has done so much damage to 
     constitutional liberties as Bill Clinton--often with the 
     consent of Republicans in Congress. But it has been Clinton 
     who had the power and the will to seriously weaken our 
     binding document in ways that were almost entirely ignored by 
     the electorate and the press during the campaign.
       Unlike Lincoln, for example, Clinton did a lot more than 
     temporarily suspend habeas corpus. One of his bills that has 
     been enacted into law guts the rights that Thomas Jefferson 
     insisted be included in the Constitution. A state prisoner on 
     death row now has only a year to petition a federal court to 
     review the constitutionality of his trial or sentence. In 
     many previous cases of prisoners eventually freed after years 
     of waiting to be executed, proof of their innocence has been 
     discovered long after the present one year limit.
       Moreover, the Clinton administration is--as the ACLU's 
     Laura Murphy recently told the National Law Journal--``the 
     most wire-tap-friendly administration in history.''
       And Clinton ordered the Justice Department to appeal a 
     unanimous 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision declaring 
     unconstitutional the Communications Decency Act censoring the 
     Internet, which he signed into law.
       There is a chilling insouciance in Clinton's elbowing the 
     Constitution out of the way. He blithely, for instance, has 
     stripped the courts of their power to hear certain kinds of 
     cases. As Anthony Lewis points out in the New York Times, 
     Clinton has denied many people their day in court.
       For one example, says Lewis. ``The new immigration law * * 
     * takes away the rights of thousands of aliens who may be 
     entitled to legalize their situation under a 1986 statute 
     giving amnesty to illegal aliens.'' Cases involving as many 
     as 300,000 people who may still qualify for amnesty have been 
     waiting to be decided. All have now been thrown out of court 
     by the new immigration law.
       There have been other Clinton revisions of the 
     Constitution, but in sum--as David Boaz of the Cato Institute 
     has accurately put it--Clinton has shown ``a breathtaking 
     view of the power of the Federal government, a view directly 
     opposite the meaning of `civil libertarian.' ''
       During the campaign there was no mention at all of this 
     breathtaking exercise of federal power over constitutional 
     liberties. None by former senator Bob Dole who has largely 
     been in agreement with this big government approach to 
     constitutional ``guarantees.'' Nor did the press ask the 
     candidates about the Constitution.
       Laura Murphy concludes that ``both Clinton and Dole are 
     indicative of how far the American people have slipped away 
     from the notions embodied in the Bill of Rights.'' She 
     omitted the role of the press, which seems focused primarily 
     on that part of the First Amendment that protects the press.
       Particularly revealing were the endorsements of Clinton by 
     the New York Times, The Washington Post and the New Republic, 
     among others. In none of them was the president's civil 
     liberties record probed. (The Post did mention the FBI files 
     at the White House.) Other ethical problems were cited, but 
     nothing was mentioned about habeas corpus, court-stripping, 
     lowering the content of the Internet to material suitable for 
     children and the Clinton administration's decided lack of 
     concern for privacy protections of the individual against 
     increasingly advanced government technology.
       A revealing footnote to the electorate's ignorance of this 
     subverting of the Constitution is a statement by N. Don 
     Wycliff, editorial page editor of the Chicago Tribune. He 
     tells Newsweek that ``people are not engaged in the 
     [political] process because there are no compelling issues 
     driving them to participate. It would be different if we 
     didn't have peace and prosperity.''
       What more could we possibly want?
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 14, 1996]

               Abroad at Home; Clinton's Sorriest Record

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Bill Clinton has not been called to account in this 
     campaign for the worst aspect of his Presidency. That is his 
     appalling record on constitutional rights.
       The Clinton years have seen, among other things, a series 
     of measures stripping the courts of their power to protect 
     individuals from official abuse--the power that has been the 
     key to American freedom. There has been nothing like it since 
     the Radical Republicans, after the Civil War, acted to keep 
     the courts from holding the occupation of the South to 
     constitutional standards.
       The Republican Congress of the last two years initiated 
     some of the attacks on the courts. But President Clinton did 
     not resist them as other Presidents have. And he proposed 
     some of the measures trampling on constitutional protections.
       Much of the worst has happened this year. President Clinton 
     sponsored a counterterrorism bill that became law with a 
     number of repressive features in it. One had nothing to do 
     with terrorism: a provision gutting the power of Federal 
     courts to examine state criminal convictions, on writs of 
     habeas corpus, to make sure there was no violation of 
     constitutional rights.
       The Senate might well have moderated the habeas corpus 
     provision if the President had put up a fight. But he broke a 
     promise and gave way.
       The counterterrorism law also allows the Government to 
     deport a legally admitted alien, on the ground that he is 
     suspected of a connection to terrorism, without letting him 
     see or challenge the evidence. And it goes back to the 
     McCarthy period by letting the Government designate 
     organizations as ``terrorist''--a designation that could have 
     included Nelson Mandela's African National Congress before 
     apartheid gave way to democracy in South Africa.
       The immigration bill just passed by Congress has many 
     sections prohibiting review by the courts of decisions by the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Attorney 
     General. Some of those provisions have drastic retroactive 
     consequences.
       For example, Congress in 1986 passed an amnesty bill that 
     allowed many undocumented aliens to legalize their presence 
     in this country. They had to file by a certain date, but a 
     large number said they failed to do so because improper 
     I.N.S. regulations discouraged them.
       The Supreme Court held that those who could show they were 
     entitled to amnesty but were put off by the I.N.S. rules 
     could file late. Lawsuits involving thousands of people are 
     pending. But the new immigration law throws all those cases--
     and individuals--out of court.
       Another case, in the courts for years, stems from an 
     attempt to deport a group of Palestinians. Their lawyer sued 
     to block the deportation action; a Federal district judge, 
     Stephen V. Wilson, a Reagan appointee, found that it was an 
     unlawful selective proceeding against people for exercising 
     their constitutional right of free speech. The new 
     immigration law says the courts may not hear such cases.
       The immigration law protects the I.N.S. from judicial 
     scrutiny in a broader way. Over the years the courts have 
     barred the service from deliberately discriminatory policies, 
     for example the practice of disallowing virtually all asylum 
     claims by people fleeing persecution in certain countries. 
     The law bars all lawsuits of that kind.
       Those are just a few examples of recent incursions on due 
     process of law and other constitutional guarantees. A 
     compelling piece by John Heilemann in this month's issue of 
     Wired, the magazine on the social consequences of the 
     computer revolution, concludes that Mr. Clinton's record on 
     individual rights is ``breathtaking in its awfulness.'' He 
     may be, Mr. Heilemann says, ``the worst civil liberties 
     President since Richard Nixon.'' And even President Nixon did 
     not leave a legacy of court-stripping statutes.
       It is by no means clear that Bob Dole would do better. He 
     supported some of the worst legislation in the Senate, as the 
     Gingrich Republicans did in the House
       Why? The Soviet threat, which used to be the excuse for 
     shoving the Constitution aside, is gone. Even in the worst 
     days of the Red Scare we did not strip the courts of their 
     protective power. Why are we legislating in panic now? Why, 
     especially, is a lawyer President indifferent to 
     constitutional rights and their protection by the courts?

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. 175

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A FEDERAL COURT 
                   DEFER TO A STATE COURT UNLESS THE STATE COURT 
                   ACTED IN AN UNREASONABLE MANNER IN HABEAS 
                   CORPUS CASES.

       (a) Repeal.--Subsection (d) of section 2254 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2264(b) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``, (d),''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 176. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a 
study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the history of 
the Harlem Reniassance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S609]]

                  harlem renaissance cultural zone act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
establish a cultural zone commemorating the Harlem Renaissance, one of 
this country's greatest cultural, literary, and musical movements. 
Pioneered by W.E.B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and James Weldon Johnson, the 
Harlem Renaissance was at the forefront of this country's intellectual, 
literary, and artistic development in the 1920s. Langston Hughes, Zora 
Neale Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean Toomer, and Wallace 
Thurman were among this movement's most gifted writers. The Harlem 
Renaissance also included the music of Duke Ellington, the theatrical 
productions of Eubie Blake and Noble Sissle, and the rich nightlife of 
the Cotton Club, the Savoy, and Connie's Inn.
  This bill empowers the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
National Park Service, to conduct a study to determine how best to 
memorialize this great movement and to preserve and maintain its rich 
history. Working and cooperating with the appropriate state and local 
authorities, I am confident that we can properly recognize and preserve 
one of this country's foremost cultural, literary, and historical 
periods.
  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. 176

       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 ``Harlem Renaissance Cultural 
     Zone Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Harlem Renaissance was the dominant intellectual, 
     literary, and artistic expression of the New Negro Movement 
     of the 1920's;
       (2) W.E.B. DuBois, James Weldon Johnson, and Alain Locke 
     planted the seeds of the New Negro Movement, while Langston 
     Hughes, Zora Neal Hurston, Claude McKay, Countee Cullen, Jean 
     Toomer, and Wallace Thurman were among the Movement's most 
     gifted writers; and
       (3) the Harlem Renaissance also included the music of Duke 
     Ellington, the theatrical productions of Eubie Blake, and the 
     nightlife of the Cotton Club and the Alhamba theaters.

     SEC. 3. STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CULTURAL ZONE TO 
                   COMMEMORATE AND INTERPRET HISTORY OF THE HARLEM 
                   RENAISSANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the National Park Service, shall 
     conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and 
     interpreting the history of the Harlem Renaissance.
       (b) Matters To Be Considered.--The study under subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) consideration of the establishment of a new unit of the 
     National Park System;
       (2) consideration of the establishment of various 
     appropriate designations for sites relating to the history of 
     the Harlem Renaissance; and
       (3) recommendations for cooperative arrangements with State 
     and local governments, historical organizations, and other 
     entities.
       (c) Study Process.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct the study with public involvement and in 
     consultation with State and local officials, scholarly and 
     other interested organizations, and individuals;
       (2) complete the study as expeditiously as practicable 
     after the date on which funds are made available; and
       (3) on completion of the study, submit to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     findings and recommendations of the study.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 177. A bill for the relief of Donald C. Pence; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.


                       private relief legislation

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief 
bill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Sanford, North Carolina, for 
compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now 
deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a federal agency 
admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs has 
admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment 
under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provision 
to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the 
time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice and I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  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. 177

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

     SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DONALD C. PENCE.

       (a) Relief.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
     Donald C. Pence, of Sanford, North Carolina, the sum of 
     $31,128 in compensation for the failure of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity compensation 
     to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of Donald C. 
     Pence, for the period beginning on July 1, 1990, and ending 
     on March 31, 1993.
       (b) Limitation on Fees.--Not more than a total of 10 
     percent of the payment authorized by subsection (a) shall be 
     paid to or received by agents or attorneys for services 
     rendered in connection with obtaining such payment, any 
     contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who 
     violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $1,000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 178. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


              national center for social work research act

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National 
Center for Social Work Research.
  Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services 
throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons 
suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.
  The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information 
with respect to basic and clinical social work research, training, and 
other programs in patient care, with emphasis on service to underserved 
and rural populations.
  Social work research has grown in size and scope since the 1980's. In 
1998, the National Institutes of Mental Health led the way with $17 
million in funding for 61 social work research grants. Dr. Pat Ewalt, 
Dean of the Department of Social Work at the University of Hawaii, is 
one of the foremost leaders in the field of social work research and 
has worked diligently to gain recognition of the many important 
contributions of social work to mental and behavioral health care 
delivery.
  While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work 
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other 
Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of 
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and 
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of 
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral 
and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, 
and elderly, and others.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we 
must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers 
to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social 
Work can provide in facilitating this process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed on the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 178

       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 ``National Center for Social 
     Work Research Act''.

     SEC. 2 ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL WORK 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Section 401(b)(2) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(F) The National Center for Social Work Research.''.
       (b) Establishment.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287

[[Page S610]]

     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

         ``Subpart 5--National Center for Social Work Research

     ``SEC. 485G. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

       ``The general purpose of the National Center for Social 
     Work Research (referred to in this subpart as the `Center') 
     is the conduct and support of, and dissemination of 
     information with respect to basic, clinical, and services 
     social work research, training, and other programs in patient 
     care, including child and family care.

     ``SEC. 485H. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose described in 
     section 485G, the Director of the Center may provide research 
     training and instruction and establish, in the Center and in 
     other nonprofit institutions, research traineeships and 
     fellowships in the study and investigation of the prevention 
     of disease, health promotion, and the social work care of 
     persons with and families of individuals with acute and 
     chronic illnesses, including child abuse and neglect and 
     child and family care.
       ``(b) Stipends and Allowances.--The Director of the Center 
     may provide individuals receiving training and instruction or 
     traineeships or fellowships under subsection (a) with such 
     stipends and allowances (including amounts for travel and 
     subsistence and dependency allowances) as the Director 
     determines necessary.
       ``(c) Grants.--The Director of the Center may make grants 
     to nonprofit institutions to provide training and instruction 
     and traineeships and fellowships under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 485I. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     advisory council for the Center that shall advise, assist, 
     consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and 
     the Director of the Center on matters related to the 
     activities carried out by and through the Center and the 
     policies with respect to such activities.
       ``(2) Gifts.--The advisory council for the Center may 
     recommend to the Secretary the acceptance, in accordance with 
     section 231, of conditional gifts for study, investigations, 
     and research and for the acquisition of grounds or 
     construction, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the 
     Center.
       ``(3) Other duties and functions.--The advisory council for 
     the Center--
       ``(A)(i) may make recommendations to the Director of the 
     Center with respect to research to be conducted by the 
     Center;
       ``(ii) may review applications for grants and cooperative 
     agreements for research or training and recommend for 
     approval applications for projects that demonstrate the 
     probability of making valuable contributions to human 
     knowledge; and
       ``(iii) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement proposed to be made or entered into by the Center;
       ``(B) may collect, by correspondence or by personal 
     investigation, information relating to studies that are being 
     carried out in the United States or any other country as to 
     the diseases, disorders, or other aspects of human health 
     with respect to which the Center is concerned and, with the 
     approval of the Director of the Center, make such information 
     available through appropriate publications for the benefit of 
     public and private health entities and health professions 
     personnel and scientists and for the information of the 
     general public; and
       ``(C) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and 
     conferences.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be composed 
     of the ex officio members described in paragraph (2) and not 
     more than 18 individuals to be appointed by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members of the 
     advisory council shall include--
       ``(A) the Secretary, the Director of NIH, the Director of 
     the Center, the Chief Social Work Officer of the Veterans' 
     Administration, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
     Affairs, the Associate Director of Prevention Research at the 
     National Institute of Mental Health, and the Director of the 
     Division of Epidemiology and Services Research (or the 
     designees of such officers); and
       ``(B) such additional officers or employees of the United 
     States as the Secretary determines necessary for the advisory 
     council to effectively carry out its functions.
       ``(3) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint not 
     to exceed 18 individuals to the advisory council, of which--
       ``(A) not more than two-thirds of such individual shall be 
     appointed from among the leading representatives of the 
     health and scientific disciplines (including public health 
     and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the 
     activities of the Center, and at least 7 such individuals 
     shall be professional social workers who are recognized 
     experts in the area of clinical practice, education, or 
     research; and
       ``(B) not more than one-third of such individuals shall be 
     appointed from the general public and shall include leaders 
     in fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics, 
     and management.

     The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council 
     in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members 
     do not all expire in the same year.
       ``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall not 
     receive any compensation for service on the advisory council. 
     The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including 
     travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the 
     functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate in effect 
     for an individual at grade GS-18 of the General Schedule.
       ``(c) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual 
     appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3) 
     shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to 
     fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the 
     remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of the member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       ``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who 
     has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4 
     years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to 
     the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the prior term expired.
       ``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council 
     among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary 
     shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council 
     shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary 
     may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson 
     of the advisory council. The term of office of the 
     chairperson shall be 2 years.
       ``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the 
     call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director 
     of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year. 
     The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
       ``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the 
     Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to 
     serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The 
     Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory 
     council such staff, information, and other assistance as the 
     council may require to carry out its functions. The Director 
     of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new 
     members of the advisory council to provide such members with 
     such information and training as may be appropriate for their 
     effective participation in the functions of the advisory 
     council.
       ``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council 
     may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under 
     section 485J--
       ``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the 
     advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is 
     prepared;
       ``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its 
     objectives; and
       ``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction 
     and program and policy emphasis of the center.
     The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as 
     it may determine appropriate.

     ``SEC. 485J. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the 
     advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion 
     in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report 
     that shall consist of a description of the activities of the 
     Center and program policies of the Director of the Center in 
     the fiscal years for which the report is prepared. The 
     Director of the Center may prepare such additional reports as 
     the Director determines appropriate. The Director of the 
     Center shall provide the advisory council of the Center an 
     opportunity for the submission of the written comments 
     described in section 485I(g).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 179. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive 
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    Health care training act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Preventive Health Care Training Act of 1999, a bill that responds to 
the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and 
disease prevention programs.
  Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently 
lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 
million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are 
without access to a primary care provider. In areas where providers 
exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geography, 
distance, lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available 
resources. Due to the divesity of rural populations, language and 
cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.
  Compound these problems with limited financial resources and many

[[Page S611]]

Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, 
especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and 
routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly 
and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional 
problems and substance abuse go undetected and often develop into full 
blown disorders.
  An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for 
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research'' 
highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. 
Training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to 
meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health 
care providers face a lack of preventive care training opportunities.
  Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers 
must be encouraged. Through interdisciplinary training rural health 
care providers can build a strong foundation from the behavioral, 
biological and psychological sciences to form the most effective 
preventive care possible. Interdisciplinary team prevention training 
will also facilitate both health and mental health clinics sharing 
single service sites and routine consultation between groups. 
Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their servcies as part of 
the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural 
communities.
  The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 1999 would implement 
the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is 
based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific 
interventions for those risk factors.
  The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places 
a huge financial burden on communities, families and individuals. By 
implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the 
potential psychological and financial savings are onormous.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 179

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Preventive Health Care 
     Training Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended by the Health Professions Education Partnership Act 
     of 1998, is amended by inserting after section 754 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such 
     applicants to provide preventive health care training, in 
     accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners 
     practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent 
     practicable, include training in health care to prevent both 
     physical and mental disorders before the initial occurrence 
     of such disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, the use of 
     interdisciplinary training project applications.
       ``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using 
     assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care 
     practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant 
     involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a 
     rural area.
       ``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant 
     made or contract entered into under this section shall be 
     used--
       ``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending 
     rural community colleges or other institutions that service 
     predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling 
     the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
       ``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges 
     or other institutions that service predominantly rural 
     communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health 
     care training;
       ``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and 
     program evaluation skills in rural communities;
       ``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and 
     curricula with a specific prevention component; and
       ``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 180. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics 
under State Medicare programs; to the Committee on Finance.


                   nursing school clinics act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing 
School Clinics Act of 1999. This measure builds on our concerted 
efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by 
offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary 
care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are 
most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for 
nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education 
by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.
  Nursing school administered primary care clinics are university or 
nonprofit entity primary care centers developed primarily in 
collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities 
they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are 
nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement 
patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of 
nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with 
academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse 
practitioners.
  To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics 
have yielded excellent results including significantly fewer emergency 
room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of 
specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care. The 
LaSalle Neighborhood Nursing Center, for example, reported that in 
1997, fewer than 0.02 percent of the primary care clients reported 
hospitalization for asthma; fewer than 4 percent of expectant mothers 
who enrolled delivered low birth rate infants; and 90 percent of 
infants and young children were immunized on time. In addition, there 
was a 50 percent reduction in emergency room visits and a 97 percent 
overall patient satisfaction rate.
  The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (P.L. 105-33) included a provision that, 
for the first time ever, authorized direct Medicare reimbursement of 
all nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, regardless of 
the setting in which services are performed. This provision built upon 
previous legislation that allowed direct reimbursement to individual 
nurse practitioners for individual services provided in rural health 
clinics throughout America. Medicaid is gradually being reformed to 
incorporate their services more effectively.
  This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery 
in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To 
accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would 
be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing 
school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of 
grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the 
incentives and operational resources to establish the clinics.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective 
and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider and debate 
various proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must 
approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, 
ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always 
been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School 
Clinics Act of 1999 recognizes the central role they can perform as 
care givers to the medically underserved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 180

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

     SECTION 1. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING 
                   SCHOOL CLINICS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (26), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (27) as paragraph (28); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (26), the following:

[[Page S612]]

       ``(27) nursing school clinic services (as defined in 
     subsection (v)) furnished by or under the supervision of a 
     nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined 
     in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse 
     practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the 
     supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other 
     health care provider; and''.
       (b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) The term `nursing school clinic services' means 
     services provided by a health care facility operated by an 
     accredited school of nursing which provides primary care, 
     long-term care, mental health counseling, home health 
     counseling, home health care, or other health care services 
     which are within the scope of practice of a registered 
     nurse.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended in subsection 
     (a)(10)(C)(iv), by inserting ``and (27)'' after ``(24)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     be effective with respect to payments made under a State plan 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et 
     seq.) for calendar quarters commencing with the first 
     calendar quarter beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 181. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
remove the restriction that a professional psychologist or clinical 
social worker provide services in a comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility to a patient only under the care of a 
physician, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


  Autonomous Functioning of Clinical Psychologists and Social Workers 
Under Medicare Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility Program

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and 
clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility program.
  In my judgment, it is truly unfortunate that Medicare requires 
clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health 
professionals and does not allow these health professionals to function 
to the full extent of their state practice licenses. It is especially 
appropriate that those who need the services of outpatient 
rehabilitation facilities have access to a wide range of social and 
behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical 
social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health 
care services through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the 
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the 
Medicare (Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 181

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

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A PROFESSIONAL 
                   PSYCHOLOGIST OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE 
                   SERVICES IN A COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT 
                   REHABILITATION FACILITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER 
                   THE CARE OF A PHYSICIAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon ``(except with respect to 
     services provided by a professional psychologist or a 
     clinical social worker)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 182. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the 
issuance of a prisoner-of-war medal to civilian employees of the 
Federal Government who are forcibly detained or interned by an enemy 
government or a hostile force under wartime conditions; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


establishment of a prisoner of war medal for civilian federal employees

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's 
civilians who have been captured by a hostile government do not receive 
the recognition they deserve. The bill I introduce today would correct 
this inequity and establish a prisoner of war medal for civilian 
employees of the Federal Government.
  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. 182

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

     SECTION 1. PRISONER-OF-WAR MEDAL FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF 
                   THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Authority To Issue Prisoner-of-War Medal.--(1) Subpart 
     A of part III of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after chapter 23 the following new chapter:

                   ``CHAPTER 25--MISCELLANEOUS AWARDS

``Sec.
``2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue.

     Sec. 2501. Prisoner-of-war medal: issue

       ``(a) The President shall issue a prisoner-of-war medal to 
     any person who, while serving in any capacity as an officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government, was forcibly detained 
     or interned, not as a result of such person's own willful 
     misconduct--
       ``(1) by an enemy government or its agents, or a hostile 
     force, during a period of war; or
       ``(2) by a foreign government or its agents, or a hostile 
     force, during a period other than a period of war in which 
     such person was held under circumstances which the President 
     finds to have been comparable to the circumstances under 
     which members of the armed forces have generally been 
     forcibly detained or interned by enemy governments during 
     periods of war.
       ``(b) The prisoner-of-war medal shall be of appropriate 
     design, with ribbons and appurtenances.
       ``(c) Not more than one prisoner-of-war medal may be issued 
     to a person under this section or section 1128 of title 10. 
     However, for each succeeding service that would otherwise 
     justify the issuance of such a medal, the President (in the 
     case of service referred to in subsection (a) of this 
     section) or the Secretary concerned (in the case of service 
     referred to in section 1128(a) of title 10) may issue a 
     suitable device to be worn as determined by the President or 
     the Secretary, as the case may be.
       ``(d) For a person to be eligible for issuance of a 
     prisoner-of-war medal, the person's conduct must have been 
     honorable for the period of captivity which serves as the 
     basis for the issuance.
       ``(e) If a person dies before the issuance of a prisoner-
     of-war medal to which he is entitled, the medal may be issued 
     to the person's representative, as designated by the 
     President.
       ``(f) Under regulations to be prescribed by the President, 
     a prisoner-of-war medal that is lost, destroyed, or rendered 
     unfit for use without fault or neglect on the part of the 
     person to whom it was issued may be replaced without charge.
       ``(g) In this section, the term `period of war' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 101(11) of title 38.''.
       (2) The table of chapters at the beginning of part III of 
     such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     chapter 23 the following new item:

``25. Miscellaneous Awards..................................2501''.....

       (b) Applicability.--Section 2501 of title 5, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), applies with respect to any 
     person who, after April 5, 1917, is forcibly detained or 
     interned as described in subsection (a) of such section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 183. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
certain disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense 
commissary and exchange stores; to the Committee on Armed Services.


      use of department of defense commissary and exchange stores

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
enable former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from 
their respective services and who have been rated to have at least a 30 
percent service-connected disability to have the use of both military 
commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is 
impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of 
incarceration at the hands of our nation's enemies, I do feel that this 
gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned. It also 
serves as a reminder that our nation has not forgotten their 
sacrifices.
  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. 183

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

     SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN 
                   DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1064 the 
     following new section:

[[Page S613]]

     ``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled 
       former prisoners of war

       ``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Defense, former prisoners of war described in 
     subsection (b) may use commissary and exchange stores.
       ``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any 
     former prisoner of war who--
       ``(1) is separated from active duty in the armed forces 
     under honorable conditions; and
       ``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 30 percent or more.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 101(32) of title 38.
       ``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1064 the following new item:

``1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled former prisoners 
              of war.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Brownback, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 185. A bill to establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the 
Office of the United States Trade Representative; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                     chief agricultural negotiator

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with 
the Democratic Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, that would ensure that 
our nation's farmers and ranchers have a permanent trade ambassador. 
Our farmers need a representative in the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative that will focus solely on opening foreign markets and 
ensuring a level playing field for U.S. agricultural products and 
services.
  In September 1998, American farmers and ranchers faced the first-ever 
monthly trade deficit for U.S. farm and food products since the United 
States began tracking trade data in 1941. This sounds the alarm for a 
state like Missouri that receives over one-fourth of its farm income 
from agricultural exports.
  When I'm thinking about what is good for the nation's agricultural 
policy, I ask, ``What is good for Missouri?'' That's because Missouri 
is a leader in farming. Missouri is the No. 2 State in the number of 
farms we have--second only to Texas. We have just about every crop 
imaginable, and Missourians are the nation's top producers in many of 
these crops. Missouri is the second leading state for beef cows. 
Missouri is second in hay production. Missouri is one of the top five 
pork producing states. And Missouri is among the top ten states for 
production of rice, cotton, corn, winter wheat, milk, and watermelon.
  With 26 percent of their income coming from exports, Missouri farmers 
need to know that their ability to export will expand over time, rather 
than become subject to foreign protectionist policies that choke them 
out of their market share. During the 1966 farm bill debate, in 
exchange for decreased government payments, our farmers were promised 
more export opportunities. It is time for us to deliver on this 
promise.
  America's farmers and ranchers need a permanent Ambassador who will 
represent their interests worldwide, especially as we face more 
negotiations in the World Trade Organization and regional negotiations 
with Central and South America. There are a lot of opportunities that 
could be opened up to our farmers and ranchers in the coming years.
  Currently, Mr. Peter Scher serves as a Special Negotiator for 
Agriculture, and he has already been very helpful in taking strong 
stands for our farmers and ranchers. I want to thank him for his work 
most recently on getting pork added to the United States' retaliation 
list against the European Union. Senator Kerrey and I, and 40 other 
senators, initiated a broad, bipartisan effort to make the needs of our 
pork farmers a priority, and we appreciated the fact that we could work 
closely with someone whose mission is to serve the interests of our 
nation's farmers. However, while Ambassador Scher may serve our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers until the end of the current 
administration, his position has not been made a permanent position 
through legislation. Therefore, we are introducing this legislation 
today because we want to ensure that the Agriculture Ambassador 
position will transcend administrations.
  The Agricultural Ambassador (the Chief Agricultural Negotiator) will 
be responsible for conducting trade negotiations and enforcing trade 
agreements relating to U.S. agricultural products and services. Also, 
under the bill the Chief's Agricultural Negotiator would be a vigorous 
advocate on behalf of U.S. agricultural interests. It is imperative 
that U.S. interests always have a strong, clear voice at international 
negotiations.
  Foreign countries will always have agriculture trade barriers--so 
farmers must always have an ambassador representing their interests. We 
need to send the message to foreign governments that we are serious 
about breaking down barriers in their markets--now and in the future.
  Our farmers and ranchers need to know that their interests will 
always have a sure seat at the table for trade negotiations. Canada and 
Mexico have already concluded free trade arrangements with Chile. 
Farmers in Canada can send their agricultural products to Chile and, in 
most instances, face a zero percent tariff level, while U.S. farmers 
are confronted with an average tariff rate of 11 percent in the same 
market.
  The EU is negotiating a trade deal with Mexico, Chile, Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Thus, these countries will give European 
farmers lower tariffs and more access to their markets at U.S. farmers' 
and ranchers' expense. America must lead, not follow--in our back yard 
and around the world.
  The Agriculture Ambassador bill we are introducing today is supported 
by more than 80 agricultural trade associations. Additionally, State 
branches of these national associations, such as the Missouri Farm 
Bureau Federation and the Missouri Pork Producers Council, are weighing 
in their strong support.
  We need to utilize every opportunity we have to help our farmers and 
ranchers. Making permanent the position of a U.S. Trade Representative 
for Agriculture will guarantee that the interests of American farmers 
and ranchers will always have a prominent seat at the negotiating table 
and will ensure that our agreements are more aggressively enforced.
  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. 185

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

     SECTION 1. CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

       (a) Establishment of a Position.--There is established the 
     position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of 
     the United States Trade Representative. The Chief 
     Agricultural Negotiator shall be appointed by the President, 
     with the rank of Ambassador, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Functions.--The primary function of the Chief 
     Agricultural Negotiator shall be to conduct trade 
     negotiations and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S. 
     agricultural products and services. The Chief Agricultural 
     Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S. 
     agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator 
     shall perform such other functions as the United States Trade 
     Representative may direct.
       (c) Compensation.--The Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall 
     be paid at the highest rate of basic pay payable to a member 
     of the Senior Executive Service.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bill that will 
establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative.
  As valuable as this position is to our Nation's farmers, I am 
concerned that it is not statutorily part of the Federal Government 
that plays a large role in agriculture trade policy. In December, Peter 
Scher, the current agriculture negotiator was an instrumental player in 
a United States-Canada trade agreement that addressed many of the 
inequities as a result of past trade agreements.
  Montana's farmers, and many other farmers nationwide, are dependent 
on this office to provide oversight and redress for NAFTA and other b- 
and multi-lateral agreements that may have not had U.S. agriculture in 
mind. I say that with a critical tone as past

[[Page S614]]

agreements negotiated by the current administration were focused on 
high-tech industries, all but ignoring the plight of the American 
farmer.
  The Canadian trade problem in Montana is monumental, however, it is 
just a small taste of the beginning of our agriculture trade problems 
with the European Union which has been less than compromising on many 
issues.
  The European Union (E.U.) unfairly restricts imports of U.S. 
agricultural products. Breaking down these barriers to trade must be a 
top priority of the U.S.T.R. American farmers can compete for any 
market, any where in the world, but they must have access to a level 
playing field.
  We currently have an extraordinary number of unresolved trade 
disputes with the E.U., yet the U.S.T.R. continues to seek U.S./E.U. 
trade pacts on issues unrelated to agriculture. It is critical that the 
U.S.T.R.'s agricultural trade negotiator be included in these 
discussions. Otherwise, we will be forced to react to poor planning and 
negotiating as we were last month in Canada. In 1996, U.S. agricultural 
exports reached a record level of $60 billion, compared to a total U.S. 
merchandise trade deficit of $170 billion the same year. By 
establishing this position within the U.S.T.R., it is my hope the 
administration will recognize what America's farmers mean to our 
Nation's economy.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S. 186. A bill to provide for the reorganization of the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                         ninth circuit division

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
distinguished colleague from Washington. Senator Slade Gorton, in 
introducing legislation that will go far in improving the consistency, 
predictability and coherency of case law in the Ninth Circuit U.S. 
Court of Appeals.
  Our bill, The Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999, 
adopts the recommendations of a congressionally-mandated Commission 
that studied the alignment of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Retired 
Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White, chaired the scholarly Commission.
  The Commission's Report, released last December, calls for a division 
of the Ninth Circuit into three regionally based adjudicative 
divisions--the Northern, Middle, and Southern. Each of these regional 
divisions would maintain a majority of its judges within its region. 
Each division would have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the 
judicial districts within its region. Further, each division would 
function as a semi-autonomous decisional unit. To resolve conflicts 
that may develop between regions, a Circuit Division for Conflict 
Correction would replace the current limited and ineffective en banc 
system. Lastly, the Circuit would remain intact as an administrative 
unit, functioning as it now does.
  It is important to note that the Commission adopted the arguments 
that I and several other Senators have put forth to justify a complete 
division of he Ninth Circuit--Circuit population, record caseloads, and 
inconsistency in judicial decisions. However, the Commission rejected 
an administrative division because it believed it would ``deprive the 
courts now in the Ninth Circuit of the administrative advantages 
afforded by the present circuit configuration and deprive the West and 
the Pacific seaboard of a means for maintaining uniform federal law in 
that area.''
  While I don't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the Commission 
(that an administrative division of the Ninth Circuit is not 
warranted), I strongly agree with the Committee's conclusion that the 
restructuring of the Ninth Circuit as proposed in the Commission's 
Report will ``increase the consistency and coherence of the law, 
maximize the likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective 
procedure for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit, 
and relate the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.''
  Mr. President, swift congressional action is needed. One need only 
look at the contours of the Ninth Circuit to see the need for this 
reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican 
border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the International 
Dateline to Guam and the Mariana Islands, by any means of measurement, 
the Ninth Circuit is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
  The Ninth Circuit serves a population of more than 49 million people, 
well over a third more than the next largest circuit. By 2010, the 
Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be 
more 63 million--a 40-percent increase in just 13 years, which 
inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload.
  Because of its massive size, there often results a decrease in the 
ability of judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the 
Ninth Circuit. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency in 
Constitutional interpretation. In fact, Ninth Circuit cases have an 
extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. (During the 
Supreme Court's 1996-97 session, the Supreme Court overturned 95 
percent of the Ninth Circuit cases heard by the Court.) This lack of 
Constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to 
unnecessary litigation.
  Ninth Circuit Judge, Diramuid O'Scannlain described the problem as 
follows:

       An appellate court must function as a unified body, and it 
     must speak with a unified voice. It must maintain and shape a 
     coherent body of law. . . . As the number of opinions 
     increase, we judges risk losing the ability to keep track of 
     precedents and the ability to know what our circuit's law is. 
     In short, bigger is not better.

  The legislation that Senator Gorton and I introduce today is a 
sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. The Northern Division of 
the Ninth Circuit would join Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and 
Idaho. This proposal reflects legislation I introduced in the last 
Congress which created a new Twelfth Circuit consisting of the States 
of the Northwest. Like my previous legislation, the Commission's report 
will go far in creating regional commonality and greater consistency 
and dependency in legal decisions.
  However, it is my strong suggestion that when the Senate Judiciary 
Committee conducts hearings on their legislation, certain modifications 
be closely examined:
  1. Elimination of the requirement that judges within a region are 
required to rotate to other regions of the Circuit;
  2. Adjustment of the regional alignments to include Hawaii, the 
Mariana Islands and the Territory of Guam in the Northern Region; and
  3. Shortening the period in which the Federal Judicial Center 
conducts a study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ninth 
Circuit divisions from 8 years to 3 years.
  Mr. President, Congress has waited long enough to correct the 
problems of the Ninth Circuit. The 49 million residents of the Ninth 
Circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years before cases are 
heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate 
process. The Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice is not 
swift and not always served.
  Mr. President, we have known the problem of the Ninth Circuit for a 
long time. It's time to solve the problem. The Commission's 
recommendations, as reflected in our legislation, is a good first 
start. I hope we can resolve this issue this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Edwards, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 187. A bill to give customers notice and choice about how their 
financial institutions share or sell their personally identifiable 
sensitive financial information, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


               financial information privacy act of 1999

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very important 
issue: the protection of every American's personal, sensitive, 
financial information that is held by their bank, securities broker-
dealer, or insurance company. I am introducing a bill to provide basic 
financial privacy protections for our citizens. I am pleased that 
Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and Hollings are joining me in 
the introduction of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999.

[[Page S615]]

  This bill seeks to protect a fundamental right of privacy for every 
American who entrusts his or her highly sensitive and confidential 
financial information to a financial institution. Every American should 
know whether the financial institution with which he or she does 
business undertakes to sell or share that personal sensitive 
information with anyone else. Every American should know who would be 
obtaining that information, and why. Every American should have the 
opportunity to say ``no'' if he or she does not want that confidential 
information disclosed. Every American should be allowed to make certain 
that the information is correct. And these rights should be 
enforceable.
  This bill, Mr. President, would accomplish these objectives.
  Few Americans understand that, under current Federal law, a bank, 
broker, or insurance company may take any information it obtains about 
a customer through his or her transactions, and sell or transfer that 
information to a third party. For example, they may sell that 
information to a direct marketer or another financial institution, or 
post it on an Internet website without obtaining the customer's consent 
or even notifying the customer.
  The amount of information that can be disclosed is enormous. It 
includes:
  Savings and checking account balances;
  certificate of deposit maturity dates and balances;
  any check an individual writes;
  any check that is deposited into a customer's account;
  stock and mutual fund purchases and sales;
  life insurance payouts; and
  health insurance claims.
  Today's technology makes it easier, faster, and less costly than ever 
for institutions to have immediate access to large amounts of customer 
information; to analyze that data; and to send that data to others. 
Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies are increasingly 
affiliating and ``cross-marketing,'' or selling the products of 
affiliates to existing customers. This can entail the warehousing of 
large amounts of highly sensitive customer information and selling it 
to or sharing it with other companies, for purposes unknown to the 
customer. While cross-marketing can bring new and beneficial products 
to receptive consumers, it can also result in unwanted invasions of 
personal privacy without customers' knowledge.
  A June 8, 1998 Business Week commentary entitled ``Big Banker May Be 
Watching You'' underscored the potential abuses:

       Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging 
     you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your 
     exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your 
     lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500 
     after you were diagnosed with a serious disease.
       Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but 
     they might not be for long. In the wake of the . . . mad rush 
     by large insurers to acquire thrift charters, consumer 
     advocates are raising valid questions about whether the 
     insurance arms of these new conglomerates will share 
     sensitive medical records with their lending and marketing 
     divisions.

  The New York Times in an October 11, 1998 article entitled ``Privacy 
Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better'' observed that:

       A growing number of bankers, lawmakers, banking regulators 
     and consumer advocates [are] worried about the potential dark 
     side of the mergers sweeping the financial industry. As 
     banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies combine into 
     huge new conglomerates, and with legislation before Congress 
     to make such mergers even easier, there is increasing concern 
     about the amount of personal financial and medical data that 
     can be collected under one roof.

  Surveys show that the public is widely concerned about its privacy. A 
November 1998 Louis Harris & Associates survey found that 88 percent of 
consumers are concerned about threats to their personal privacy--more 
than half, 55 percent, are ``very concerned.'' 82 percent of consumers 
say they have lost all control over how personal information is used by 
companies and 61 percent do not believe that their rights to privacy as 
a consumer are adequately protected by law or business practices.
  Major corporations have bumped up against privacy concerns when 
expanding their marketing services. For example, in the last 2 years, 
some major consumer companies announced that they would share or sell 
their customers' private data to marketers. When customers learned 
through newspapers stories what was happening, they complained strongly 
and the companies abandoned the planned sales of the data.
  Citizen groups have recently expressed serious concerns about the 
privacy implications of banks' amassing large databases to meet 
proposed regulatory requirements to ``know your customers.''
  The Washington Post in an October 31, 1998 editorial entitled 
``Privacy Here and Abroad'' observed widepsread public concern over 
privacy, stating:

       Concern over the privacy of personal data is sharpening as 
     the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected 
     contexts--everything from employer testing of people's 
     genetic predisposition to resale of their online reading 
     habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or 
     financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready 
     to agree that people should have some measure of control over 
     how and by whom their data will be used.

  Congress has protected citizens' privacy on prior occasions. In 
response to public concerns, Congress passed privacy laws restricting 
private companies' disclosure of customer information without customer 
consent, such as in the Cable Communications Policy Act and the Video 
Privacy Protection Act. Yet while video rentals and cable television 
selections are prohibited by law from being disclosed, millions of 
Americans' financial transactions each day have no Federal privacy 
protection.
  Abuses have arisen from the sharing of financial information without 
a customer's knowledge or permission. For example, the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) last year took enforcement action against a 
large bank that had been giving sensitive customer financial 
information, including lists of customers with maturing certificates of 
deposit, to an affiliated stock broker. The SEC found the bank and the 
broker's employees ``blurred the distinction between the bank and the 
broker dealer'' and the broker's sales representatives ``used 
materially false and misleading sales practices'' which ``culminated in 
unsuitable purchases by investors.'' The SEC found many of the targeted 
bank customers were elderly.

  Many groups have voiced support for legislative consumer financial 
privacy protections. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) 
submitted testimony to the Senate Banking Committee expressing concern 
about the vulnerability of citizens, particularly the elderly, and 
saying that:

       AARP supports the principle that consumers should have a 
     voice in the use of their personal financial information. 
     Currently, banks freely share information about their 
     customers' insured deposit accounts with their uninsured, 
     non-banking affiliates. Brokerage affiliates routinely 
     solicit bank customers based upon this information. This not 
     only blurs the line between banking and non-banking 
     functions, but furthers confuses consumers about which 
     products are insures by the bank, and which are merely sold 
     by the bank's securities affiliate without guarantees. 
     Customers should be given the choice as to whether banks can 
     share information about their accounts with any other entity.

  Subsequently, in a letter dated August 25, 1998 with views on H.R. 
10, AARP expressed its special concern about older Americans' 
vulnerability:

       [E]lderly Americans are among those most vulnerable to the 
     complex and fundamental changes already occurring in this 
     period of financial transformation--and they will be put at 
     further risk by the financial mergers permitted by this 
     proposed legislation if the issue of information privacy is 
     not addressed.

  In a written statement before the Banking Committee on June 24, 1998, 
Consumers Union testified,

       As financial services firms diversity and ``cross market'' 
     an array of financial products, their interest in obtaining 
     information about consumers is on a collision course with 
     consumers' interest in protecting their privacy. . . . We 
     believe legislation should prohibit depository institutions 
     and their affiliates from sharing or disclosing information 
     among affiliates or to third parties without first obtaining 
     the customer's written consent.

  A group of seven privacy and consumer groups, representing 
conservative and liberal orientations, including The Free Congress 
Research and Education Foundation, Consumers Federation of America, 
Consumers Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy 
International, Privacy Times,

[[Page S616]]

and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, wrote on August 26 1998 to all 
Senate Banking Committee Members to ``sound an urgent alarm about the 
lack of protections for consumers' financial privacy.''
  On September 9, 1998, The Washington Post published an editorial, ``. 
. . And a Matter of Privacy,'' arguing,

       Along with medical records, financial and credit records 
     probably rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most 
     expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, 
     though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data 
     has been increasingly compromised by mergers, electronic 
     data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling 
     of other people's personal information is highly 
     profitable--and legal.

  The Post editorial concluded that the privacy amendment to last 
year's proposed financial modernization legislation which I introduced 
with Senators Dodd and Bryan was ``a protection well worth considering, 
especially in the banking context. As the pace of the much-touted 
`information economy' quickens, safeguards against these previous 
unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.''
  The United States now faces pressure from the European Union nations 
as a result of our lack of privacy protections, in comparison with the 
ones implemented by the European Union. The European Union Data 
Protection Directive, which went into effect on October 25, 1998, goes 
much further than any privacy protections in place in the U.S. The 
Directive requires that member states protect privacy rights in the 
collection of data by both the public and private sectors. It prohibits 
the transfer of data without first obtaining the individual's 
unambiguous consent regarding the transfer of data without first 
obtaining the individual's unambiguous consent regarding the transfer 
and use of his or her personal financial data.
  The EU Directives provides ``that the transfer to a third country of 
personal data . . . may take place only if . . . the third country in 
question ensures an adequate level of protection.'' Since the European 
Union views current U.S. privacy policy as inadequate, U.S. companies 
that do not provide adequate privacy safeguards may have difficulty 
conducting business in the EU. The Department of Commerce proposed a 
safe harbor so that companies which meet certain guidelines would be 
allowed to conduct business in the EU and send data from the EU to the 
United States. The EU has not accepted the proposed safe harbor as 
adequate, and negotiations continue. Meanwhile, U.S. businesses must 
negotiate private privacy agreements with EU countries or face 
uncertainties in doing business. Congress by enacting privacy 
protection legislation could meet the EU standard and thereby solve 
this problem for American companies.
  Unfortunately, industry self-regulation to protect the privacy of 
information has been tried and, generally, has not worked. Many, if not 
most, consumers are not informed of plans to sell or share their 
financial transaction and experience data, are not notified of a right 
to object, have no access to verify the accuracy of data, and have no 
independent body to enforce privacy protection. Recent studies by the 
FTC and the FDIC of on-line Internet privacy protection found self-
regulation to be ineffective. Privacy protections for ``off-line'' 
transactions are far weaker.
  I believe that the protection of the privacy of customers' personal 
financial information is much too important to ignore any longer. 
Therefore, I am, along with Senators Dodd, Bryan, Leahy, Edwards, and 
Hollings, introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. 
This bill would require the Federal banking regulators--the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Company, Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller 
of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision--and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to enact rules to protect the 
privacy of financial information relating to the customers of the 
institutions they regulate.
  The regulators would define ``confidential customer information'' in 
a way that includes balances, maturity dates, transactions, and payouts 
in savings accounts, certificates of deposit, securities holding and 
insurance policies. The regulators would require an institution to:
  (1) tell its customers what information it will sell or share, and 
when, to whom and for what purposes it will be sold or shared;

  (2) give customers the right to ``opt out,'' which means they can say 
``no'' to the sharing or selling information to affiliates--unless the 
customer objects, institutions could sell or share customer financial 
data; and
  (3) obtain a customer's informed consent before selling or sharing 
confidential customer information with an unaffiliated third party.
  Under the Act, regulated financial institutions would be required to 
allow the customer to review the information to be disclosed for 
accuracy and to correct errors. Also, these institutions could not use 
confidential customer information obtained from another entity, such as 
an insurance underwriter, unless that entity had given its customers 
the same type of privacy protections as the regulated entities had 
given their customers.
  Disclosure of data under several circumstances would be exempted from 
coverage, including disclosure of information that is not personally 
identifiable, disclosure necessary to execute the customer's 
transaction, and other limited purposes. The Federal bank and 
securities regulators would enforce the regulations.
  The bill recognizes the complexity of the subject matter involved. 
Rather than have Congress micromanage a solution, we would leave it to 
the regulators with a direction as to the scope and purposes that 
should be followed. This approach would afford an opportunity for 
public notice and comment, so all of those affected could present their 
arguments. The banking and securities regulators would develop the 
rules to implement these broad principles in the way most appropriate 
for the industry, balancing the consumer's privacy choice with 
business' desire to sell or share their customer's sensitive financial 
information with others.
  As we proceed in an age of technological advances and cross-industry 
marketing of financial services, we need to be mindful of the privacy 
concerns of the American public. Consumers who wish to keep their 
sensitive financial information private should be given a right to do 
so. Congress can and should provide that privacy protection by giving 
consumers enforceable rights of notice, consent, and access through 
passage of the Financial Information Privacy Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999, together with a brief 
summary of the bill and some newspaper articles be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 187

       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 ``Financial Information 
     Privacy Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``covered person'' means a person that is 
     subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Federal financial 
     regulatory authorities; and
       (2) the term ``Federal financial regulatory authorities'' 
     means--
       (A) each of the Federal banking agencies, as that term is 
     defined in section 3(z) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; 
     and
       (B) the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     SEC. 3. PRIVACY OF CONFIDENTIAL CUSTOMER INFORMATION.

       (a) Rulemaking.--The Federal financial regulatory 
     authorities shall jointly issue final rules to protect the 
     privacy of confidential customer information relating to the 
     customers of covered persons, not later than 270 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act (and shall issue a notice 
     of proposed rulemaking not later than 150 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act), which rules shall--
       (1) define the term ``confidential customer information'' 
     to be personally identifiable data that includes 
     transactions, balances, maturity dates, payouts, and payout 
     dates, of--
       (A) deposit and trust accounts;
       (B) certificates of deposit;
       (C) securities holdings; and
       (D) insurance policies;
       (2) require that a covered person may not disclose or share 
     any confidential customer information to or with any 
     affiliate or agent of that covered person if the customer to 
     whom the information relates has provided

[[Page S617]]

     written notice, as described in paragraphs (4) and (5), to 
     the covered person prohibiting such disclosure or sharing--
       (A) with respect to an individual that became a customer on 
     or after the effective date of such rules, at the time at 
     which the business relationship between the customer and the 
     covered person is initiated and at least annually thereafter; 
     and
       (B) with respect to an individual that was a customer 
     before the effective date of such rules, at such time 
     thereafter that provides a reasonable and informed 
     opportunity to the customer to prohibit such disclosure or 
     sharing and at least annually thereafter;
       (3) require that a covered person may not disclose or share 
     any confidential customer information to or with any person 
     that is not an affiliate or agent of that covered person 
     unless the covered person has first--
       (A) given written notice to the customer to whom the 
     information relates, as described in paragraphs (4) and (5); 
     and
       (B) obtained the informed written or electronic consent of 
     that customer for such disclosures or sharing;
       (4) require that the covered person provide notices and 
     consent acknowledgments to customers, as required by this 
     section, in separate and easily identifiable and 
     distinguishable form;
       (5) require that the covered person provide notice as 
     required by this section to the customer to whom the 
     information relates that describes what specific types of 
     information would be disclosed or shared, and under what 
     general circumstances, to what specific types of businesses 
     or persons, and for what specific types of purposes such 
     information could be disclosed or shared;
       (6) require that the customer to whom the information 
     relates be provided with access to the confidential customer 
     information that could be disclosed or shared so that the 
     information may be reviewed for accuracy and corrected or 
     supplemented;
       (7) require that, before a covered person may use any 
     confidential customer information provided by a third party 
     that engages, directly or indirectly, in activities that are 
     financial in nature, as determined by the Federal financial 
     regulatory authorities, the covered person shall take 
     reasonable steps to assure that procedures that are 
     substantially similar to those described in paragraphs (2) 
     through (6) have been followed by the provider of the 
     information (or an affiliate or agent of that provider); and
       (8) establish a means of examination for compliance and 
     enforcement of such rules and resolving consumer complaints.
       (b) Limitation.--The rules prescribed pursuant to 
     subsection (a) may not prohibit the release of confidential 
     customer information--
       (1) that is essential to processing a specific financial 
     transaction that the customer to whom the information relates 
     has authorized;
       (2) to a governmental, regulatory, or self-regulatory 
     authority having jurisdiction over the covered financial 
     entity for examination, compliance, or other authorized 
     purposes;
       (3) to a court of competent jurisdiction;
       (4) to a consumer reporting agency, as defined in section 
     603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for inclusion in a 
     consumer report that may be released to a third party only 
     for a purpose permissible under section 604 of that Act; or
       (5) that is not personally identifiable.
       (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section or the rules 
     prescribed under this section shall be construed to amend or 
     alter any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
                                  ____


             [From the Washington Post, September 9, 1998]

                     . . . And a Matter of Privacy

       Along with medical records, financial and credit records 
     probably rank among the kinds of personal data Americans most 
     expect will be kept from prying eyes. As with medical data, 
     though, the privacy of even highly sensitive financial data 
     has been increasingly compromised by mergers, electronic 
     data-swapping and the move to an economy in which the selling 
     of other people's personal information is highly profitable--
     and legal.
       Just how much of it is legal in the financial arena, 
     though, is a complicated question. The Senate, struggling 
     with a banking bill, is weighing a proposed amendment that 
     would draw clearer lines. A judge at the Federal Trade 
     Commission, after years of trying to police the sale of 
     credit information to telemarketers, two weeks ago ordered 
     one of the country's largest credit reporting bureaus to stop 
     selling customers' sensitive data to such marketers in 
     violation, the agency said, of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
       The Senate's attention to financial privacy comes in the 
     form of a proposed amendment to a banking deregulation bill, 
     already passed by the House, that would allow banks to merge 
     more freely with the providers of other financial services, 
     such as insurers. Once such institutions can merge, though, 
     under current law they are under no restrictions from sharing 
     even otherwise protected customer information from division 
     to division. (The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which offers 
     some tough not comprehensive protection for credit 
     information, doesn't impose the same restrictions on 
     affiliated institutions.)
       For instance, watchdog groups say, if Citibank merges with 
     Travelers Inc. insurance as expected, information about your 
     bank balance or a bounced check could be used to deny you 
     insurance coverage. Conversely, data from a medical exam for 
     insurance coverage could be shared with your bank and used to 
     deny you a loan. Milder possibilities include the use of 
     knowledge about your financial assets being shared with or 
     sold to marketers who wish to target customers of a given 
     income bracket.
       An amendment proposed by Sens. Paul Sarbanes and 
     Christopher Dodd is likely to be weighed by the committee 
     marking up the Senate bill this week or next. It would block 
     such possibilities by prohibiting sharing or pooling of data 
     not covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act--known generally 
     as ``experience and transaction data,'' and including account 
     balances and activity--for any purpose beyond the reason it 
     was collected, unless the customer gives specific permission.
       This goes well beyond existing privacy protections, which 
     mostly require that the customer actively ``opt out'' of such 
     uses--a difficult proposition when the customer probably has 
     not the slightest idea that such swapping and spreading of 
     information is legal to begin with. For that very reason, 
     it's a protection well worth considering, especially in the 
     banking context. As the pace of the much-touted ``information 
     economy'' quickens, safeguards against these previously 
     unimagined forms of commerce become ever more important.
                                  ____


              [From the New York Times, October 11, 1998]

            Privacy Matters: When Bigger Banks Aren't Better

                           (By Leslie Wayne)

       Imagine you are being treated for breast cancer, a fact 
     known to your Travelers' insurance agent from your medical 
     tests and insurance forms. Imagine also that you are applying 
     for a mortgage from, say, Citibank, where you've banked for 
     years and which has just merged with Travelers Group. Despite 
     your excellent credit rating, your mortgage is denied by 
     Citibank for reasons that are unclear.
       Or suppose you've just inherited lots of money from a 
     relative's life insurance policy and you put the money into 
     your Fleet Bank account. Pretty soon you get a call from a 
     representative of Quick & Reilly, a brokerage firm you have 
     never heard of but which is owned by Fleet. The broker is 
     equipped with surprisingly detailed knowledge of your 
     financial situation--along with a few ideas about how to 
     invest your windfall.
       Both situations may be hypothetical but they aren't so far-
     fetched, according to a growing number of bankers, lawmakers, 
     banking regulators and consumer advocates worried about the 
     potential dark side of the mergers sweeping the financial 
     industry. As banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies 
     combine into huge new conglomerates, and with legislation 
     before Congress to make such mergers even easier, there is 
     increasing concern about the amount of personal financial and 
     medical data that can be collected under one roof.


                           fear of disclosure

       So far, this privacy debate has centered mainly on the use 
     of patients' medical records, especially by health 
     maintenance organizations. But a new twist has been added as 
     banks have expanded into businesses like securities and 
     insurance sales, both of which involve the collection of a 
     wide range of personal information.
       Just last week, Citicorp and Travelers Group completed 
     their $50 billion merger, creating the world's largest 
     financial services conglomerate, with 70 million customers. 
     The new company, Citigroup, has access to a wealth of 
     customer information, including mutual fund accounts, health 
     claims on insurance policies, and credit card, mortgage and 
     car loan balances. Many consumer advocates are worried that 
     such sensitive data can easily be transferred from one part 
     of the company to another and possibly be disclosed to 
     outside parties.
       ``It is very important for banks to realize the challenge 
     they face in the privacy area is something new, different and 
     more difficult than what they've dealt with before,'' said 
     Julie Williams, Acting Comptroller of the Currency. ``It's in 
     their self-interest to recognize privacy as a customer 
     concern and deal with it successfully or they may be subject 
     to more restrictive controls on the ability to use this 
     information.''
       Nationsbank, which is acquiring the BankAmerica 
     Corporation, has already run into trouble with customer 
     privacy. The company recently paid nearly $40 million to 
     settle a class-action suit and end a Government investigation 
     after more than 18,000 customers many of them elderly, were 
     sold complex derivative securities that were far too risky 
     for them. Nationbank's brokerage arm had used the bank's 
     customer list to target people to approach, many of whom 
     mistakenly believed that the derivatives were safe and 
     insured. As a result, Nationsbank has imposed new limits 
     on the use of private data.
       ``Talking to a banker used to be like going to confession 
     or seeing a psychiatrist--we thought the information was 
     protected,'' said Edmund Mierzwinski, executive director of 
     the U.S. Public Interest Group.
       Financial services companies argue that the ability to swap 
     data between one arm and another is a driving force behind 
     many mergers. Banks want to broaden their ability to ``cross-
     market'' credit cards to checking

[[Page S618]]

     deposit customers or sell stocks and bonds to holders of car 
     loans. But bankers say they must be careful to balance this 
     desire to sell new products against the need to maintain the 
     trust of their customers.
       ``We are very concerned,'' said Edward Yingling, executive 
     director for government relations at the American Bankers 
     Association. ``The key question is, what is the proper 
     balance between appropriate and valuable cross-marketing and 
     invasions of privacy? No one believes medical records should 
     be used for cross-marketing in ways that would be invasive. 
     It's more difficult when financial information can be used to 
     show our customers that other products might be very good for 
     them. That's what everyone has to wrestle with.''


                                promises

       Current law allows bank customers to sign ``opt out'' 
     forms, preventing one part of a bank from giving personal 
     information to another. The Comptroller's office has found, 
     however, that few banks highlight this option. ``Most bank 
     customers can't ever recall seeing anything like this,'' Ms. 
     Williams said.
       As part of its merger application to the Federal Reserve 
     Board, Citigroup made a ``Global Privacy Promise,'' which 
     would ``provide customers the right to prevent Citigroup from 
     sharing customer information with others, including 
     affiliates, for cross-marketing purposes.'' Customers will 
     also be given opt-out provisions and Travelers has pledged 
     that it will not share the medical or health information of 
     its insurance customers ``for marketing purposes.'' Consumer 
     advocates like Mr. Mierzwinski say such protections should be 
     a matter of law, and not established case by case.
       Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, has 
     been leading a push in Congress for greater financial privacy 
     restrictions.
       ``There are hardly any safeguards out there,'' Mr. Dodd 
     told the Senate Banking Committee last month. ``As each year 
     goes by, the vulnerability of the people we represent becomes 
     more exposed. The longer we delay, we are exposing millions 
     to unfair access by people who should not have access.''
                                  ____


              [From the Washington Post, October 31, 1998]

                        Privacy Here and Abroad

       Concern over the privacy of personal data is sharpening as 
     the problem appears in more and sometimes unexpected 
     contexts--everything from employer testing of people's 
     genetic predispositions to resale of their online reading 
     habits or their bank records. When the data are medical or 
     financial, everyone but the sellers and resellers seems ready 
     to agree that people should have some measure of control over 
     how and by whom their data will be used. But how, other than 
     piece-meal, can such control be established, and what would a 
     more general right to data privacy look like?
       One approach very different from that of the United States, 
     as it happens, is about to be thrust upon the consciousness 
     of many American businesses as a European law called the 
     European Union Data Privacy Directive goes into effect. The 
     European directive has drawn attention not only because the 
     European approach to and history on data privacy are sharply 
     different from our own but also because the new directive 
     comes with prohibitions on export that would crimp the 
     options of any company that does business both here and in 
     Europe.
       The directive imposes sweeping prohibitions on the use of 
     any personal data without the explicit consent of the person 
     involved, for that purpose only (repeated uses or resale 
     require repeated permission) and also bars companies from 
     exporting any such data to any country not ruled by the EU to 
     have ``adequate'' privacy protection measures already in 
     place. The Europeans have not ruled the United States 
     ``adequate'' in this regard--no surprise there--though 
     individual industries may pass muster or fall under special 
     exemptions.
       That means, for instance, that multinational companies 
     cannot allow U.S. offices access to personnel data on 
     European employees, and airlines can't swap reservations data 
     without restrictions. More to the point, they can't share or 
     sell the kinds of data on customers that in this country are 
     now routinely treated as another possible income stream. 
     Would such restraints be a boon to customers on these shores 
     too? Or will Americans, as the data companies frequently 
     argue, find instead that they want the convenience and ``one-
     on-one marketing'' that this constant dossier-compiling makes 
     possible?
       In one early case, a U.S. airline is being sued in Sweden 
     to prevent its compiling and selling a database of, for 
     instance, passengers who requested kosher meals or wheelchair 
     assistance on arrival from transatlantic flights. Do 
     customers want the ``convenience'' of this kind of tracking, 
     and if not, how might they--we--avoid having it offered? The 
     contrast between systems is a chance to consider which of the 
     many business-as-usual uses of data in this country rise to 
     the level of a privacy violation from which citizens should 
     be shielded by law.
                                  ____


                   [From Business Week, June 8, 1998]

                     Big Banker May Be Watching You

                            (By Dean Foust)

       Suppose that when you retired, your bank started deluging 
     you with mailings for senior services--each tailored to your 
     exact income, health needs, and spending habits. Or your 
     lender slashed your credit-card limit from $20,000 to $500 
     after you were diagnosed with a serious disease.
       Those two Orwellian scenarios may sound far-fetched, but 
     they might not be for long. In the wake of the proposed 
     megamerger between Citicorp and Travelers Group Inc. and the 
     mad rush by large insurers to acquire thrift charters, 
     consumer advocates are raising valid questions about whether 
     the insurance arms of these new conglomerates will share 
     sensitive medical records with their lending and marketing 
     divisions.
       Critics fear that as the new Citigroup and other planned 
     banking behemoths strain to justify their hefty sticker 
     prices, they'll face increasing pressure to exploit customer 
     data for profit. But if they overstep their bounds, the 
     financial industry ``risks a customer backlash that could . . 
     . lead to restrictions on your ability to use previous 
     information resources,'' warns Acting Comptroller of the 
     Currency Julie L. Williams.
       Banking representatives downplay the risks, arguing that 
     lenders would be loath to use health records in the credit 
     process for fear of violating the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act. And at Citicorp, spokesman Jack Morris says that ``I 
     don't think we have even thought about'' using Travelers' 
     insurance records.
       But the biggest justification for creating conglomerates 
     like Citigroup--and the combined Bank of America-NationsBank 
     Corp.--is exactly the synergy from cross-marketing new 
     products. In 1996, bankers lobbied Congress vigorously for 
     changes in the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 that let 
     them share more credit information with affiliates dealing in 
     life insurance, mortgages, and credit cards--much to the 
     chagrin of activists. ``We think it's inappropriate for banks 
     to use information in ways that consumers didn't expect,'' 
     says Susan Grant of the National Consumers League.


                              boilerplate

       Unfortunately, banks sharing data with affiliates are 
     exempt from some of the regulations governing independent 
     credit bureaus. These bureaus are where lenders up till now 
     have turned to determine a borrower's creditworthiness. But 
     while Congress prohibited the credit bureaus from dealing in 
     medical records without a customer's consent, the new 
     financial hybrids are under no such restrictions. And while 
     banks are required to allow customers to opt out of having 
     their data used for other purposes, banks generally do little 
     to alert customers to their rights--often burying it in legal 
     boilerplate.
       If financial firms don't want Congress to intervene, they 
     should erect Chinese walls to prevent confidential health 
     records from being used in the marketing or lending process. 
     Otherwise, the extra dollars generated from ``synergy'' will 
     be diminished by the cost of incurring the public's wrath.
                                  ____


          Summary of Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999

     Sec. 1. Short title
       The bill will be called the ``Financial Information Privacy 
     Act of 1999.''
     Sec. 2. Definitions
       The Act defines ``federal financial regulatory 
     authorities'' to include the Fed, FDIC, OTS, OCC and SEC, and 
     the term ``covered person'' to mean persons subject to the 
     regulatory authorities' jurisdictions.
     Sec. 3. Privacy of confidential customer information
       (A) Rulemaking.--The Act requires the Federal Reserve, 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift 
     Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and 
     Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules within 
     270 days of the Act's enactment to protect the privacy of 
     financial information relating to the customers of the 
     institutions they regulate.
       (1) The regulators will define ``confidential customer 
     information,'' which will include transactions, balances, 
     maturity dates, payouts and payout dates of deposit and trust 
     account, certificates of deposit, securities holdings and 
     insurance policies.
       (2) The customers will have the right to prohibit 
     disclosure or sharing confidential customer information with 
     affiliates of the institution (opt-out).
       (3) The institutions could not disclose or share 
     confidential customer information with unaffiliated third 
     parties unless the customer has consented to disclosure (opt-
     in) after receiving notification.
       (4) The notices and consent acknowledgments provided to 
     customers must be ``in separate and easily identifiable and 
     distinguishable form.''
       (5) The notices would describe the types of information to 
     be disclosed or shared and under what circumstances, to what 
     types of businesses or persons and for what purposes the 
     information could be disclosed or shared.
       (6) Customers must be provided with access to the 
     confidential customer information that could be shared to 
     review for accuracy.
       (7) Covered persons cannot use confidential customer 
     information from other sources unless the covered persons 
     have taken reasonable steps to assure that procedures 
     substantially similar to those provided for in the Act have 
     been followed.
       (8) The regulators shall establish a means of examination 
     for compliance and enforcement and resolving consumer 
     complaints.
       (B) Limitation.--The Act contains several exceptions, 
     circumstances under which the privacy protections do not 
     apply. The Act

[[Page S619]]

     would not prohibit the release of confidential customer 
     information:
       (1) that is essential to processing a specific financial 
     transaction that the customer has authorized;
       (2) to a government, regulatory or self-regulatory 
     authority with jurisdiction over the financial institution 
     for examination, compliance or other authorized purposes;
       (3) to a court of competent jurisdiction;
       (4) to a consumer reporting agency for inclusion in a 
     consumer report to be released to a third party for a 
     permissible purpose; or
       (5) that is not personally identifiable.
       (C) Construction.--``Nothing in this section or the rules 
     prescribed under this section shall be construed to amend or 
     alter any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.''

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Sarbanes to 
introduce the Financial Information Privacy Act. This important 
legislation would give customers notice and choice about whether and 
how their financial institutions share or sell their confidential 
financial information.
  The right to privacy is among the most cherished of our 
constitutional rights. But this right has been under assault in a 
number of areas, including with regard to citizens' financial records, 
medical records, and prescription drug and retail purchases. This bill 
is an important first step in protecting consumers' most personal, 
sensitive financial information: their bank account balances, 
transactions involving their stocks and mutual funds, and payouts on 
their insurance policies.
  This information has become a commodity and is being distributed and 
sold among businesses all over the world but without the knowledge or 
consent of the consumers whose very own information is being conveyed. 
The sharing of their most sensitive, private financial information has 
become increasingly prevalent given two key factors: (1) technological 
advances which facilitate the collection and retrieval of information; 
and (2) the formation of new, diversified business affiliations, under 
which companies can more easily access personal data on each other's 
customers.
  In this environment, there are dangers of misuse and abuse of 
confidential financial information. For instance, we know of instances 
where, without customer permission, some banks have provided in-house, 
affiliate brokers with lists of older customers who have maturing CDs. 
The brokers then solicited these consumers for risky investments, which 
they mislead the customer to believe were FDIC-insured.
  The Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999 would require banks and 
securities firms to protect the privacy of their customers' financial 
records. Customers would be given the opportunity to prevent banks and 
securities firms from disclosing or selling this information to 
affiliates. Before banks or securities firms could disclose or sell the 
information to third parties, they would be required to give notice to 
the customer and obtain the express written permission of the consumer 
before making any such disclosure.
  Last September, Senator Sarbanes and I proposed legislation similar 
to the Financial Information Privacy Act as an amendment to HR 10, the 
Financial Services Modernization Act. Unfortunately, the amendment was 
defeated in the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 8-10 along party 
lines. I was disappointed by this outcome, but am heartened by comments 
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who acknowledge financial 
privacy as an important issue. I look forward to working with both 
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee and other 
interested members on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support this proposal. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Sarbanes in 
introducing the Financial Information Privacy Act of 1999. Senator 
Sarbanes, along with Senators Dodd and Bryan, have been leaders on the 
Senate Banking Committee in protecting the privacy of personal 
financial information.
  Mr. President, the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental 
right protected by the Constitution of the United States. But the 
American people are growing more and more concerned over encroachments 
on their personal privacy.
  I seems that everywhere we turn, new technologies, new communications 
media, and new business services created with the best of intentions 
and highest of expectations also pose a threat to our ability to keep 
our lives to ourselves, to live, work and think without having giant 
corporations looking over our shoulders.
  This incremental encroachment on our privacy has happened through the 
lack of safeguards on personal, financial and medical information about 
each of us that can be stolen, sold or mishandled and find its way into 
the wrong hands with the push of a button.
  Our right of privacy has become one of the most vulnerable rights in 
the information age. The digitalization of information and the 
explosion in the growth of computing and electronic networking offer 
tremendous potential benefits to the way Americans live, work, conduct 
commerce, and interact with their government. But the new technology 
also presents new threats to our individual privacy and security, in 
particular, our ability to control the terms under which our personal 
information is acquired, disclosed, and used.
  In the financial services industry, for example, conglomerates are 
offering a wide variety of services, each of which requires a customer 
to provide financial, medical or other personal information. And 
nothing in the law prevents subsidiaries within the conglomerate from 
sharing this information for uses other than the use the customer 
thought he or she was providing it for. In fact, under current Federal 
law, a financial institution can sell, share, or publish savings 
account balances, certificates of deposit maturity dates and balances, 
stock and mutual fund purchases and sales, life insurance payouts and 
health insurance claims.
  Our legislation would protect the privacy of this financial 
information by directing the Federal Reserve Board, Office of Thrift 
Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Securities and Exchange Commission 
to jointly promulgate rules requiring financial institutions they 
regulate to: (1) inform their customers what information is to be 
disclosed, and when, to whom and for what purposes the information is 
to be disclosed; (2) allow customers to review the information for 
accuracy; and (3) for new customers, obtain the customers' consent to 
disclosure, and for existing customers, give the customers a reasonable 
opportunity to object to disclosure. These financial institutions could 
use confidential customer information from other entities only if the 
entities had given their customers similar privacy protections.

  I hope the Financial Information Privacy Act is just the beginning of 
this new Congress' efforts to address the privacy issues raised by 
ultra competitive marketplaces in the information age.
  For the past three Congresses, I have introduced comprehensive 
medical privacy legislation. I plan to soon introduce the Medical 
Information Privacy and Security Act to establish the first 
comprehensive federal medical privacy law. It would close the existing 
gaps in federal privacy laws to ensure the protection of personally 
identifiable health information. Medical records contain the most 
intimate, sensitive information about a person and must be safeguarded.
  This Congress will also need to consider how our privacy safeguards 
for personal, financial and medical information measure up to the tough 
privacy standards established by the European Union Data Protection 
Directive, which took effect on October 25, 1998. That could be a big 
problem for American businesses, since the new rules require EU member 
countries to prohibit the transmission of personal data to or through 
any non-EU country that fails to provide adequate data protection as 
defined under European law.
  European officials have said repeatedly over the past year that the 
patchwork of privacy laws in the United States may not meet their 
standards. Our law is less protective than EU standards in a variety of 
respects on a range of issues, including requirements to obtain data 
fairly and lawfully; limitations on the collection of sensitive data; 
limitations on the purpose of data collection; bans on the collection 
and storage of unnecessary personal information; requirements regarding 
data accuracy; limitations regarding duration of storage; and 
centralized supervision of privacy protections and practices.
  The problem is not that Europe protects privacy too much. The problem 
is

[[Page S620]]

our own failure to keep U.S. privacy laws up to date. The EU Directive 
is an example of the kind of privacy protection that American consumers 
need and do not have. It has encouraged European companies to develop 
good privacy techniques. It has produced policies, including policies 
on cryptography, that are consistent with the interests of both 
consumers and businesses.
  The Financial Information Privacy Act updates U.S. privacy laws in 
the evolving financial services industry. It calls for fundamental 
protections of the personal, confidential financial information of all 
American citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 188. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize the use of State revolving loan funds for construction of 
water conservation and quality improvements; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


             Water Conservation and Quality Incentives Act

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, twenty-five years after enactment of the 
Clean Water Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal 
that all our nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for 
fishing and swimming.
  After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to 
solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new 
tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing.
  The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from 
factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to 
controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining 
water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of 
factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of 
sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots.
  In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully 
meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are 
contamination form runoff and meeting the standards for water 
temperatures.
  In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems. 
But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water 
quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff 
controls.
  A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of 
the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated 
or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for 
increased stream flows.
  We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water 
available for this use through increased water conservation and more 
efficient use of existing water supplies.
  The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce 
wasteful water use.
  In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single 
largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of 
water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a 
significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage fro irrigation 
canals.
  In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water 
for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain 
rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water 
available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency 
measures to reduce water loss.
  The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's 
changing water needs. In many Western States, supply problems can be 
addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users 
implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures 
consistent with State water law.
  And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving 
greater flexibility to States to use Clean Water Act funds to control 
polluted runoff, if that's where the money is needed most.
  Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in 
introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation 
measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not 
required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by 
water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would 
also be entirely voluntary.
  The conservation program would be structured to allow participating 
users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or 
more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law. 
This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water 
available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using 
the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and 
gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to 
solve water quality problems in other areas.
  My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users, 
the Environmental Defense Fund and the Oregon Water Trust.
  I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to 
use their Clean Water funds for water conservation or runoff control 
when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality 
problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate.
  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. 188

       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 ``Water Conservation and 
     Quality Incentives Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in many parts of the United States, water supplies are 
     insufficient to meet current or expected future demand during 
     certain times of the year;
       (2) a number of factors (including growing populations, 
     increased demands for food and fiber production, and new 
     environmental demands for water) are placing increased 
     demands on existing water supply sources;
       (3) increased water conservation, water quality 
     enhancement, and more efficient use of water supplies could 
     help meet increased demands on water sources;
       (4) in States that recognize rights to conserved water for 
     persons who conserve it, irrigation suppliers, farmers, 
     ranchers, and other users could gain rights to use conserved 
     water while also increasing the quantity of water available 
     for other beneficial uses by implementing measures to reduce 
     water loss during transport to, or application on, the 
     fields;
       (5) reducing the quantity of water lost during transport to 
     the fields and improving water quality can help areas better 
     meet changing population and economic needs; and
       (6) the role of the Federal Government in helping meet 
     those changing water needs should be to provide financial 
     assistance to help irrigators, farmers, and ranchers 
     implement practical, cost-effective water quality and 
     conservation measures.

     SEC. 3. USE OF STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FOR WATER 
                   CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1383) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, (4) for construction of water conservation 
     improvements by eligible recipients under subsection (i)''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Water Conservation Improvements.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible recipient.--In this 
     subsection, the term `eligible recipient' means a 
     municipality, quasi-municipality, municipal corporation, 
     special district, conservancy district, irrigation district, 
     water users' association, tribal authority, intermunicipal, 
     interstate, or State agency, nonprofit private organization, 
     a member of such an association, authority, agency, or 
     organization, or a lending institution, located in a State 
     that has enacted laws that--
       ``(A) provide a water user who invests in a water 
     conservation improvement with a right to use water conserved 
     by the improvement, as allowed by State law;
       ``(B) provide authority to reserve minimum flows of streams 
     in the State; and
       ``(C) prohibit transactions that adversely affect existing 
     water rights.
       ``(2) Financial assistance.--A State may provide financial 
     assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund to 
     an eligible recipient to construct a water conservation 
     improvement, including--
       ``(A) piping or lining of an irrigation canal;
       ``(B) wastewater and tailwater recovery or recycling;
       ``(C) irrigation scheduling;
       ``(D) water use measurement or metering;
       ``(E) on-field irrigation efficiency improvements; and

[[Page S621]]

       ``(F) any other improvement that the State determines will 
     provide water conservation benefits.
       ``(3) Voluntary participation.--The participation of an 
     eligible recipient in the water conservation improvement 
     shall be voluntary.
       ``(4) Use of conserved water.--The quantity of water 
     conserved through the water conservation improvement shall be 
     allocated in accordance with applicable State law, including 
     any applicable State law requiring a portion of the conserved 
     water to be used for instream flow enhancement or other 
     conservation purposes.
       ``(5) Limitation on use for irrigated agriculture.--
     Conserved water made available under paragraph (4) shall not 
     be used to irrigate land that has not previously been 
     irrigated unless the use is authorized by State law and will 
     not diminish water quality.''.

     SEC. 4. USE OF STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS FOR WATER QUALITY 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 603 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1383) (as amended by section 3) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, and (5) for 
     construction of water quality improvements or practices by 
     eligible recipients under subsection (j)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Water Quality Improvements.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible recipient.--In this 
     subsection, the term `eligible recipient' means a 
     municipality, quasi-municipality, municipal corporation, 
     special district, conservancy district, irrigation district, 
     water users' association or member of such an association, 
     tribal authority, intermunicipal, interstate, or State 
     agency, nonprofit private organization, or lending 
     institution.
       ``(2) Financial assistance.--A State may provide financial 
     assistance from its water pollution control revolving fund to 
     an eligible recipient to construct or establish water quality 
     improvements or practices that the State determines will 
     provide water quality benefits.
       ``(3) Voluntary participation.--The participation of an 
     eligible recipient in the water quality improvements or 
     practices shall be voluntary.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Section 601(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and (4) for construction of water conservation 
     and quality improvements by eligible recipients under 
     subsections (i) and (j) of section 603''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 189. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of 
Memorial Day; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                              memorial day

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many 
Americans by making the last Monday in May, Memorial Day, we have lost 
sight of the significance of this day to our nation. Instead of using 
Memorial Day as a time to honor and reflect on the sacrifices made by 
Americans in combat, many Americans use the day as a celebration of the 
beginning of summer. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and 
authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this 
legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation 
designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and 
ceremonies honoring American veterans. This legislation would help 
restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they 
have made on behalf of our nation.
  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. 189

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

     SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF 
                   MEMORIAL DAY.

       (a) In General.--Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended in the item relating to Memorial Day by 
     striking out ``the last Monday in May.'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``May 30.''.
       (b) Display of Flag.--Section 2(d) of the joint resolution 
     entitled ``An Act to codify and emphasize existing rules and 
     customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the 
     United States of America'', approved June 22, 1942 (36 U.S.C. 
     174(d)), is amended by striking out ``the last Monday in 
     May;'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 30;''.
       (c) Proclamation.--The President is authorized and 
     requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of 
     the United States to observe Memorial Day as a day for prayer 
     and ceremonies showing respect for American veterans of wars 
     and other military conflicts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 190. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
former members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected 
disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same 
manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces 
are entitled to travel on such aircraft; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.


   on travel on military aircraft by veterans with service-connected 
                              disabilities

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill which is 
of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation 
is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military 
aircraft to those who have been completely disabled in the service of 
our country.
  Currently, retired members of the Armed Forces are permitted to 
travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights 
within the continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights 
operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the 
same benefits for 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans.
  Surely, we owe these heroic men and women, who have given so much to 
our country, a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them 
for the sacrifice they have made on behalf of our nation, but we can 
surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in 
which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these 
distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from 
all over the country attesting to the importance attesting to this 
issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their 
concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 190

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

     SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN DISABLED 
                   FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after section 1060a the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled 
       former members of the armed forces

       ``The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former member 
     of the armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the 
     laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a 
     service-connected disability rated as total to travel, in the 
     same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the 
     armed forces, on unscheduled military flights within the 
     continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights 
     operated by the Military Airlift Command. The Secretary of 
     Defense shall permit such travel on a space-available 
     basis.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 1060a the following new item:

``1060b. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members 
              of the armed forces.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 191. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the 
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed 
military service on behalf of the United States during World War II; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


                           filipino veterans

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain 
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on 
behalf of the United States during World War II.
  Mr. President, our Filipino veterans fought side by side and 
sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation 
would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified 
individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits 
to which, I believe, they are entitled. As this population becomes 
older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to 
the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us 
the great nation we are today.

[[Page S622]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 191

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

     SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       (a) In General.--Upon the written application of any person 
     who is a national of the Philippine Islands, the Secretary of 
     the Army shall determine whether such person performed any 
     military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States during World War II which 
     qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans', or 
     other benefits under the laws of the United States.
       (b) Information To Be Considered.--In making a 
     determination for the purpose of subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall consider all information and evidence 
     (relating to service referred to in subsection (a)) available 
     to the Secretary, including information and evidence 
     submitted by the applicant, if any.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

       (a) Issuance of Certificate of Service.--The Secretary 
     shall issue a certificate of service to each person 
     determined by the Secretary to have performed military 
     service described in section 1(a).
       (b) Effect of Certificate of Service.--A certificate of 
     service issued to any person under subsection (a) shall, for 
     the purpose of any law of the United States, conclusively 
     establish the period, nature, and character of the military 
     service described in the certificate.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

       An application submitted by a surviving spouse, child, or 
     parent of a deceased person described in section 1(a) shall 
     be treated as an application submitted by such person.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

       The Secretary may not consider for the purpose of this Act 
     any application received by the Secretary more than two years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE 
                   SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

       No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act as a result of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary shall issue regulations to carry out sections 
     1, 3, and 4.

     SEC. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       Any entitlement of a person to receive veterans' benefits 
     by reason of this Act shall be administered by the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs pursuant to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.
       (2) The term ``World War II'' means the period beginning on 
     December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31, 1946.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Reed, and 
        Mr. Schumer):
  S. 192. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
increase the Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                   the fair minimum wage act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator 
Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act of 1999. This proposal is strongly supported by President 
Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of 
Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard 
Gephardt, and many of their colleagues.
  The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it 
by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on September 1, 
1999, and another 50 cent increase on September 1, 2000, so that the 
minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 by the turn of the century.
  These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their 
families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour 
today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million 
Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to 
benefit from the increase.
  To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage should 
be at least $7.45 an hour today, instead of the current level of $5.15. 
The gap shows how far we have fallen short in giving low income workers 
their fair share of our extraordinary economic prosperity. Since 1968, 
the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by over 150 
percent--while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down 
by 30 percent.
  The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the 
leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a 
remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and 
entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an unprecedented 
expansion, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation. 
The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and 
interest rates are low.
  But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum 
wage earners. These workers can barely make ends meet. Working 40 hours 
a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712 a year--$2,900 below the 
poverty line for a family of three. A full day's work should mean a 
fair day's pay. But for millions of Americans who earn the minimum 
wage, it doesn't.
  According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are 
women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Minimum wage workers are 
teacher's aides and child care providers, home health care aides and 
clothing store workers. They care for vast numbers of elderly Americans 
in nursing homes. They stock shelves in the corner store. They mop the 
floors and empty the trash in thousands of office buildings in 
communities across the country.
  Three-fifths of these workers are the sole breadwinners in their 
families. More than half work full time. These families need help. They 
work hard and they should be treated with dignity. They deserve this 
increase in the minimum wage.
  Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky 
will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This 
hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In 
fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in 
the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a 
40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all 
sectors of the population.
  The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 
an hour. This issue is of vital importance to working families across 
the country. In the past election, for example, by a margin of 2 to 1, 
voters in the State of Washington approved a ballot initiative to 
increase the state minimum wage to $6.50 an hour. In many other states, 
raising the minimum wage was a potent issue in the election.
  The minimum wage is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is 
a civil rights issue. It is a labor issue. It is a family issue. Above 
all, it is a fairness issue and a dignity issue. I intend to do all I 
can to see that the minimum wage is increased this year. No one who 
works for a living should have to live in poverty.
  I ask 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. 192

       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 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       (a) Wage.--Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1999; and
       ``(B) $6.15 an hour beginning on September 1, 2000;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on September 1, 1999.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
                   THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

       The provisions of section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.

[[Page S623]]

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join a number of my colleagues in 
introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. There is no 
better way to reward work than by ensuring each and every worker be 
paid a living wage.
  During the past three decades, the purchasing power of the minimum 
wage has declined by 30 percent. Even after the modest minimum wage 
increase in 1996, a person working full-time for the minimum wage earns 
only $10,712 a year, nearly $3,000 below the poverty level for a family 
of three. That paycheck must pay for food, housing, health care, child 
care, and transportation. It is time to reward working families with 
living wages.
  The legislation we are proposing would provide a modest 50-cent per 
hour increase this year, with an additional 50-cent increase in 2000, 
bringing the wage level to $6.15 per hour.
  More than 10 million people would be helped by a raise in the minimum 
wage--an increase of more than $2,000 per year for a full-time worker. 
To put things in context, nearly three quarters of minimum wage earners 
are adults and 40 percent are the sole breadwinners for their families. 
Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women, and 82 percent of all 
minimum wage earners work more than 20 hours per week.
  Since the last minimum wage increase, our nation's economy has 
continued to grow steadily. In my home State of Connecticut, members of 
the State legislature saw the wisdom of increasing the minimum wage, 
and last year enacted a two-step minimum wage increase. The current 
level is now $5.65, and effective January 1, 2000, the wage will again 
increase to $6.15 an hour. Connecticut's unemployment rate is 3.8 
percent and almost 60,000 new jobs were created in the last two years. 
The State is close to recovering nearly all of the 156,000 jobs lost 
during the recession that hit in the early 1990's.
  I hope that Congress will follow Connecticut's lead and pass a 
similar law before the year is through. Congress should take a stand 
for millions of working Americans and raise the minimum wage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 193. A bill to apply the same quality and safety standards to 
domestically manufactured handguns that are currently applied to 
imported handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 american handgun standards act of 1999

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 194. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the first $2,000 of health insurance premiums to be fully deductible; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                    health insurance tax relief act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 195. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance.


                research and experimentation tax credit

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 196. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive in 
the case of multiemployer plans the section 415 limit on benefits to 
the participant's average compensation for his high 3 years; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                    pension improvement legislation

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 197. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity 
on the outer Continental Shelf seaward of a coastal State that has 
declared a moratorium on mineral exploration, development, or 
production activity in State water; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                     coastal states protection act

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 198. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the training of health professions students with respect to the 
identification and referral of victims of domestic violence; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


       domestic violence identification and referral act of 1999

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce several 
important bills that I hope the Senate will consider early in the 106th 
Congress.
  The first bill is the American Handgun Standards Act. This 
legislation would require that handguns made in the United States meet 
the same standards currently required of imported handguns. This 
legislation would halt the sale and manufacture of new ``junk guns,'' 
which have been found by criminologists to be disproportionately used 
in crimes.
  The next bill is the Health Insurance Tax Deduction. This important 
legislation would make the costs of health insurance tax deductible for 
individuals who purchase their own health coverage--up to a maximum of 
$2,000 per year. Currently health care costs are only deductible for 
corporations and the self-employed. Current law clearly discriminates 
against individuals and should be changed.
  Also included is legislation to make the Research and Experimentation 
Tax Credit permanent. Virtually all economists agree that the R&E Tax 
Credit is a valuable incentive that encourages high-tech companies to 
develop innovative products. In the past, however, the credit has been 
enacted intermittently and only for very limited periods of time. The 
on-again, off-again nature of the R&E Tax Credit makes it very 
difficult for companies to plan long-term research projects. It should 
be made permanent.
  The next will would improve our pension system by exempting multi-
employer plans from the annual income limits of Section 415 of the 
Internal Revenue Code. Current law sets pension compensation based on 
three consecutive years of pay. However, for workers whose income 
fluctuate from year-to-year, this requirement may lower annual 
benefits. To ensure fairness for these workers, multi-employer plans 
should be exempted from Section 415.
  Next is the Coastal States Protection Act, which will provide 
necessary protection for the nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
from the adverse effects of offshore oil and gas development by making 
management of the federal OCS consistent with state-mandated protection 
of state waters. Simply put, my bill says that when a state establishes 
a drilling moratorium on part or all of its coastal waters, that 
protection would be extended to adjacent federal waters.
  The final bill is the Domestic Violence Identification and Referral 
Act, which would help ensure that medical professionals have the 
training they need to recognize and treat domestic violence, including 
spouse abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse. The bill will amend the 
Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to give preference in awarding grants to institutions that 
train health professionals in identifying, treating, and referring 
patients who are victims of domestic violence to appropriate services.
  I ask that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follow:

                                 S. 193

       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 ``American Handgun Standards 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the importation 
     of handguns that failed to meet minimum quality and safety 
     standards;
       (2) the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not impose any quality 
     and safety standards on domestically produced handguns;
       (3) domestically produced handguns are specifically 
     exempted from oversight by the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission and are not required to meet any quality and 
     safety standards;
       (4) each year--
       (A) gunshots kill more than 35,000 Americans and wound 
     approximately 250,000;
       (B) approximately 75,000 Americans are hospitalized for the 
     treatment of gunshot wounds;
       (C) Americans spend more than $20 billion for the medical 
     treatment of gunshot wounds; and
       (D) gun violence costs the United States economy a total of 
     $135 billion;
       (5) the disparate treatment of imported handguns and 
     domestically produced handguns has led to the creation of a 
     high-volume market for junk guns, defined as those handguns 
     that fail to meet the quality and safety standards required 
     of imported handguns;

[[Page S624]]

       (6) traffic in junk guns constitutes a serious threat to 
     public welfare and to law enforcement officers;
       (7) junk guns are used disproportionately in the commission 
     of crimes; and
       (8) the domestic manufacture, transfer, and possession of 
     junk guns should be restricted.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF JUNK GUN.

       Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35) The term `junk gun' means any handgun that does not 
     meet the standard imposed on imported handguns as described 
     in section 925(d)(3), and any regulations issued under such 
     section.''.

     SEC. 4. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION 
                   OF CERTAIN HANDGUNS.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for 
     a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a junk gun that 
     has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign 
     commerce.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the possession or transfer of a junk gun otherwise 
     lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the 
     enactment of the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999;
       ``(B) a firearm or replica of a firearm that has been 
     rendered permanently inoperative;
       ``(C)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession 
     by, the United States or a State or a department or agency of 
     the United States, or a State of a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a junk gun; or
       ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     junk gun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
     duty);
       ``(D) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a junk gun for the purposes of law enforcement (whether on or 
     off-duty); or
       ``(E) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a junk 
     gun by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the 
     purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the 
     Secretary.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 194

       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 ``Health Insurance Tax Relief 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FIRST $2,000 OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FULLY 
                   DEDUCTIBLE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 213 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to medical, dental, 
     etc., expenses) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--There shall be allowed as a 
     deduction the following amounts not compensated for by 
     insurance or otherwise--
       ``(1) the amount by which the amount of expenses paid 
     during the taxable year (reduced by the amount deductible 
     under paragraph (2)) for medical care of the taxpayer, the 
     taxpayer's spouse, and the taxpayer's dependents (as defined 
     in section 152) exceeds 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income, 
     plus
       ``(2) so much of the expenses paid during the taxable year 
     for insurance which constitutes medical care under subsection 
     (d)(1)(D) (other than for a qualified long-term care 
     insurance contract) for such taxpayer, spouse, and dependents 
     as does not exceed $2,000.''
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes 
     Deduction.--Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (defining adjusted gross income) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (17) the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Health insurance premiums.--The deduction allowed by 
     section 213(a)(2).''
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 162(l)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for 
     health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is an 
     employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1), there shall 
     be allowed as a deduction under this section an amount equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(i) so much of the amount paid during the taxable year 
     for insurance which constitutes medical care for the 
     taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents as does not exceed 
     $2,000, plus
       ``(ii) the applicable percentage of the amount so paid in 
     excess of $2,000.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 195

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities) 
     is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 196

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

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415 
                   LIMIT ON BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special limitation 
     rule for governmental plans) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and multiemployer 
     plans'' after ``governmental plans''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or a multiemployer plan (as defined in 
     section 414(f))'' after ``governmental plan (as defined in 
     section 414(d))''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                  ____


                                 S. 197

       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 ``Coastal States Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEASING.

       Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) State Moratoria.--When there is in effect with 
     respect to land beneath navigable water (as defined in 
     section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (16 U.S.C. 1301)) of a 
     coastal State a moratorium on oil, gas, or other mineral 
     exploration, development, or production activity established 
     by statute or by order of the Governor, the Secretary shall 
     not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or 
     production of minerals on the outer Continental Shelf that is 
     seaward of or adjacent to that land.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 198

       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 ``Domestic Violence 
     Identification and Referral Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT, FOR CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONS 
                   PROGRAMS, OF PROVISIONS REGARDING DOMESTIC 
                   VIOLENCE.

       (a) Title VII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
     Section 791 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295j) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training in carrying out the following 
     functions as a provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and 
     maintaining complete medical records that include 
     documentation of the examination, treatment given, and 
     referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the 
     victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of medicine, a 
     school of osteopathic medicine, a graduate program in mental 
     health practice, a school of nursing (as defined in section 
     853), a program for the training of physician assistants, or 
     a program for the training of allied health professionals.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification 
     and Referral Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report specifying the health professions entities that are 
     receiving preference under paragraph (1); the number of hours 
     of training required by the entities for purposes of such 
     paragraph; the extent of clinical experience so required; 
     and the types of courses through which the training is 
     being provided.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly referred 
     to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal abuse, woman 
     battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and 
     acquaintance rape.''.
       (b) Title VIII Programs; Preferences in Financial Awards.--
     Section 806 of the Public Health Service Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

[[Page S625]]

       ``(i) Preferences Regarding Training in Identification and 
     Referral of Victims of Domestic Violence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a health professions 
     entity specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in 
     making awards of grants or contracts under this title, give 
     preference to any such entity (if otherwise a qualified 
     applicant for the award involved) that has in effect the 
     requirement that, as a condition of receiving a degree or 
     certificate (as applicable) from the entity, each student 
     have had significant training in carrying out the following 
     functions as a provider of health care:
       ``(A) Identifying victims of domestic violence, and 
     maintaining complete medical records that include 
     documentation of the examination, treatment given, and 
     referrals made, and recording the location and nature of the 
     victim's injuries.
       ``(B) Examining and treating such victims, within the scope 
     of the health professional's discipline, training, and 
     practice, including, at a minimum, providing medical advice 
     regarding the dynamics and nature of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Referring the victims to public and nonprofit private 
     entities that provide services for such victims.
       ``(2) Relevant health professions entities.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a health professions entity specified in 
     this paragraph is any entity that is a school of nursing or 
     other public or nonprofit private entity that is eligible to 
     receive an award described in such paragraph.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of the Domestic Violence Identification 
     and Referral Act of 1999, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate, a 
     report specifying the health professions entities that are 
     receiving preference under paragraph (1); the number of hours 
     of training required by the entities for purposes of such 
     paragraph; the extent of clinical experience so required; and 
     the types of courses through which the training is being 
     provided.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `domestic violence' includes behavior commonly referred 
     to as domestic violence, sexual assault, spousal abuse, woman 
     battering, partner abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, and 
     acquaintance rape.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 199. A bill for the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, 
and their son, Vladimir Malofienko; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will help my constituent Vova Malofienko, and his parents, to live 
a healthy and productive life in the United States.
  Tragically, Vova was a victim of the Chernobyl reactor explosion. He 
has battled Leukemia his whole life. Since his arrival in the United 
States for cancer treatment in 1992, he and his parents have sought to 
remain here because the air, food, and water in the Ukraine are still 
contaminated with radiation and are perilous to those like Vova who 
have a weakened immune system. Additionally, cancer treatment available 
in the Ukraine is not as sophisticated as medical care available in the 
United States.
  Although Vova's cancer has gone into remission because of the 
excellent health care he has received, the seven other children who 
came to the United States with Vova were not as fortunate. They 
returned to the Ukraine and they died, one by one, because of 
inadequate cancer treatment. Not one child survived.
  Because of his perilous medical condition, Vova and his family have 
done everything possible to remain in the United States. Since 1992, 
they have obtained a number of visa extensions, and I have helped them 
with their efforts. In March of 1997, the last time the Malofienkos' 
visas were expiring, I appealed to the INS and the family was given 
what I was told would be final one-year extension.
  Across the country, people have rallied in support of Vova's cause. 
The Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund, national Ukrainian and religious 
organizations, and Vova's classmates at Millburn Middle School have all 
worked to help the Malofienkos.
  During the last session of Congress, I introduced legislation to help 
Vova and his family. With the help of Senators Abraham, Hatch, and 
Daschle, the Senate passed the bill unanimously. However, the House 
failed to pass it before the end of the last session.
  I hope that my Senate colleagues will help move this legislation 
forward expeditiously. We must give Vova and his family a chance to 
live their lives in peace.
  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. 199

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir 
     Malofienko, shall be held and considered to have been 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
     payment of the required visa fees.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre 
     Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, 
     as provided in section 1, the Secretary of State shall 
     instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate 
     number during the current fiscal year the total number of 
     immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 
     aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 200. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the years for carryback of net operating losses for certain farm 
losses; to the Committee on Finance.


                    net operating losses for farmers

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation for 
myself and Senator Johnson providing farmers with the option of 
receiving a refund from taxes paid in the past 10 years for their 
current operating losses.
  I was pleased to see a net operating loss provision included in the 
Omnibus Appropriations measure allowing farmers to carry back their 
losses for 5 years. But, a five year period is insufficient given the 
economic reality in Agriculture.
  Farmers are suffering huge losses through no fault of their own. No 
other business has less control of the price they can recieive for what 
they produce. Farmers cannot control the world's weather or the World 
economy. But, those factors determine the price of corn, soybeans and 
wheat. The Freedom to Farm bill passed in 1997 sharply reduced the 
farmer's safety net. Farm prices have crashed to levels not seen in 
decades. Many farmers are going to have a very difficult time being 
able to acquire the funds needed to plant their crops in the coming 
year or maintain their annual operations. Grain farmers received some 
assistance in the Omnibus Appropriations measure. But, it was not 
sufficient. Livestock producers received very limited help in that 
measure. And, in the last few months we have seen hog prices drop to 
levels that were, adjusted for inflation, far lower than anything seen 
at the worst point of the Great Depression. Many farmers could lose the 
farms that have been in their families for generations. Those low 
prices and the resulting sharp reduction in hog producers' financial 
resources is changing the whole structure of hog production. Cattle 
prices also have been significantly below the cost of production for 
over a year. And, the economic difficulty is far broader. It is already 
having a terrible ripple effect on the economies of rural areas. 
Layoffs have been occurring at agricultural equipment manufacturers and 
in stores of all kinds in small towns across the country. We are just 
at the beginning stages of what could become a very severe downturn in 
rural America.
  A number of Senators and I are proposing a series of modifications in 
agicultural programs to help alleviate these programs. But, I believe 
the Congress needs to also pass a provision broadening existing law 
allowing farmers to recover taxes paid in the past to cover their net 
operating losses for 10 years.
  I propose that the option to carry losses back for 10 years only 
apply to family farmers. That would include those with gross sales of 
less than $7 million and the losses covered would be up to $200,000 per 
year in operating losses. The benefit would only go to farmers whose 
families are actively engaged in farming and whose business activity is 
mostly farming. The amount of the rebate would be dependent on the 
amount of the loss and the

[[Page S626]]

tax rate paid by the farmer for the paid taxes that are being restored.
  The 10 year provision would only cover losses occurring in 1998 to 
1999. For losses occuring in 1998, farmers would be able to calculate 
their loss now and seek an immediate rebate from the IRS for the taxes 
paid in earlier years.
  Current law already allows a few taxpayers in certain circumstances 
to go back and recover taxes that they paid for 10 years. I believe 
that it should be broadened to cover farmers in this difficult time. In 
fact, there is a precedent in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act in which 
Amtrak was allowed to use net operating losses of their predecessor 
railroads from over 25 years in the past.
  I urge that when the Congress considers a tax bill, this provision be 
considered and passed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, and 
        Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 201. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
apply the Act to a greater percentage of the United States workforce, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.


           the family and medical leave fairness act of 1999

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, six years ago, I came to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Act. That 
introduction and the signing of the bill into law a few weeks later by 
President Clinton was the culmination of an eight-year struggle to make 
job-protected leave accessible for working Americans, in times of 
family or medical emergency.
  Today, at a time when many Americans are deeply cynical toward the 
work we do here in Washington, the Family and Medical Leave Act stands 
in sharp contrast.
  It responded to a deep and genuine need among American Families. Over 
the last six years, I have heard from many working Americans about what 
this law has meant to them. But no story captures the impact of our 
work better than the one expectant mother I heard from who kept a copy 
of the Family and Medical Leave Act in her bedside table. She had a 
difficult pregnancy and was often on doctor-ordered bed rest; she said 
she kept the FMLA nearby and read it as reassurance that she wouldn't 
lose her job or her health insurance.
  The Family and Medical Leave Act has been a lifeline for tens of 
millions of families as they have responded at those key moments that 
define a family--when there is a new child or when serious illness 
strikes. With the FMLA, working Americans can take 12 weeks off to cope 
with these basic family needs without worry that they will lose their 
jobs or their health insurance.
  Yet, even with the success of the FMLA there is still more work to be 
done.
  Millions of Americans are not covered by the Family and Medical Leave 
Act and continue to face painful choices involving their competing 
responsibilities to family and work.
  In fact, over one-quarter of working Americans needed to take family 
and medical leave in 1998 but were unable to do so. Forty-four percent 
of these Americans did not take the leave they needed because they 
would have lost their jobs or their employers do not allow it.
  Today, forty-three percent of private sector employees remain 
unprotected by the FMLA because their employer does not meet the 
current 50 or more employee threshold.
  The legislation I introduce today--the Family and Medical Leave 
Fairness Act of 1999--will extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to 
millions of Americans who remain uncovered. I am pleased to be joined 
in this effort by Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Murray, Mikulski, Harkin, 
Kerry, Akaka, and Boxer.
  This bill would lower the threshold to include coverage for companies 
with 25 or more workers.
  This small step would provide 13 million additional workers with 
protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act--raising the total 
percentage of the private sector workforce covered by the FMLA to 71 
percent.
  In my view, these workers deserve the same job security in times of 
family and medical emergency that workers in larger companies receive 
from the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  With this legislation they will receive it.
  Now, for those of my colleagues who still harbor doubts about the 
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I strongly urge them to 
examine the bipartisan Commission of Leave report and other studies 
that documents the positive impact of this legislation.
  When the bill was passed in 1993, provisions in the legislation 
established a commission to examine the impact of the act on workers 
and businesses.
  The Family and Medical Leave Commission's analysis spanned two and a 
half years. It included independent research and field hearings across 
the country to learn first hand about the act's impact from  
individuals and the business community.

  The report's conclusions are clear--the Family and Medical Leave Act 
is helping to expand opportunities for working Americans while at the 
same time not placing any undue burden on employers.
  According to the Commission's final report, the Family and Medical 
Leave Act represents ``A significant step in helping a larger cross-
section of working Americans meet their medical and family care giving 
needs while still maintaining their jobs and economic security.''
  Due to this legislation, Americans now possess greater opportunities 
to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take longer 
leaves for a greater number of reasons.
  In fact, according to the bipartisan Commission--12 million workers 
took job-protected leave for reasons covered by the Family and Medical 
Leave Act during the 18 months of its study.
  Not only are American workers reaping the benefits. The law is 
working for American business as well.
  The conclusions of the bipartisan report are a far cry from the 
concerns that were voiced when this law was being considered in 
Congress.
  The vast majority of businesses--over 94%--report little to no 
additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. More 
than 92% reported no noticeable effect on profitability. And nearly 96% 
reported no noticeable effect on business growth. Additionally, 83% of 
employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. In 
fact, 12.6% actually reported a positive effect on employee 
productivity from the Family and Medical Leave Act, twice as many as 
reported a negative effect.
  And not only did employers report that compliance with the FMLA was 
relatively easy and of minimal cost, but work sites with a small number 
of employees generally reported greater ease of administration and even 
smaller costs than large work sites.
  Today, I introduce this legislation with the hope and expectation 
that we can put aside our political differences and build on the 
success of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  Last November, the American people gave us mandate--a mandate for 
good governance. The Family and Medical Leave Act represents the 
fulfillment of this goal and I urge all my colleagues to join with me 
in supporting this critically important legislation for America's 
working families.
  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. 201

       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 cited as the ``Family and Medical Leave 
     Fairness Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2601 et seq.) has provided employees with a significant new 
     tool in balancing the needs of their families with the 
     demands of work;
       (2) the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 has had a 
     minimal impact on business, and over 90 percent of private 
     employers covered by the Act experienced little or no cost 
     and a minimal, or positive, impact on productivity as a 
     result of the Act;
       (3) although both employers at workplaces with large 
     numbers of employees and employers at workplaces with small 
     numbers of

[[Page S627]]

     employees reported that compliance with the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 involved very easy administration 
     and low costs, the smaller employers found it easier and less 
     expensive to comply with the Act than the larger employers;
       (4) over three-quarters of worksites with under 50 
     employees covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 
     report no cost increases or small cost increases associated 
     with compliance with the Act;
       (5) in 1998, 27 percent of Americans needed to take family 
     or medical leave but were unable to do so, and 44 percent of 
     these employees did not take such leave because they would 
     have lost their jobs or their employers did not allow it;
       (6) only 57 percent of the private workforce is currently 
     protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; and
       (7) 13,000,000 more private employees, or an additional 14 
     percent of the private workforce, would be protected by the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 if the Act was expanded 
     to cover private employers with 25 or more employees.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES.

       Paragraphs (2)(B)(ii) and (4)(A)(i) of section 101 of the 
     Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 
     2611(2)(B)(ii) and (4)(A)(i)) are amended by striking ``50'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``25''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 202. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act and 
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve access 
to health insurance and Medicare benefits for individuals ages 55 to 
65, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 THE MEDICARE EARLY ACCESS ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill to provide 
access to health insurance for individuals between the ages of 55-65. 
These individuals are too young for Medicare, not poor enough to 
qualify for Medicaid, and in many cases, are forced into early 
retirement or pushed out of their jobs in corporate downsizing.
  The ``Medicare Early Access Act'' is based on the President's three-
part initiative announced last January. The bill is a targeted proposal 
to give older Americans under 65 new options to obtain health insurance 
coverage. Many of these Americans have worked hard all their lives, 
but, through no fault of their own, find themselves uninsured just as 
they are entering the years when the risk of serious illness is 
increasing. This legislation attempts to bridge the gap in coverage 
between years when persons are in the labor force and the age (65) when 
they become eligible for Medicare.
  The bill has three parts: (1) It enables persons between ages 62 and 
64 to buy into Medicare by paying a full premium; (2) It provides 
displaced workers over age 55 access to Medicare by offering a similar 
Medicare buy-in option; and (3) It extends COBRA coverage to persons 55 
and over whose employers withdraw retiree health benefits.
  The program is largely self-financing and is substantially paid for 
by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves. There is a modest cost 
to the buy-in proposal for 62-65-year-olds because participants would 
pay the premium in two parts: most of the cost would be paid by the 
individual up front and a smaller amount would be paid after they turn 
65 years-old. Medicare would in effect ``loan'' participants the second 
part of the premium until they reach 65, when they would make small 
monthly payments in addition to their regular Medicare Part B premium. 
The financing of the program is carefully walled off from the Medicare 
Part A and Part B Trust Funds, to ensure that it will not adversely 
impact the existing program.
  In 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of this bill 
found no impact on the Medicare Part A or Part B Trust Funds. CBO also 
predicted that about 410,000 individuals would participate (or 33 
percent more than first estimated by the Administration). Finally, CBO 
estimated that the post-65 premium that people ages 62-65 would pay 
would be only $10 per month per year--$6 per month, or $72 less per 
year, than the Administration estimated.
  Mr. President, the problem of health insurance for the near elderly 
is getting worse. Congress should act now to provide valuable coverage 
for these individuals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 202

       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 ``Medicare 
     Early Access Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-65 YEARS OF 
                                  AGE

       Sec. 101. Access to medicare benefits for individuals 62-
           to-65 years of age.

 ``Part D--Purchase of Medicare Benefits by Certain Individuals Age 62-
                           to-65 Years of Age

         ``Sec. 1859. Program benefits; eligibility.
         ``Sec. 1859A. Enrollment process; coverage.
         ``Sec. 1859B. Premiums.
         ``Sec. 1859C. Payment of premiums.
         ``Sec. 1859D. Medicare Early Access Trust Fund.
         ``Sec. 1859E. Oversight and accountability.
         ``Sec. 1859F. Administration and miscellaneous.''.

 TITLE II--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 55-TO-62 
                              YEARS OF AGE

       Sec. 201. Access to medicare benefits for displaced workers 
           55-to-62 years of age.

             TITLE III--COBRA PROTECTION FOR EARLY RETIREES

 Subtitle A--Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
                                of 1974

       Sec. 301. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired 
           workers who lose retiree health coverage.

        Subtitle B--Amendments to the Public Health Service Act

       Sec. 311. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired 
           workers who lose retiree health coverage.

      Subtitle C--Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

       Sec. 321. COBRA continuation benefits for certain retired 
           workers who lose retiree health coverage.

TITLE I--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-65 YEARS OF 
                                  AGE

     SEC. 101. ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUALS 62-TO-
                   65 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) In General.--Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 1859 and part D as section 
     1858 and part E, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after such section the following new part:

 ``Part D--Purchase of Medicare Benefits by Certain Individuals Age 62-
                           to-65 Years of Age

     ``SEC. 1859. PROGRAM BENEFITS; ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Entitlement to Medicare Benefits for Enrolled 
     Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual enrolled under this part 
     is entitled to the same benefits under this title as an 
     individual entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled 
     under part B.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this part:
       ``(A) Federal or state cobra continuation provision.--The 
     term `Federal or State COBRA continuation provision' has the 
     meaning given the term `COBRA continuation provision' in 
     section 2791(d)(4) of the Public Health Service Act and 
     includes a comparable State program, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Federal health insurance program defined.--The term 
     `Federal health insurance program' means any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) Medicare.--Part A or part B of this title (other than 
     by reason of this part).
       ``(ii) Medicaid.--A State plan under title XIX.
       ``(iii) FEHBP.--The Federal employees health benefit 
     program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(iv) TRICARE.--The TRICARE program (as defined in section 
     1072(7) of title 10, United States Code).
       ``(v) Active duty military.--Health benefits under title 
     10, United States Code, to an individual as a member of the 
     uniformed services of the United States.
       ``(C) Group health plan.--The term `group health plan' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 2791(a)(1) of the 
     Public Health Service Act.
       ``(b) Eligibility of Individuals Age 62-to-65 Years of 
     Age.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an individual 
     who meets the following requirements with respect to a month 
     is eligible to enroll under this part with respect to such 
     month:
       ``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual 
     has attained 62 years of age, but has not attained 65 years 
     of age.

[[Page S628]]

       ``(B) Medicare eligibility (but for age).--The individual 
     would be eligible for benefits under part A or part B for the 
     month if the individual were 65 years of age.
       ``(C) Not eligible for coverage under group health plans or 
     federal health insurance programs.--The individual is not 
     eligible for benefits or coverage under a Federal health 
     insurance program (as defined in subsection (a)(2)(B)) or 
     under a group health plan (other than such eligibility merely 
     through a Federal or State COBRA continuation provision) as 
     of the last day of the month involved.
       ``(2) Limitation on eligibility if terminated enrollment.--
     If an individual described in paragraph (1) enrolls under 
     this part and coverage of the individual is terminated under 
     section 1859A(d) (other than because of age), the individual 
     is not again eligible to enroll under this subsection unless 
     the following requirements are met:
       ``(A) New coverage under group health plan or federal 
     health insurance program.--After the date of termination of 
     coverage under such section, the individual obtains coverage 
     under a group health plan or under a Federal health insurance 
     program.
       ``(B) Subsequent loss of new coverage.--The individual 
     subsequently loses eligibility for the coverage described in 
     subparagraph (A) and exhausts any eligibility the individual 
     may subsequently have for coverage under a Federal or State 
     COBRA continuation provision.
       ``(3) Change in health plan eligibility does not affect 
     coverage.--In the case of an individual who is eligible for 
     and enrolls under this part under this subsection, the 
     individual's continued entitlement to benefits under this 
     part shall not be affected by the individual's subsequent 
     eligibility for benefits or coverage described in paragraph 
     (1)(C), or entitlement to such benefits or coverage.

     ``SEC. 1859A. ENROLLMENT PROCESS; COVERAGE.

       ``(a) In General.--An individual may enroll in the program 
     established under this part only in such manner and form as 
     may be prescribed by regulations, and only during an 
     enrollment period prescribed by the Secretary consistent with 
     the provisions of this section. Such regulations shall 
     provide a process under which--
       ``(1) individuals eligible to enroll as of a month are 
     permitted to pre-enroll during a prior month within an 
     enrollment period described in subsection (b); and
       ``(2) each individual seeking to enroll under section 
     1859(b) is notified, before enrolling, of the deferred 
     monthly premium amount the individual will be liable for 
     under section 1859C(b) upon attaining 65 years of age as 
     determined under section 1859B(c)(3).
       ``(b) Enrollment Periods.--
       ``(1) Individuals 62-to-65 years of age.--In the case of 
     individuals eligible to enroll under this part under section 
     1859(b)--
       ``(A) Initial enrollment period.--If the individual is 
     eligible to enroll under such section for July 2000, the 
     enrollment period shall begin on May 1, 2000, and shall end 
     on August 31, 2000. Any such enrollment before July 1, 2000, 
     is conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of 
     eligibility for July 2000.
       ``(B) Subsequent periods.--If the individual is eligible to 
     enroll under such section for a month after July 2000, the 
     enrollment period shall begin on the first day of the second 
     month before the month in which the individual first is 
     eligible to so enroll and shall end 4 months later. Any such 
     enrollment before the first day of the third month of such 
     enrollment period is conditioned upon compliance with the 
     conditions of eligibility for such third month.
       ``(2) Authority to correct for government errors.--The 
     provisions of section 1837(h) apply with respect to 
     enrollment under this part in the same manner as they apply 
     to enrollment under part B.
       ``(c) Date Coverage Begins.--
       ``(1) In general.--The period during which an individual is 
     entitled to benefits under this part shall begin as follows, 
     but in no case earlier than July 1, 2000:
       ``(A) In the case of an individual who enrolls (including 
     pre-enrolls) before the month in which the individual 
     satisfies eligibility for enrollment under section 1859, the 
     first day of such month of eligibility.
       ``(B) In the case of an individual who enrolls during or 
     after the month in which the individual first satisfies 
     eligibility for enrollment under such section, the first day 
     of the following month.
       ``(2) Authority to provide for partial months of 
     coverage.--Under regulations, the Secretary may, in the 
     Secretary's discretion, provide for coverage periods that 
     include portions of a month in order to avoid lapses of 
     coverage.
       ``(3) Limitation on payments.--No payments may be made 
     under this title with respect to the expenses of an 
     individual enrolled under this part unless such expenses were 
     incurred by such individual during a period which, with 
     respect to the individual, is a coverage period under this 
     section.
       ``(d) Termination of Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--An individual's coverage period under 
     this part shall continue until the individual's enrollment 
     has been terminated at the earliest of the following:
       ``(A) General provisions.--
       ``(i) Notice.--The individual files notice (in a form and 
     manner prescribed by the Secretary) that the individual no 
     longer wishes to participate in the insurance program under 
     this part.
       ``(ii) Nonpayment of premiums.--The individual fails to 
     make payment of premiums required for enrollment under this 
     part.
       ``(iii) Medicare eligibility.--The individual becomes 
     entitled to benefits under part A or enrolled under part B 
     (other than by reason of this part).
       ``(B) Termination based on age.--The individual attains 65 
     years of age.
       ``(2) Effective date of termination.--
       ``(A) Notice.--The termination of a coverage period under 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall take effect at the close of the 
     month following for which the notice is filed.
       ``(B) Nonpayment of premium.--The termination of a coverage 
     period under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall take effect on a date 
     determined under regulations, which may be determined so as 
     to provide a grace period in which overdue premiums may be 
     paid and coverage continued. The grace period determined 
     under the preceding sentence shall not exceed 60 days; except 
     that it may be extended for an additional 30 days in any case 
     where the Secretary determines that there was good cause for 
     failure to pay the overdue premiums within such 60-day 
     period.
       ``(C) Age or medicare eligibility.--The termination of a 
     coverage period under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or (1)(B) shall 
     take effect as of the first day of the month in which the 
     individual attains 65 years of age or becomes entitled to 
     benefits under part A or enrolled for benefits under part B 
     (other than by reason of this part).

     ``SEC. 1859B. PREMIUMS.

       ``(a) Amount of Monthly Premiums.--
       ``(1) Base monthly premiums.--The Secretary shall, during 
     September of each year (beginning with 1999), determine the 
     following premium rates which shall apply with respect to 
     coverage provided under this title for any month in the 
     succeeding year:
       ``(A) Base monthly premium for individuals 62 years of age 
     or older.--A base monthly premium for individuals 62 years of 
     age or older is equal to \1/12\ of the base annual premium 
     rate computed under subsection (b) for each premium area.
       ``(B) Deferred monthly premiums for individuals 62 years of 
     age or older.--The Secretary shall, during September of each 
     year (beginning with 1999), determine under subsection (c) 
     the amount of deferred monthly premiums that shall apply with 
     respect to individuals who first obtain coverage under this 
     part under section 1859(b) in the succeeding year.
       ``(3) Establishment of premium areas.--For purposes of this 
     part, the term `premium area' means such an area as the 
     Secretary shall specify to carry out this part. The Secretary 
     from time to time may change the boundaries of such premium 
     areas. The Secretary shall seek to minimize the number of 
     such areas specified under this paragraph.
       ``(b) Base Annual Premium for Individuals 62 Years of Age 
     or Older.--
       ``(1) National, per capita average.--The Secretary shall 
     estimate the average, annual per capita amount that would be 
     payable under this title with respect to individuals residing 
     in the United States who meet the requirement of section 
     1859(b)(1)(A) as if all such individuals were eligible for 
     (and enrolled) under this title during the entire year (and 
     assuming that section 1862(b)(2)(A)(i) did not apply).
       ``(2) Geographic adjustment.--The Secretary shall reduce, 
     as determined appropriate, the amount determined under 
     paragraph (1) for a premium area (specified under subsection 
     (a)(3)) that has costs below the national average, in order 
     to assure participation in all areas throughout the United 
     States.
       ``(3) Base annual premium.--The base annual premium under 
     this subsection for months in a year for individuals 62 years 
     of age or older residing in a premium area is equal to the 
     average, annual per capita amount estimated under paragraph 
     (1) for the year, adjusted for such area under paragraph (2).
       ``(c) Deferred Premium Rate for Individuals 62 Years of Age 
     or Older.--The deferred premium rate for individuals with a 
     group of individuals who obtain coverage under section 
     1859(b) in a year shall be computed by the Secretary as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Estimation of national, per capita annual average 
     expenditures for enrollment group.--The Secretary shall 
     estimate the average, per capita annual amount that will be 
     paid under this part for individuals in such group during the 
     period of enrollment under section 1859(b). In making such 
     estimate for coverage beginning in a year before 2004, the 
     Secretary may base such estimate on the average, per capita 
     amount that would be payable if the program had been in 
     operation over a previous period of at least 4 years.
       ``(2) Difference between estimated expenditures and 
     estimated premiums.--Based on the characteristics of 
     individuals in such group, the Secretary shall estimate 
     during the period of coverage of the group under this part 
     under section 1859(b) the amount by which--
       ``(A) the amount estimated under paragraph (1); exceeds
       ``(B) the average, annual per capita amount of premiums 
     that will be payable for months during the year under section 
     1859C(a) for individuals in such group (including premiums 
     that would be payable if there were no terminations in 
     enrollment under clause (i) or (ii) of section 
     1859A(d)(1)(A)).

[[Page S629]]

       ``(3) Actuarial computation of deferred monthly premium 
     rates.--The Secretary shall determine deferred monthly 
     premium rates for individuals in such group in a manner so 
     that--
       ``(A) the estimated actuarial value of such premiums 
     payable under section 1859C(b), is equal to
       ``(B) the estimated actuarial present value of the 
     differences described in paragraph (2).

     Such rate shall be computed for each individual in the group 
     in a manner so that the rate is based on the number of months 
     between the first month of coverage based on enrollment under 
     section 1859(b) and the month in which the individual attains 
     65 years of age.
       ``(4) Determinants of actuarial present values.--The 
     actuarial present values described in paragraph (3) shall 
     reflect--
       ``(A) the estimated probabilities of survival at ages 62 
     through 84 for individuals enrolled during the year; and
       ``(B) the estimated effective average interest rates that 
     would be earned on investments held in the trust funds under 
     this title during the period in question.

     ``SEC. 1859C. PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.

       ``(a) Payment of Base Monthly Premium.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for payment 
     and collection of the base monthly premium, determined under 
     section 1859B(a)(1) for the age (and age cohort, if 
     applicable) of the individual involved and the premium area 
     in which the individual principally resides, in the same 
     manner as for payment of monthly premiums under section 1840, 
     except that, for purposes of applying this section, any 
     reference in such section to the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed a reference to the 
     Trust Fund established under section 1859D.
       ``(2) Period of payment.--In the case of an individual who 
     participates in the program established by this title, the 
     base monthly premium shall be payable for the period 
     commencing with the first month of the individual's coverage 
     period and ending with the month in which the individual's 
     coverage under this title terminates.
       ``(b) Payment of Deferred Premium for Individuals Covered 
     After Attaining Age 62.--
       ``(1) Rate of payment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is 
     covered under this part for a month pursuant to an enrollment 
     under section 1859(b), subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     individual is liable for payment of a deferred premium in 
     each month during the period described in paragraph (2) in an 
     amount equal to the full deferred monthly premium rate 
     determined for the individual under section 1859B(c).
       ``(B) Special rules for those who disenroll early.--
       ``(i) In general.--If such an individual's enrollment under 
     such section is terminated under clause (i) or (ii) of 
     section 1859A(d)(1)(A), subject to clause (ii), the amount of 
     the deferred premium otherwise established under this 
     paragraph shall be pro-rated to reflect the number of months 
     of coverage under this part under such enrollment compared to 
     the maximum number of months of coverage that the individual 
     would have had if the enrollment were not so terminated.
       ``(ii) Rounding to 12-month minimum coverage periods.--In 
     applying clause (i), the number of months of coverage (if not 
     a multiple of 12) shall be rounded to the next highest 
     multiple of 12 months, except that in no case shall this 
     clause result in a number of months of coverage exceeding the 
     maximum number of months of coverage that the individual 
     would have had if the enrollment were not so terminated.
       ``(2) Period of payment.--The period described in this 
     paragraph for an individual is the period beginning with the 
     first month in which the individual has attained 65 years of 
     age and ending with the month before the month in which the 
     individual attains 85 years of age.
       ``(3) Collection.--In the case of an individual who is 
     liable for a premium under this subsection, the amount of the 
     premium shall be collected in the same manner as the premium 
     for enrollment under such part is collected under section 
     1840, except that any reference in such section to the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed 
     to be a reference to the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund 
     established under section 1859D.
       ``(c) Application of Certain Provisions.--The provisions of 
     section 1840 (other than subsection (h)) shall apply to 
     premiums collected under this section in the same manner as 
     they apply to premiums collected under part B, except that 
     any reference in such section to the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Fund is deemed a reference to the 
     Trust Fund established under section 1859D.

     ``SEC. 1859D. MEDICARE EARLY ACCESS TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is hereby created on the books of 
     the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as 
     the `Medicare Early Access Trust Fund' (in this section 
     referred to as the `Trust Fund'). The Trust Fund shall 
     consist of such gifts and bequests as may be made as provided 
     in section 201(i)(1) and such amounts as may be deposited in, 
     or appropriated to, such fund as provided in this title.
       ``(2) Premiums.--Premiums collected under section 1859B 
     shall be transferred to the Trust Fund.
       ``(b) Incorporation of Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections 
     (b) through (i) of section 1841 shall apply with respect to 
     the Trust Fund and this title in the same manner as they 
     apply with respect to the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund and part B, respectively.
       ``(2) Miscellaneous references.--In applying provisions of 
     section 1841 under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) any reference in such section to `this part' is 
     construed to refer to this part D;
       ``(B) any reference in section 1841(h) to section 1840(d) 
     and in section 1841(i) to sections 1840(b)(1) and 1842(g) are 
     deemed references to comparable authority exercised under 
     this part; and
       ``(C) payments may be made under section 1841(g) to the 
     trust funds under sections 1817 and 1841 as reimbursement to 
     such funds for payments they made for benefits provided under 
     this part.

     ``SEC. 1859E. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Through Annual Reports of Trustees.--The Board of 
     Trustees of the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund under 
     section 1859D(b)(1) shall report on an annual basis to 
     Congress concerning the status of the Trust Fund and the need 
     for adjustments in the program under this part to maintain 
     financial solvency of the program under this part.
       ``(b) Periodic GAO Reports.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall periodically submit to Congress reports 
     on the adequacy of the financing of coverage provided under 
     this part. The Comptroller General shall include in such 
     report such recommendations for adjustments in such financing 
     and coverage as the Comptroller General deems appropriate in 
     order to maintain financial solvency of the program under 
     this part.

     ``SEC. 1859F. ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS.

       ``(a) Treatment for Purposes of this Title.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this part--
       ``(1) an individual enrolled under this part shall be 
     treated for purposes of this title as though the individual 
     was entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part 
     B; and
       ``(2) benefits described in section 1859 shall be payable 
     under this title to such an individual in the same manner as 
     if such individual was so entitled and enrolled.
       ``(b) Not Treated as Medicare Program for Purposes of 
     Medicaid Program.--For purposes of applying title XIX 
     (including the provision of medicare cost-sharing assistance 
     under such title), an individual who is enrolled under this 
     part shall not be treated as being entitled to benefits under 
     this title.
       ``(c) Not Treated as Medicare Program for Purposes of COBRA 
     Continuation Provisions.--In applying a COBRA continuation 
     provision (as defined in section 2791(d)(4) of the Public 
     Health Service Act), any reference to an entitlement to 
     benefits under this title shall not be construed to include 
     entitlement to benefits under this title pursuant to the 
     operation of this part.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to Social Security Act 
     Provisions.--
       (1) Section 201(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``or the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund'' and inserting 
     ``the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and 
     the Medicare Early Access Trust Fund''.
       (2) Section 201(g)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     401(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``and the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund established by 
     title XVIII'' and inserting ``, the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and the Medicare Early Access 
     Trust Fund established by title XVIII''.
       (3) Section 1820(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(i)) is 
     amended by striking ``part D'' and inserting ``part E''.
       (4) Part C of title XVIII of such Act is amended--
       (A) in section 1851(a)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2)(B)), 
     by striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(3);
       (B) in section 1851(a)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(a)(2)(C)), 
     by striking ``1859(b)(2)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(2)'';
       (C) in section 1852(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)), by 
     striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting ``1858(b)(3);
       (D) in section 1852(a)(3)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     22(a)(3)(B)(ii)), by striking ``1859(b)(2)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``1858(b)(2)(B)'';
       (E) in section 1853(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(1)(A)), 
     by striking ``1859(e)(4)'' and inserting ``1858(e)(4)''; and
       (F) in section 1853(a)(3)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(3)(D)), 
     by striking ``1859(e)(4)'' and inserting ``1858(e)(4)''.
       (5) Section 1853(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (7)'' and inserting 
     ``, (7), or (8)'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Adjustment for early access.--In applying this 
     subsection with respect to individuals entitled to benefits 
     under part D, the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate 
     adjustment in the Medicare+Choice capitation rate as may be 
     appropriate to reflect differences between the population 
     served under such part and the population under parts A and 
     B.''.
       (c) Other Conforming Amendments.--

[[Page S630]]

       (1) Section 138(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``1859(b)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``1858(b)(3)''.
       (2)(A) Section 602(2)(D)(ii) of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(not including an individual who is so entitled 
     pursuant to enrollment under section 1859A)'' after ``Social 
     Security Act''.
       (B) Section 2202(2)(D)(ii) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(D)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``(not 
     including an individual who is so entitled pursuant to 
     enrollment under section 1859A)'' after ``Social Security 
     Act''.
       (C) Section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(not including an 
     individual who is so entitled pursuant to enrollment under 
     section 1859A)'' after ``Social Security Act''.

 TITLE II--ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 55-TO-62 
                              YEARS OF AGE

     SEC. 201. ACCESS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR DISPLACED WORKERS 
                   55-TO-62 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) Eligibility.--Section 1859 of the Social Security Act, 
     as inserted by section 101(a)(2), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Displaced Workers and Spouses.--
       ``(1) Displaced workers.--Subject to paragraph (3), an 
     individual who meets the following requirements with respect 
     to a month is eligible to enroll under this part with respect 
     to such month:
       ``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual 
     has attained 55 years of age, but has not attained 62 years 
     of age.
       ``(B) Medicare eligibility (but for age).--The individual 
     would be eligible for benefits under part A or B for the 
     month if the individual were 65 years of age.
       ``(C) Loss of employment-based coverage.--
       ``(i) Eligible for unemployment compensation.--The 
     individual meets the requirements relating to period of 
     covered employment and conditions of separation from 
     employment to be eligible for unemployment compensation (as 
     defined in section 85(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), based on a separation from employment occurring on or 
     after January 1, 1999. The previous sentence shall not be 
     construed as requiring the individual to be receiving such 
     unemployment compensation.
       ``(ii) Loss of employment-based coverage.--Immediately 
     before the time of such separation of employment, the 
     individual was covered under a group health plan on the basis 
     of such employment, and, because of such loss, is no longer 
     eligible for coverage under such plan (including such 
     eligibility based on the application of a Federal or State 
     COBRA continuation provision) as of the last day of the month 
     involved.
       ``(iii) Previous creditable coverage for at least 1 year.--
     As of the date on which the individual loses coverage 
     described in clause (ii), the aggregate of the periods of 
     creditable coverage (as determined under section 2701(c) of 
     the Public Health Service Act) is 12 months or longer.
       ``(D) Exhaustion of available cobra continuation 
     benefits.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of an individual described 
     in clause (ii) for a month described in clause (iii)--

       ``(I) the individual (or spouse) elected coverage described 
     in clause (ii); and
       ``(II) the individual (or spouse) has continued such 
     coverage for all months described in clause (iii) in which 
     the individual (or spouse) is eligible for such coverage.

       ``(ii) Individuals to whom cobra continuation coverage made 
     available.--An individual described in this clause is an 
     individual--

       ``(I) who was offered coverage under a Federal or State 
     COBRA continuation provision at the time of loss of coverage 
     eligibility described in subparagraph (C)(ii); or
       ``(II) whose spouse was offered such coverage in a manner 
     that permitted coverage of the individual at such time.

       ``(iii) Months of possible cobra continuation coverage.--A 
     month described in this clause is a month for which an 
     individual described in clause (ii) could have had coverage 
     described in such clause as of the last day of the month if 
     the individual (or the spouse of the individual, as the case 
     may be) had elected such coverage on a timely basis.
       ``(E) Not eligible for coverage under federal health 
     insurance program or group health plans.--The individual is 
     not eligible for benefits or coverage under a Federal health 
     insurance program or under a group health plan (whether on 
     the basis of the individual's employment or employment of the 
     individual's spouse) as of the last day of the month 
     involved.
       ``(2) Spouse of displaced worker.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), an individual who meets the following requirements with 
     respect to a month is eligible to enroll under this part with 
     respect to such month:
       ``(A) Age.--As of the last day of the month, the individual 
     has not attained 62 years of age.
       ``(B) Married to displaced worker.--The individual is the 
     spouse of an individual at the time the individual enrolls 
     under this part under paragraph (1) and loses coverage 
     described in paragraph (1)(C)(ii) because the individual's 
     spouse lost such coverage.
       ``(C) Medicare eligibility (but for age); exhaustion of any 
     cobra continuation coverage; and not eligible for coverage 
     under federal health insurance program or group health 
     plan.--The individual meets the requirements of subparagraphs 
     (B), (D), and (E) of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Change in health plan eligibility affects continued 
     eligibility.--For provision that terminates enrollment under 
     this section in the case of an individual who becomes 
     eligible for coverage under a group health plan or under a 
     Federal health insurance program, see section 1859A(d)(1)(C).
       ``(4) Reenrollment permitted.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed as preventing an individual who, after 
     enrolling under this subsection, terminates such enrollment 
     from subsequently reenrolling under this subsection if the 
     individual is eligible to enroll under this subsection at 
     that time.''.
       (b) Enrollment.--Section 1859A of such Act, as so inserted, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) individuals whose coverage under this part would 
     terminate because of subsection (d)(1)(B)(ii) are provided 
     notice and an opportunity to continue enrollment in 
     accordance with section 1859E(c)(1).'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, (1) the following:
       ``(2) Displaced workers and spouses.--In the case of 
     individuals eligible to enroll under this part under section 
     1859(c), the following rules apply:
       ``(A) Initial enrollment period.--If the individual is 
     first eligible to enroll under such section for July 2000, 
     the enrollment period shall begin on May 1, 2000, and shall 
     end on August 31, 2000. Any such enrollment before July 1, 
     2000, is conditioned upon compliance with the conditions of 
     eligibility for July 2000.
       ``(B) Subsequent periods.--If the individual is eligible to 
     enroll under such section for a month after July 2000, the 
     enrollment period based on such eligibility shall begin on 
     the first day of the second month before the month in which 
     the individual first is eligible to so enroll (or reenroll) 
     and shall end 4 months later.'';
       (3) in subsection (d)(1), by amending subparagraph (B) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Termination based on age.--
       ``(i) At age 65.--Subject to clause (ii), the individual 
     attains 65 years of age.
       ``(ii) At age 62 for displaced workers and spouses.--In the 
     case of an individual enrolled under this part pursuant to 
     section 1859(c), subject to subsection (a)(1), the individual 
     attains 62 years of age.'';
       (4) in subsection (d)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Obtaining access to employment-based coverage or 
     federal health insurance program for individuals under 62 
     years of age.--In the case of an individual who has not 
     attained 62 years of age, the individual is covered (or 
     eligible for coverage) as a participant or beneficiary under 
     a group health plan or under a Federal health insurance 
     program.'';
       (5) in subsection (d)(2), by amending subparagraph (C) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(C) Age or medicare eligibility.--
       ``(i) In general.--The termination of a coverage period 
     under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or (1)(B)(i) shall take effect as 
     of the first day of the month in which the individual attains 
     65 years of age or becomes entitled to benefits under part A 
     or enrolled for benefits under part B.
       ``(ii) Displaced workers.--The termination of a coverage 
     period under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) shall take effect as of the 
     first day of the month in which the individual attains 62 
     years of age, unless the individual has enrolled under this 
     part pursuant to section 1859(b) and section 1859E(c)(1).''; 
     and
       (6) in subsection (d)(2), by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Access to coverage.--The termination of a coverage 
     period under paragraph (1)(C) shall take effect on the date 
     on which the individual is eligible to begin a period of 
     creditable coverage (as defined in section 2701(c) of the 
     Public Health Service Act) under a group health plan or under 
     a Federal health insurance program.''.
       (c) Premiums.--Section 1859B of such Act, as so inserted, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(B) Base monthly premium for individuals under 62 years 
     of age.--A base monthly premium for individuals under 62 
     years of age, equal to \1/12\ of the base annual premium rate 
     computed under subsection (d)(3) for each premium area and 
     age cohort.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Base Monthly Premium for Individuals Under 62 Years 
     of Age.--
       ``(1) National, per capita average for age groups.--
       ``(A) Estimate of amount.--The Secretary shall estimate the 
     average, annual per capita amount that would be payable under 
     this title with respect to individuals residing in the United 
     States who meet the requirement of section 1859(c)(1)(A) 
     within each of the age cohorts established under subparagraph 
     (B) as if all such individuals within such cohort were 
     eligible for (and enrolled) under this title during the 
     entire year (and assuming that section 1862(b)(2)(A)(i) did 
     not apply).
       ``(B) Age cohorts.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall establish

[[Page S631]]

     separate age cohorts in 5-year age increments for individuals 
     who have not attained 60 years of age and a separate cohort 
     for individuals who have attained 60 years of age.
       ``(2) Geographic adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust 
     the amount determined under paragraph (1)(A) for each premium 
     area (specified under subsection (a)(3)) in the same manner 
     and to the same extent as the Secretary provides for 
     adjustments under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Base annual premium.--The base annual premium under 
     this subsection for months in a year for individuals in an 
     age cohort under paragraph (1)(B) in a premium area is equal 
     to 165 percent of the average, annual per capita amount 
     estimated under paragraph (1) for the age cohort and year, 
     adjusted for such area under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Pro-ration of premiums to reflect coverage during a 
     part of a month.--If the Secretary provides for coverage of 
     portions of a month under section 1859A(c)(2), the Secretary 
     shall pro-rate the premiums attributable to such coverage 
     under this section to reflect the portion of the month so 
     covered.''.
       (d) Administrative Provisions.--Section 1859F of such Act, 
     as so inserted, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Additional Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Process for continued enrollment of displaced workers 
     who attain 62 years of age.--The Secretary shall provide a 
     process for the continuation of enrollment of individuals 
     whose enrollment under section 1859(c) would be terminated 
     upon attaining 62 years of age. Under such process such 
     individuals shall be provided appropriate and timely notice 
     before the date of such termination and of the requirement to 
     enroll under this part pursuant to section 1859(b) in order 
     to continue entitlement to benefits under this title after 
     attaining 62 years of age.
       ``(2) Arrangements with states for determinations relating 
     to unemployment compensation eligibility.--The Secretary may 
     provide for appropriate arrangements with States for the 
     determination of whether individuals in the State meet or 
     would meet the requirements of section 1859(c)(1)(C)(i).''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment to Heading to Part.--The heading 
     of part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as so 
     inserted, is amended by striking ``62'' and inserting ``55''.

             TITLE III--COBRA PROTECTION FOR EARLY RETIREES

 Subtitle A--Amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
                                of 1974

     SEC. 301. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED 
                   WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
       (1) In general.--Section 603 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1163) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits 
     (as defined in section 607(7)) of group health plan coverage 
     as a result of plan changes or termination in the case of a 
     covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
       (2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and 
     substantial reduction defined.--Section 607 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1167) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Special rule for qualifying retirees and 
     dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 603(7), the term `qualified beneficiary' means a 
     qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day 
     before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan 
     on the basis of the individual's relationship to such 
     qualified retiree.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree' 
     means, with respect to a qualifying event described in 
     section 603(7), a covered employee who, at the time of the 
     event--
       ``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
       ``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by 
     reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
       ``(7) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial 
     reduction'--
       ``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary and with respect to a qualified beneficiary, a 
     reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under 
     the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an 
     increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and 
     coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of 
     commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the 
     retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 
     1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total 
     average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of 
     such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to 
     permit comparison of values over time); and
       ``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an 
     amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth 
     sentence of section 602(3).
       (b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 602(2)(A) 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or 603(7)'' after 
     ``603(6)'';
       (2) in clause (iv), by striking ``or 603(6)'' and inserting 
     ``, 603(6), or 603(7)'';
       (3) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (vi);
       (4) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv) and by 
     moving such clause to immediately follow clause (iii); and
       (5) by inserting after such clause (iv) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(v) Special rule for certain dependents in case of 
     termination or substantial reduction of retiree health 
     coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 603(7), in the case of a qualified beneficiary 
     described in section 607(3)(D) who is not the qualified 
     retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

       ``(I) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the 
     date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the 
     death of the qualified retiree; or
       ``(II) the date that is 36 months after the date of the 
     qualifying event.''.

       (c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial 
     Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 602(1) of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the coverage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event 
     described in section 603(7), in applying the first sentence 
     of subparagraph (A) and the fourth sentence of paragraph (3), 
     the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage 
     option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary) 
     continued under the group health plan (or, if none, under the 
     most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan sponsor) 
     shall be treated as the coverage described in such sentence, 
     or (at the option of the plan and qualified beneficiary) such 
     other coverage option as may be offered and elected by the 
     qualified beneficiary involved.''.
       (d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 602(3) 
     of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1162(3)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an 
     individual provided continuation coverage by reason of a 
     qualifying event described in section 603(7), any reference 
     in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to `102 percent of the 
     applicable premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of 
     the applicable premium for employed individuals (and their 
     dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(B)'.''.
       (e) Notice.--Section 606(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1166) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (6)'' and 
     inserting ``(6), or (7)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``The notice under paragraph (4) in the case of a qualifying 
     event described in section 603(7) shall be provided at least 
     90 days before the date of the qualifying event.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other 
     than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events 
     occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a 
     qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be 
     deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying 
     events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that in no case shall notice be required under such 
     amendment before such date.

        Subtitle B--Amendments to the Public Health Service Act

     SEC. 311. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED 
                   WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2203 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-3) is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits 
     (as defined in section 2208(6)) of group health plan coverage 
     as a result of plan changes or termination in the case of a 
     covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
       (2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and 
     substantial reduction defined.--Section 2208 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300bb-8) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Special rule for qualifying retirees and 
     dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 2203(6), the term `qualified beneficiary' means a 
     qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day 
     before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan 
     on the basis of the individual's relationship to such 
     qualified retiree.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

[[Page S632]]

       ``(5) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree' 
     means, with respect to a qualifying event described in 
     section 2203(6), a covered employee who, at the time of the 
     event--
       ``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
       ``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by 
     reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
       ``(6) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial 
     reduction'--
       ``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary of Labor and with respect to a qualified 
     beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of 
     benefits under the plan (through reduction or elimination of 
     benefits, an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, 
     and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date 
     of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of 
     the retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 
     6, 1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the 
     total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan 
     as of such date (taking into account an appropriate 
     adjustment to permit comparison of values over time); and
       ``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an 
     amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth 
     sentence of section 2202(3).
       (b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 
     2202(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) Special rule for certain dependents in case of 
     termination or substantial reduction of retiree health 
     coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     section 2203(6), in the case of a qualified beneficiary 
     described in section 2208(3)(C) who is not the qualified 
     retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

       ``(I) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the 
     date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the 
     death of the qualified retiree; or
       ``(II) the date that is 36 months after the date of the 
     qualifying event.''.

       (c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial 
     Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 2202(1) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the coverage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event 
     described in section 2203(6), in applying the first sentence 
     of subparagraph (A) and the fourth sentence of paragraph (3), 
     the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage 
     option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary of 
     Labor) continued under the group health plan (or, if none, 
     under the most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan 
     sponsor) shall be treated as the coverage described in such 
     sentence, or (at the option of the plan and qualified 
     beneficiary) such other coverage option as may be offered and 
     elected by the qualified beneficiary involved.''.
       (d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 2202(3) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-2(3)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new sentence: ``In the case of an 
     individual provided continuation coverage by reason of a 
     qualifying event described in section 2203(6), any reference 
     in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to `102 percent of the 
     applicable premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of 
     the applicable premium for employed individuals (and their 
     dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(B)'.''.
       (e) Notice.--Section 2206(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb-
     6(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``or (4)'' and 
     inserting ``(4), or (6)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``The notice under paragraph (4) in the case of a qualifying 
     event described in section 2203(6) shall be provided at least 
     90 days before the date of the qualifying event.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other 
     than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events 
     occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a 
     qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be 
     deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying 
     events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that in no case shall notice be required under such 
     amendment before such date.

      Subtitle C--Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

     SEC. 321. COBRA CONTINUATION BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED 
                   WORKERS WHO LOSE RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE.

       (a) Establishment of New Qualifying Event.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4980B(f)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     subparagraph (F) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) The termination or substantial reduction in benefits 
     (as defined in subsection (g)(6)) of group health plan 
     coverage as a result of plan changes or termination in the 
     case of a covered employee who is a qualified retiree.''.
       (2) Qualified retiree; qualified beneficiary; and 
     substantial reduction defined.--Section 4980B(g) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph,'' after ``means,''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Special rule for qualifying retirees and 
     dependents.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(G), the term `qualified beneficiary' means 
     a qualified retiree and any other individual who, on the day 
     before such qualifying event, is a beneficiary under the plan 
     on the basis of the individual's relationship to such 
     qualified retiree.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) Qualified retiree.--The term `qualified retiree' 
     means, with respect to a qualifying event described in 
     subsection (f)(3)(G), a covered employee who, at the time of 
     the event--
       ``(A) has attained 55 years of age; and
       ``(B) was receiving group health coverage under the plan by 
     reason of the retirement of the covered employee.
       ``(6) Substantial reduction.--The term `substantial 
     reduction'--
       ``(A) means, as determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary of Labor and with respect to a qualified 
     beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of 
     benefits under the plan (through reduction or elimination of 
     benefits, an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, 
     and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date 
     of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of 
     the retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 
     6, 1999), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the 
     total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan 
     as of such date (taking into account an appropriate 
     adjustment to permit comparison of values over time); and
       ``(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an 
     amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth 
     sentence of subsection (f)(2)(C).''.
       (b) Duration of Coverage Through Age 65.--Section 
     4980B(f)(2)(B)(i) of such Code is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II), by inserting ``or (3)(G)'' after 
     ``(3)(F)'';
       (2) in subclause (IV), by striking ``or (3)(F)'' and 
     inserting ``, (3)(F), or (3)(G)'';
       (3) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI);
       (4) by redesignating subclause (V) as subclause (IV) and by 
     moving such clause to immediately follow subclause (III); and
       (5) by inserting after such subclause (IV) the following 
     new subclause:

       ``(V) Special rule for certain dependents in case of 
     termination or substantial reduction of retiree health 
     coverage.--In the case of a qualifying event described in 
     paragraph (3)(G), in the case of a qualified beneficiary 
     described in subsection (g)(1)(E) who is not the qualified 
     retiree or spouse of such retiree, the later of--

       ``(a) the date that is 36 months after the earlier of the 
     date the qualified retiree becomes entitled to benefits under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act, or the date of the 
     death of the qualified retiree; or
       ``(b) the date that is 36 months after the date of the 
     qualifying event.''.
       (c) Type of Coverage in Case of Termination or Substantial 
     Reduction of Retiree Health Coverage.--Section 4980B(f)(2)(A) 
     of such Code is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The coverage'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     coverage''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Certain retirees.--In the case of a qualifying event 
     described in paragraph (3)(G), in applying the first sentence 
     of clause (i) and the fourth sentence of subparagraph (C), 
     the coverage offered that is the most prevalent coverage 
     option (as determined under regulations of the Secretary of 
     Labor) continued under the group health plan (or, if none, 
     under the most prevalent other plan offered by the same plan 
     sponsor) shall be treated as the coverage described in such 
     sentence, or (at the option of the plan and qualified 
     beneficiary) such other coverage option as may be offered and 
     elected by the qualified beneficiary involved.''.
       (d) Increased Level of Premiums Permitted.--Section 
     4980B(f)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``In the case of an individual 
     provided continuation coverage by reason of a qualifying 
     event described in paragraph (3)(G), any reference in clause 
     (i) of this subparagraph to `102 percent of the applicable 
     premium' is deemed a reference to `125 percent of the 
     applicable premium for employed individuals (and their 
     dependents, if applicable) for the coverage option referred 
     to in subparagraph (A)(ii)'.''.
       (e) Notice.--Section 4980B(f)(6) of such Code is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``or (F)'' and 
     inserting ``(F), or (G)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``The notice under subparagraph (D)(i) in the case of a 
     qualifying event described in paragraph (3)(G) shall be 
     provided at least 90 days before the date of the qualifying 
     event.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--

[[Page S633]]

       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section (other 
     than subsection (e)(2)) shall apply to qualifying events 
     occurring on or after January 6, 1999. In the case of a 
     qualifying event occurring on or after such date and before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, such event shall be 
     deemed (for purposes of such amendments) to have occurred on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Advance notice of terminations and reductions.--The 
     amendment made by subsection (e)(2) shall apply to qualifying 
     events occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that in no case shall notice be required under such 
     amendment before such date.
                                  ____


                            Summary of Bill


TITLE I. Access to Medicare Benefits for Individuals 62-to-65 Years of 
                                  Age

       The centerpiece of this initiative is the Medicare buy-in 
     for people ages 62 to 65.
       Eligibility: Persons ages 62 to 65 who do not have access 
     to employer sponsored or federal health insurance may 
     participate.
       Premium Payments: Participants would pay two separate 
     premiums--one before age 65 and one between age 65 and 85.
       Base premium: The base premium would be paid monthly 
     between enrollment and when the participant turns age 65. It 
     is the part of the full premium that represents what Medicare 
     would pay on average for all people in this age group. The 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this would 
     be about $300 per month. It would be adjusted for geographic 
     variation, but the maximum premium would be limited to ensure 
     participation in all areas of the country.
       Deferred premium: The deferred premium would be paid 
     monthly beginning at age 65 until the beneficiary turns age 
     85. It is the part of the premium that covers the extra costs 
     for participants who are sicker than average. Participants 
     will be told before they enroll what their deferred premium 
     will be. CBO estimates that this would be about $10 per month 
     per year of participation.
       This two-part payment plan acts like a mortgage: it makes 
     the up-front premium affordable but requires participants to 
     pay back the Medicare ``loan'' with interest. It also ensures 
     that in the long-run, this buy-in is self-financing.
       Enrollment: Eligible persons can enroll within two months 
     of either turning 62 or losing access to employer-based or 
     federal insurance.
       Applicability of Medicare Rules: Services covered and cost 
     sharing would be, for paying participants, the same as those 
     of Medicare beneficiaries. Participants would have the choice 
     of fee-for-service or managed care. No Medicaid assistance 
     would be offered to participants for premiums or cost 
     sharing. Medigap policy protections would apply, but the open 
     enrollment provision remains at age 65.
       Disenrollment: Persons could stop buying into Medicare at 
     any time. People who disenroll would pay the deferred premium 
     as though they had been enrolled for a full year (e.g., a 
     person who buys in for 3 months in 2000 would pay the 
     deferred premium as though they participated for 12 months). 
     This is intended to act as a disincentive for temporary 
     enrollment.


 TITLE II. Access to Medicare Benefits for Displaced Workers 55-to-62 
                              Years of Age

       In addition to people ages 62 to 65, a targeted group of 55 
     to 61 year olds could buy into Medicare. The Medicare buy-in 
     would be the same as above, with the following exceptions.
       Eligibility: Persons would be eligible if they are between 
     ages 55 and 61 and: (1) lost their job because their firm 
     closed, downsized, or moved, or their position was eliminated 
     (defined as being eligible for unemployment insurance) after 
     January 1, 2000; (2) had health insurance through their 
     previous job for at least one year (certified through the 
     process created under HIPAA to guarantee continuation 
     coverage); and (3) do not have access to employer sponsored, 
     COBRA, or federal health insurance. Spouses of these eligible 
     people may also buy into Medicare.
       Premium Payments: Participants would pay one, 
     geographically adjusted premium, with no Medicare ``loan''. 
     This premium represents what Medicare would pay on average 
     for all people in this age group plus an add-on (65 percent 
     of the age average) to compensate for some of the extra costs 
     of participants who may be sicker than average. These 
     premiums would be about $400 per month.
       Disenrollment: Like persons ages 62 to 65, eligible 
     displaced workers and their spouses must enroll in the buy-in 
     within 63 days of becoming eligible. Participants continue to 
     pay premiums until they voluntarily disenroll, gain access to 
     federal or employer-based insurance or turn 62 and become 
     eligible for the more general Medicare buy-in. Once they 
     disenroll, they may only re-enroll if they meet all the 
     eligibility rules again.


           TITLE III. Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act

       The bill would also help retirees and their dependents 
     whose former employer unexpectedly drops their retiree health 
     insurance, leaving them uncovered and with few options.
       Eligibility: Persons ages 55 to 65 and their dependents who 
     were receiving retiree health coverage but whose coverage was 
     terminated or substantially reduced (benefits' value reduced 
     by half or premiums increased to a level above 125 percent of 
     the applicable premium) would qualify for ``COBRA'' 
     continuation coverage.
       Premium Payments: Participants would pay 125 percent of the 
     applicable premium. This premium is higher than what most 
     other COBRA participants pay (102 percent) because it is 
     expected that those who enroll will be sicker (have higher 
     costs) than other members of their age cohort.
       Enrollment: Participants would enroll through their former 
     employer, following the same rules as other COBRA eligibles.
       Disenrollment: Retirees would be eligible until they turn 
     65 years-old and could disenroll at any time.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Moynihan for his strong 
leadership on this issue. More than three million Americans aged 55 to 
64 have no health insurance today. They are too young for Medicare, and 
unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are 
victims of corporate downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel 
their health insurance.
  In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group 
increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have 
been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often 
after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage--and it is 
time for Congress to provide a helping hand.
  Many of these fellow citizens have serious health problems that 
threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them 
from finding or keeping a job. Even those without current health 
problems know that a single serious illness could wipe out their 
savings.
  These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other 
members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the 
longer they remain uninsured. This unnecessary burden of illness is a 
preventable human tragedy--and it adds to Medicare's long-term costs, 
because when these individuals turn 65, they enter the program with 
more costly health problems and greater unmet needs for health care 
services.
  Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be 
there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the 
health insurance they have now will protect them until they qualify for 
Medicare at 65.
  Our legislation provides three kinds of assistance. First, any 
uninsured American who is 62 years old or older and not yet eligible 
for Medicare can buy into the program. Participants will pay the full 
cost of their coverage, but to help keep premiums affordable, they can 
defer payment of part of the premiums until they turn 65 and Medicare 
starts to pay most of their health care costs. Once they turn 65, this 
defrayed premium will be paid back over time at a modest monthly 
charge, currently estimated at about $10 per month for each year of 
participation in the buy-in program. Individuals age 55-61 who lose 
their health insurance because they are laid off or because their 
company closes will also be able to buy into Medicare. Finally, people 
who have retired before 65 with the expectation of employer-paid health 
insurance coverage would be allowed to buy into the company's program 
for active workers if the company dropped retirement coverage.
  Today's proposal is a lifeline for all of these Americans It is also 
a constructive step toward the day when every American will be 
guaranteed the fundamental right to health care.
  In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that 
this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and 
the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal, 
the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this 
new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed 
through savings obtained by reducing fraud or abuse in Medicare.
  Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing 
that their critical years in the workforce will not be haunted by the 
fear of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic 
medical needs. Uninsured Americans who are too young for Medicare but 
too old to purchase affordable private insurance coverage deserve our 
help--and we intend to see that they get it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 203. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for

[[Page S634]]

an equitable determination of the Federal medical assistance 
percentage; to the Committee on Finance.


      equitable federal medicaid assistance percentage act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to revise the 
formula for determining the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. 
Medicaid services and associated administrative costs are financed 
jointly by the Federal government and the States. The formula for the 
Federal share of a State's payments for services, known as the Federal 
Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), was established when Medicaid was 
created as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965.
  The FMAP is a somewhat exotic creature, derived from the Hill-Burton 
Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946, specifically designed to 
provide a higher Federal matching rate for states with lower state 
funds, as measured by per capital income. A Senate colleague once 
described it to me as the South's revenge for the Civil War.
  The Federal government's share depends upon the square of the ratio 
of state per capita income to national per capita income. Per capita 
income is a proxy but not the only proxy for measuring the States' 
relative fiscal capacity and its population's need for assistance. In 
March 1982, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 
stated that,

       * * * the use of a single index, resident per capita 
     income, to measure fiscal capacity, seriously misrepresents 
     the actual ability of many governments to raise revenue. 
     Because states tax a wide range of economic activities other 
     than the income of their residents, the per capita income 
     measure fails to account for sources of revenue to which 
     income is only related in part. This misrepresentation 
     results in the systematic over and understatement of the 
     ability of many states to raise revenue. In addition, the 
     recent evidence suggests that per capital income has 
     deteriorated as a measure of capacity * * *

  Squaring the ration of state per capita income to national per capita 
income exaggerates the differences between States with regard to this 
inadequate proxy for both state wealth and of population in need of 
assistance. At a commencement address in 1977 at Kingsborough Community 
College in Brooklyn, New York, I proposed a change to the Hill-Burton 
formula by suggesting that the ``square'' in the formula be changed to 
the ``square root.'' The idea has not caught on.
  However, I remain hopeful. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included a 
provision that increased the FMAP rate for Alaska. My colleagues in the 
Committee on Finance included this provision as an amendment in 
Committee Mark-up. The provision increased Alaska's FMAP rate from 50 
percent to 59.8 percent to reflect the higher cost of living relative 
to the national average. For states with a higher cost of living, the 
per capita income proxy systematically underestimates the state's 
population in need and overstates its relative capacity to raise 
revenues. As conferees, we posited:

       The current methodology for calculating match rates, per 
     capita income, is a poor and inadequate measure of the 
     states' needs and abilities to participate in the Medicaid 
     program. The conferees note that the poverty guidelines for 
     Alaska and Hawaii, for example, are different than those for 
     the rest of the nation but there is no variation from the 
     national calculation in the FMAP. The increase in Alaska's 
     FMAP demonstrates there is a recognition that a more accurate 
     measurement is needed in the program.

  The General Accounting Office (GAO) has studied the formula inequity 
for the past several years. In testimony before the Committee on 
Finance in 1995, GAO concluded:

       The current formula has not moderated disparities across 
     states with respect to the populations and benefits Medicaid 
     covers and the relative financial burden states bear in 
     funding their programs. Our work over the years shows that 
     the use of per capita income to reflect a state's wealth 
     sometimes overstates or understates the size of a state's 
     poverty population and its financial resources.

  The legislation that I introduce today--The Equitable Federal Medical 
Assistance Percentage Act of 1999--would provide a more accurate and 
equitable formula by using more precise measures of a state's relative 
capacity to raise revenue--or its wealth--and its share of the 
population in need. The original concept is preserved: The goal of the 
matching formula is to offset the imbalance between state resources and 
the number of people in need in the state. I call this the state fiscal 
imbalance. A state with a larger share of resources compared to its 
share of need is in a stronger fiscal position than a state with higher 
needs and fewer resources. The formula would measure the imbalance 
relative to its share of the national average: the state's fiscal 
imbalance is its share of the nation's resources compared to its share 
of the nation's population in need.
  State Share of Financing Resources. Per capita income only reflects a 
portion of a state's potential revenue. Perhaps in the 1950's and 
1960's, per capita income was the best available indicator of state's 
wealth. Currently, the Treasury Department estimates each state's total 
taxable resources or TTR. In 1994, TTR replaced per capita income in 
the formula for distributing funds under the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and 
Mental Health Services block grant. This proposed formula compares the 
state's TTR to sum of all states' TTRs. Funding capacity would be 
adjusted to account for the difference in regional health care costs. 
This provides a more accurate reflection of a state's ability to 
purchase comparable services with similar tax efforts. The health care 
price index is based on the Medicare hospital payment adjuster that 
accounts for geographic wage differences and on a proxy for office 
space costs.
  The Population-in-Need. The number of persons in need of public 
assistance would be measured by the state's population living below the 
poverty level. Per capita income--or the average mean income--is a 
particularly poor measure of poverty. An average income measure skews a 
state's situation if a state has extreme differences in income levels 
among its residents, such as a state with a high portion of residents 
with high-incomes and a high portion of residents with low-incomes. 
Despite similar per capita incomes, New York has a poverty rate that is 
nearly 50 percent greater than in Massachusetts, according to GAO.
  The EFMAP would also use adjusted poverty levels to reflect regional 
variation in cost of living. Without a cost of living adjustment, the 
national poverty level underestimates what constitutes poverty in New 
York, with a cost of living 13 percent above the national average. In 
addition, the state's adjusted poverty count would be weighted to 
account for higher cost populations. For example, health care costs for 
the elderly can be about two and a half to three and a half times that 
for adults and six to eight times the cost for children.
  Currently, New York's FMAP is 50 percent. This proposed formula with 
more accurate and equitable measures of wealth and need would provide 
New York with a 70 percent matching rate. In State Fiscal Year 1998-
1999, this would yield $6.5 billion in additional federal Medicaid 
funds for New York. In fact, several other states and the District of 
Columbia would receive a greater matching rate under this bill.
  In a response to a request from both then-Senator D'Amato and me in 
1997, GAO determined that had New York had a similar equitable formula, 
the state would have received between $3.4 billion and $6.5 billion in 
additional federal assistance during the period of 1989 through 1996. 
These additional federal funds would by no means eliminate the existing 
$18 billion deficit in the balance of payments that New York annually 
has each year. However, it would be a start, and an important first 
step toward correcting a longstanding inequity in the Federal 
government's balance of payments with the states.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the bill and the full 
text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 203

       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 ``Equitable Federal Medical 
     Assistance Percentage Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EQUITABLE DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE 
                   PERCENTAGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1905 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(v) Determination of Equitable Federal Medical Assistance 
     Percentage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the 
     equitable Federal medical

[[Page S635]]

     assistance percentage determined under this subsection is, 
     for any State for a fiscal year, 100 percent reduced by the 
     product of 0.45 and the ratio of--
       ``(A) the State's share of cost-adjusted total taxable 
     resources determined under paragraph (2); to
       ``(B) the State's share of program need determined under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Determination of state's share of cost-adjusted total 
     taxable resources.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), with 
     respect to a State, the State's share of cost-adjusted total 
     taxable resources is the ratio of--
       ``(i)(I) an amount equal to the most recent 3-year average 
     of the total taxable resources (TTR) of the State, as 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury; divided by
       ``(II) the most recent 3-year average of the State's 
     geographic health care cost index (as determined under 
     subparagraph (B)); to
       ``(ii) an amount equal to the sum of the amounts determined 
     under clause (i) for all States.
       ``(B) State's geographic health care cost index.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(II), 
     the geographic health care cost index for a State for a 
     fiscal year is the sum of--

       ``(I) 0.10;
       ``(II) 0.75 multiplied by the ratio of--

       ``(aa) the most recent 3-year average annual wages for 
     hospital employees in the State or the District of Columbia 
     (as determined under clause (ii)); to
       ``(bb) the most recent 3-year average annual wages for 
     hospital employees in the 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia (as determined under that clause); and

       ``(III) 0.15 multiplied by the State's fair market rent 
     index (as determined under clause (iii)).

       ``(ii) Determination of average annual wages of hospital 
     employees.--The Secretary shall provide for the determination 
     of the most recent 3-year average annual wages for hospital 
     employees in a State or the District of Columbia and, 
     collectively, in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 
     based on the area wage data applicable to hospitals under 
     section 1886(d)(3)(E) (or, if such data no longer exists, 
     comparable data of hospital wages) for discharges occurring 
     during the fiscal years involved.
       ``(iii) Determination of fair market rent index.--For 
     purposes of clause (i)(III), a State's fair market rent index 
     is the ratio of--

       ``(I) the average annual fair market rent for 2-bedroom 
     housing units in the State or the District of Columbia, to be 
     determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     for the most recent 3 fiscal years for which data are 
     available; to
       ``(II) the average annual fair market rent for such housing 
     units for all States for such 3 fiscal years, as so 
     determined.

       ``(3) Determination of state's share of program need.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), with 
     respect to a State, the State's share of program need is the 
     ratio of--
       ``(i) the State's program need determined under 
     subparagraph (B); to
       ``(ii) the sum of the amounts determined under clause (i) 
     for all States.
       ``(B) Determination of state program need.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), a 
     State's program need is equal to the average (determined for 
     the most recent 5 fiscal years for which data are available) 
     of the sum of the products determined under clause (iv) for 
     each such fiscal year (based on the number of State residents 
     whose income is below the State's cost-of-living adjusted 
     poverty income level (as determined under clauses (ii) and 
     (iii)).
       ``(ii) Determination of number of state residents with 
     incomes belowthe State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty 
     level.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (iv), with 
     respect to each State and the District of Columbia, the 
     number of residents whose income for a fiscal year is below 
     the State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty income level 
     applicable to a family of the size involved (as determined 
     under clause (iii)) shall be determined.
       ``(II) Census data.--The determination of the number of 
     residents under subclause (I) shall be based on data made 
     generally available by the Bureau of the Census from the 
     Current Population Survey.

       ``(iii) Determination of state's cost-of-living adjusted 
     poverty income level.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (ii)(I), a 
     State's cost-of-living adjusted poverty income level is the 
     product of--

       ``(aa) the United States poverty income threshold for the 
     fiscal year involved (as defined by the Office of Management 
     and Budget for general statistical purposes); and
       ``(bb) the State's cost-of-living index (as determined 
     under subclause (II)).

       ``(II) Determination of state's cost-of-living index.--
     Subject to subclause (III), a State's cost-of-living index is 
     the sum of--

       ``(aa) 0.56; and
       ``(bb) the product of 0.44 and the State's fair market rent 
     index determined under paragraph (2)(B)(iii).

       ``(III) Alternate methodology.--The Commissioner of Labor 
     Statistics may use an alternate methodology to the formula 
     set forth under subclause (II) to determine a State's cost-
     of-living index for purposes of subclause (I)(bb) if the 
     Commissioner determines that the alternate methodology 
     results in a more accurate determination of that index.

       ``(iv) Weighting of age categories of residents in poverty 
     to account for higher cost populations.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), the products determined under this clause for a 
     fiscal year are the following:

       ``(I) Weighting of elderly residents in poverty.--The 
     number of residents determined under clause (ii) of the State 
     or the District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have 
     attained age 65 multiplied by 3.65.
       ``(II) Weighting of adult residents in poverty.--The number 
     of residents determined under clause (ii) of the State or the 
     District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have attained 
     age 21 but have not attained age 65 multiplied by 1.0.
       ``(III) Weighting of children in poverty.--The number of 
     residents determined under clause (ii) of the State or the 
     District of Columbia for the fiscal year who have not 
     attained age 21 multiplied by 0.5.

       ``(4) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection and 
     subsection (b), the equitable Federal medical assistance 
     percentage is--
       ``(A) in the case of the District of Columbia, the 
     percentage determined under this subsection for the District 
     of Columbia (without regard to this paragraph) multiplied by 
     1.4.; and
       ``(B) in the case of Alaska, 59.8 percent.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1905(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``100 per centum'' and all that follows through ``Hawaii'' 
     and inserting ``the equitable Federal medical assistance 
     percentage determined under subsection (v)'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``50 per centum or more 
     than 83 per centum,,'' and inserting ``50 percent or more 
     than 83 percent, and''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``50 per centum'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting ``50 percent.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act take 
     effect on October 1, 1999.
                                  ____


       Summary of Equitable Federal Medical Assistance Percentage

       Purpose: This legislation would replace an outdated formula 
     for determining the federal match rate for Medicaid 
     expenditures. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage 
     (FMAP) formula was intended to account for each state's 
     financial burdens by measuring its relative wealth--or 
     ability to pay costs--and its population in need for 
     assistance--or its extent of poverty. However, the current 
     formula uses a rather crude proxy for these measurements--the 
     per capita income in the state.
       Current Formula: The Federal match rate (FMAP) for each 
     state is determined as follows:
       FMA=1-0.45 (state's per capita income/national per capita 
     income) \2\
       Per capita income measures both the state's financing 
     capacity and population in need.
       Proposed Legislation: The new formula is based on several 
     years of analysis by the GAO:

 
 
                                     State Share of Resources
    EFMAP=1-0.45         -----------------------------------------------
                                    State Share of Program Need
 

       A State's Share of resources would be measured by the 
     state's Total Taxable Revenue (TTR)--the total amount of 
     revenue raised in the state--compared to the sum of all 
     states' TTR. This state TTR amount is adjusted for geographic 
     differences in health care prices, or a state health care 
     index. The health care index adjustment accounts for the 
     state's ability to purchase comparable services with similar 
     tax efforts.
       State Program Need would be measured by the number of 
     residents with incomes below the poverty level compared to 
     the sum of all poor in the nation. To determine the number of 
     residents living below poverty, the Federal Poverty Level 
     would be adjusted for each state to account for geographic 
     cost of living differences. The adjusted poverty count would 
     also be weighted to account for higher cost populations, such 
     as the elderly.
       The proposal would apply the current 50 percent floor and 
     83 percent ceiling to EFMAP rates for states. The EFMAP would 
     be the federal matching rate for all program's that currently 
     use the FMAP, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program 
     (CHIP) and foster care, as well as Medicaid.
       Alaska would keep its current FMAP of 59.8 percent. The 
     District of Columbia would have an adjusted EFMAP rate of 
     reflect its locality status, as under current law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lieberman:)
  S. 204. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, to 
require that any data relating to the incidence of poverty produced or 
published by the Secretary of Commerce for subnational areas is 
corrected for differences in the cost of living in those areas; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


        Introduction of the Poverty Data Correction Act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. Presidents, I rise today to introduce the Poverty

[[Page S636]]

Data Correction Act of 1999, a bill to require that any data relating 
to the incidence of poverty in subnational areas be corrected for the 
differences in the cost of living in those areas. This legislation 
would correct a longstanding inequity and would provide us with more 
accurate information on the number of Americans living in poverty.
  Residents of states such as New York and Connecticut earn more, on 
average,than do residents of Mississippi or Alabama. But they also must 
spend more. One need only try to rent an apartment in New York City to 
understand this. Yet, we have a national poverty threshold adjusted 
only by family size and composition, not by where the family lives. A 
family of four just above the poverty threshold in New York City or 
Anchorage is demonstrably worse off than a family of four just below 
the threshold in, say, rural Arkansas. And yet that family in New York 
might be ineligible for federal aid and will not count in the tallies 
of the poverty population used to allocate funds among the states, 
while the Arkansas family will be eligible and will be counted.
  Professor Herman B. ``Dutch'' Leonard and Senior Research Associate 
Monica Friar of the Taubman Center for State and local government at 
Harvard have devised an index of poverty statistics that reflects the 
differences in the cost of living between States. If we look at the 
``Friar-Leonard State Cost-of-Living index,'' as it has come to be 
known, we find that, in Fiscal Year 1997, New York had a poverty rate 
of 20.5% third highest in the nation. yet the official poverty level 
for 1997 is 16.6%. These adjusted statistics still reflect poverty 
accurately: the poor states of Mississippi and New Mexico remain ranked 
higher than New York in this ranking of misfortune.
  Mr. President, our current poverty data are inaccurate. And these 
substandard data are used in allocation formulas used to distribute 
millions of Federal dollars each year. As a result, states with high 
costs of living--New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, California, 
just to name a few--are not getting their fair share of Federal dollars 
because differences in the cost of living are ignored. And the poor of 
these high cost states are penalized because they happen to live there. 
It is time to correct this inequity.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and its 
full text be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 204

       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 ``Poverty Data Correction Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding after subchapter V the following:

                     ``SUBCHAPTER VI--POVERTY DATA

     ``Sec. 197. Correction of subnational data relating to 
       poverty

       ``(a) Any data relating to the incidence of poverty 
     produced or published by or for the Secretary for subnational 
     areas shall be corrected for differences in the cost of 
     living, and data produced for State and sub-State areas shall 
     be corrected for differences in the cost of living for at 
     least all States of the United States.
       ``(b) Data under this section shall be published in 1999 
     and at least every second year thereafter.

     ``Sec. 198. Development of State cost-of-living index and 
       State poverty thresholds

       ``(a) To correct any data relating to the incidence of 
     poverty for differences in the cost of living, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) develop or cause to be developed a State cost-of-
     living index which ranks and assigns an index value to each 
     State using data on wage, housing, and other costs relevant 
     to the cost of living; and
       ``(2) multiply the Federal Government's statistical poverty 
     thresholds by the index value for each State's cost of living 
     to produce State poverty thresholds for each State.
       ``(b) The State cost-of-living index and resulting State 
     poverty thresholds shall be published before September 30, 
     2000, for calendar year 1999 and shall be updated annually 
     for each subsequent calendar year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 5 of title 13, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                     ``SUBCHAPTER VI--POVERTY DATA

``197. Correction of subnational data relating to poverty.
``198. Development of State cost-of-living index and State poverty 
              thresholds.''.
                                  ____


  Poverty Data Correction Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions


   i. requires adjustment of poverty data for differences in cost of 
                                 living

       The bill would require that any data relating to poverty on 
     a subnational basis (including state-by-state data) be 
     corrected for the differences in the cost of living by state 
     or sub-state areas. The costs of basic needs, such as 
     housing, vary substantially from state-to-state and 
     assessments of poverty in the United States should take this 
     into account.


  ii. requires development of state cost-of-living index and poverty 
                               thresholds

       To enable the adjustments required above, the bill requires 
     the development of a state-specific cost-of-living index 
     based upon wage, housing, and other cost information relevant 
     to the cost of living. The bill also requires that the 
     Federal government's poverty thresholds be multiplied by this 
     index to produce state-specific poverty thresholds. These 
     thresholds, which vary by family size, are the ``poverty 
     line'' used to determine the number of individuals and 
     families in poverty.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 205. A bill to establish a Federal Commission on Statistical 
Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical system, 
to provide uniform safeguards for the confidentiality of information 
acquired from exclusively statistical purposes, and to improve the 
efficiency of Federal statistical programs and the quality of Federal 
statistics by permitting limited sharing of records among designated 
agencies for statistical purposes under strong safeguards; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


          federal commission on statistical policy act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, in introducing legislation to establish 
a Federal Commission on Statistical Policy. Congressman Stephen Horn of 
California and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York plan to 
introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
  This legislation is similar to S. 1404, The Federal Statistical 
System Act of 1997, a bill which was favorably reported out of the 
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs October 6 of last year by a 9 
to 0 vote.
  This Senator first introduced legislation to study the Federal 
statistical system on September 25, 1996, for the 104th Congress, and 
again on January 21, 1997, for the 105th Congress. Over the past few 
years, I have testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management and the House Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information and Technology to explain this legislation. 
This bill represents more than 2 years of work and much bipartisan 
cooperation.
  The Federal Commission on Statistical Policy would consist of 16 
Presidential and congressional appointees with expertise in fields such 
as actuarial science, finance, and economics. Its members would conduct 
a thorough review of the U.S. statistical system, and issue a report 
that would include recommendations on whether statistical agencies 
should be consolidated into a centralized Federal Statistical Service.
  Of course, we have an example of a consolidated statistical agency 
just across our northern border. Statistics Canada, the most 
centralized statistical agency among OECD countries, was established in 
November 1918 as a reaction to a familiar problem. At that time, the 
Canadian Minister of Industry was trying to obtain an estimate of the 
manpower resources that Canada could commit to the war effort. And he 
got widely different estimates from statistical agencies scattered 
throughout the government. Consolidation seemed the way to solve this 
problem, and so it happened--as it can in a parliamentary government--
rather quickly, just as World War I ended.
  In April of 1997, a member of my staff met in Ottawa with the 
Assistant Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada. He reported that 
Statistics Canada is doing quite well. Decisions about the allocation 
of resources among statistical functions are made at the highest levels 
of government because the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada holds 
a position equivalent to Deputy Cabinet Minister. He communicates 
directly with Deputy Ministers in other

[[Page S637]]

Cabinet Departments. In contrast, in the United States, statistical 
agencies are buried several levels below the Cabinet Secretaries, so it 
is difficult for the heads of these statistical agencies to bring 
issues to the attention of high-ranking administration officials and 
Congress.

  Statistics are part of our constitutional arrangement, which provides 
for a decennial census that, among other purposes, is the basis for 
apportionment of membership in the House of Representatives. I quote 
from article I, section I:

     . . . enumeration shall be made within three Years after the 
     first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and 
     within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as 
     they shall be Law direct.

  But, while the Constitution directed that there be a census, there 
was, initially, no Census Bureau. The earliest censuses were conducted 
by U.S. marshals. Later on, statistical bureaus in state governments 
collected the data, with a Superintendent of the Census overseeing from 
Washington. It was not until 1902 that a permanent Bureau of the Census 
was created by the Congress, housed initially in the Interior 
Department. In 1903 the Bureau was transferred to the newly established 
Department of Commerce and Labor.
  The Statistics of Income Division of the Internal Revenue Service, 
which was originally an independent body, began collecting data in 
1866. It too was transferred to the new Department of Commerce and 
Labor in 1903, but then was put in the Treasury Department in 1913 
following ratification of the 16th amendment, which gave Congress the 
power to impose an income tax.
  A Bureau of Labor, created in 1884, was also initially in the 
Interior Department. The first Commissioner, appointed in 1885, was 
Colonel Carroll D. Wright, a distinguished Civil War veteran of the New 
Hampshire Volunteers. A self-trained social scientist, Colonel Wright 
pioneered techniques for collecting and analyzing survey data on 
income, prices and wages. He had previously served as Chief of the 
Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics, a post he held for 15 years, and in 
that capacity had supervised the 1880 Federal census in Massachusetts.
  In 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent agency. In 1903, 
it was once again made a Bureau, joining other statistical agencies in 
the Department of Commerce and Labor. When a new Department of Labor 
was formed in 1913, given labor an independent voice--as labor was 
``removed'' from the Department of Commerce and Labor--what we now know 
as the Bureau of Labor Statistics was transferred to the newly created 
Department of Labor.
  And so it went. Statistical agencies sprung up as needed. And they 
moved back and forth as new executive departments were formed. Today, 
some 89 different organizations in the Federal government comprise 
parts of our national statistical infrastructure. Eleven of these 
organizations have as their primary function the generation of data. 
These 11 organizations are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Date
               Agency                      Department        established
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Agricultural Statistical    Agriculture...........       1863
 Service.
Statistics of Income Division, IRS.  Treasury..............       1866
Economic Research Service..........  Agriculture...........       1867
National Center for Education        Education.............       1867
 Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.........  Labor.................       1884
Bureau of the Census...............  Commerce..............       1902
Bureau of Economic Analysis........  Commerce..............       1912
National Center for Health           Health and Human             1912
 Statistics.                          Services.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.......  Justice...............       1968
Energy Information Administration..  Energy................       1974
Bureau of Transportation Statistics  Transportation........       1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          need for legislation

  President Kennedy once said:

       Democracy is a difficult kind of government. It requires 
     the highest qualities of self-discipline, restraints, a 
     willingness to make commitments and sacrifices for the 
     general interest, and also it requires knowledge.

That knowledge often comes from accurate statistics. You cannot begin 
to solve a problem until you can measure it.
  This legislation would require the Commission to conduct a 
comprehensive examination of the current statistical system and focus 
particularly on whether to create a centralized Federal Statistical 
Service.
  In September 1996, prior to introduction of my first bill to 
establish a Commission to study the U.S. statistical system, I received 
a letter from nine former Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers 
(CEA) endorsing this legislation. Excluding two recent chairs, who at 
that time were still serving in the Clinton Administration, the 
signatories include virtually every living former chair of the CEA. 
While acknowledging that the United States ``possesses a first-class 
statistical system,'' these former Chairmen remind us that ``problems 
periodically arise under the current system of widely scattered 
responsibilities.'' They conclude as follows:

       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan 
     Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of 
     showing the way to major improvements.

  The letter is signed by: Michael J. Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Alan 
Greenspan, Paul W. McCracken, Raymond J. Saulnier, Charles L. Schultze, 
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Herbert Stein, and Murray Weidenbaum.
  It happens that this Senator's association with the statistical 
system in the Executive Branch began over three decades ago. I was 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Planning in the 
administration of President John F. Kennedy. This was a new position in 
which I was nominally responsible for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I 
say nominally out of respect for the independence of that venerable 
institution, which as I noted earlier long predated the Department of 
Labor itself. The then-Commissioner of the BLS, Ewan Clague, could not 
have been more friendly and supportive. And so were the statisticians, 
who undertook to teach me to the extent I was teachable. They even 
shared professional confidences. And so it was that I came to have some 
familiarity with the field.
  For example, we had just received a report on price indexes from a 
committee led by a Nobel laureate, George Stigler. The Committee 
stressed the importance of accurate and timely statistics noting that:

       The periodic revision of price indexes, and the almost 
     continuous alterations in details of their calculation, are 
     essential if the indexes are to serve their primary function 
     of measuring the average movements of prices.

  While the Final Report of the Advisory Commission To Study The 
Consumer Price Index (The Boskin Commission) focused primarily on the 
extent to which changes in the CPI overstate inflation, the Commission 
also addressed issues related to the effectiveness of Federal 
statistical programs and recommended that:

       Congress should enact the legislation necessary for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Labor to share information in the 
     interest of improving accuracy and timeliness of economic 
     statistics and to reduce the resources consumed in their 
     development and production.

  There is, of course, a long history of attempts to reform our 
nation's statistical infrastructure. In her invaluable book Organizing 
to Count, Janet L. Norwood, former Commissioner of the BLS, has 
described efforts to bring some order to the national statistical 
system, going back to a Commission appointed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in 1903 and following through to a 1990 Working Group of the 
Cabinet Council for Economic Policy, chaired by Michael Boskin. One 
such effort occurred in July of 1933 when, by Executive Order, 
President Roosevelt set up a Central Statistical Board--organized by 
the Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, and the sometime Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Isador Lubin. I say sometime because 
although Lubin headed the Bureau from 1933-1946, much of his time was 
spent ``on leave'' serving in various White House statistical 
assignments, including as a special statistical assistant to the 
President. In their fine history of the agency, The First Hundred Years 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. 
Moye write that the Board was then established by Congress ``in 1935 
for a 5-year period to ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and 
promote economy in the work of government statistics.''
  But in most cases little or no action has been taken on their 
recommendations. The result of this inaction has been an ever expanding 
statistical system. It continues to grow in order to meet new data 
needs, but with little or no regard for the overall objectives of

[[Page S638]]

the system. As Norwood notes in her book:

       The U.S. system has neither the advantages that come from 
     centralization nor the efficiency that comes from strong 
     coordination in decentralization. As presently organized, 
     therefore, the country's statistical system will be hard 
     pressed to meet the demands of a technologically advanced, 
     increasingly internationalized world in which the demand for 
     objective data of high quality is steadily rising.

  In this era of government downsizing and budget cutting, it is 
unlikely that Congress will appropriate more funds for statistical 
agencies. It is clear that to preserve and improve the statistical 
system we must consider reforming it, yet we must not attempt to reform 
the system until we have heard from experts in the field.

  The legislation establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical 
Policy for a three-year term. The Commission would consist of 16 
members: eight of whom to be chosen by the President; four of whom by 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with the 
Majority and Majority Leader; and four of whom by the President pro 
tempore of the Senate in consultation with the Majority and Minority 
Leader.
  In an initial 18-month period, the Commission would determine whether 
to consolidate the Federal statistical system, and would also make 
recommendations with respect to ways to achieve greater efficiency in 
carrying out Federal statistical programs. If the Commission recommends 
creation of a newly established independent Federal statistical agency, 
designated as the Federal Statistical Service, the Commission's report 
would contain draft legislation incorporating such recommendations.
  Over the full term of the Commission, it would also conduct 
comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress that:
  Evaluate the mission of various statistical agencies and the 
relevance of such missions to current and future needs;
  Evaluate key statistics and measures and make recommendations on ways 
to improve such statistics better serve the intended major purposes;
  Review information technology and make recommendations of appropriate 
methods for disseminating statistical data; and
  Compare our statistical system with the systems of other nations.
  This legislation is only a first step, but an essential one. The 
Commission will provide Congress with the blueprint for reform. It will 
be up to us to finally take action after nearly a century of 
inattention to this very important issue.
  I ask unanimous consent the full text of the letter from nine former 
Chairmen of the Council of Economic Adviser, a summary of the bill, and 
the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 205

       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 ``Federal 
     Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Sense of the Congress.

           TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY

Sec. 101. Establishment.
Sec. 102. Duties of Commission.
Sec. 103. Powers.
Sec. 104. Commission procedures.
Sec. 105. Personnel matters.
Sec. 106. Other administrative provisions.
Sec. 107. Termination.
Sec. 108. Fast-track procedures for statistical reorganization bill.

TITLE II--EFFICIENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEMS

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Statistical Data Centers.
Sec. 205. Statistical Data Center responsibilities.
Sec. 206. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 207. Coordination and oversight.
Sec. 208. Implementing regulations.
Sec. 209. Conforming amendments and proposed changes in law.
Sec. 210. Effect on other laws.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical 
     information in the development of national priorities and 
     policies and in the administration of public programs, finds 
     the following:
       (1) While the demand for statistical information has grown 
     substantially during the last 30 years, the difficulty of 
     coordinating planning within the decentralized Federal 
     statistical system has limited the usefulness of statistics 
     in defining problems and determining national policies to 
     deal with complex social and economic issues.
       (2) Coordination and planning among the statistical 
     programs of the Government are necessary to strengthen and 
     improve the quality and utility of Federal statistics and to 
     reduce duplication and waste in information collected for 
     statistical purposes.
       (3) High-quality Federal statistical products and programs 
     are essential for sound business and public policy decisions.
       (4) The challenge of providing high-quality statistics has 
     increased because our economy and society are more complex, 
     new technologies are available, and decisionmakers need more 
     complete and accurate data.
       (5) Maintaining quality of Federal statistical products 
     requires full cooperation between Federal statistical 
     agencies and those persons and organizations that respond to 
     their requests for information.
       (6) Federal statistical products and programs can be 
     improved, without reducing respondent cooperation, by 
     permitting carefully controlled sharing of data with 
     statistical agencies in a manner that is consistent with 
     confidentiality commitments made to respondents.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a more centralized statistical system is integral to 
     efficiency;
       (2) with increased efficiency comes better integration of 
     research methodology, survey design, and economies of scale;
       (3) the Chief Statistician must have the authority, 
     personnel, and other resources necessary to carry out the 
     duties of that office effectively, including duties relating 
     to statistical forms clearance; and
       (4) statistical forms clearance at the Office of Management 
     and Budget should be better distinguished from regulatory 
     forms clearance.
           TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Federal Commission on Statistical Policy'' (in 
     this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 16 
     members as follows:
       (1) Appointments by president.--Eight members appointed by 
     the President from among individuals who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue 
     of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal 
     Government; or
       (ii) have expertise relating to organizational 
     reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical 
     information, statistical analysis, or management of complex 
     organizations.
       (2) Appointments from the house of representatives.--Four 
     members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, in consultation with the majority leader and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives, from among 
     individuals who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue 
     of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal 
     Government; or
       (ii) are also qualified to serve on the Commission by 
     virtue of expertise relating to organizational 
     reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical 
     information, statistical analysis, or management of complex 
     organizations.
       (3) Appointments from the senate.--Four members appointed 
     by the President pro tempore of the Senate, in consultation 
     with the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate, 
     from among individuals who--
       (A) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (B)(i) are qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue 
     of experience relating to statistical agencies of the Federal 
     Government; or
       (ii) are also qualified to serve on the Commission by 
     virtue of expertise relating to organizational 
     reorganization, State sources and uses of statistical 
     information, statistical analysis, or management of complex 
     organizations.
       (c) Deadline for Appointment.--Members shall be appointed 
     to the Commission not later than 4 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Political Affiliation.--
       (1) Appointments by president.--Of the members of the 
     Commission appointed under subsection (b)(1), not more than 4 
     may be of the same political party.
       (2) Appointments by speaker of the house of 
     representatives.--Of the members of the Commission appointed 
     under subsection (b)(2), not more than 2 may be of the same 
     political party.
       (3) Appointments by president pro tempore.--Of the members 
     of the Commission appointed under subsection (b)(3), not more 
     than 2 may be of the same political party.

[[Page S639]]

       (e) Chairman.--The Commission shall select a Chairman from 
     among the members of the Commission by a majority vote of all 
     members.
       (f) Consultation Before Appointments.--In making 
     appointments under subsection (b), the President, the Speaker 
     of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate shall consult 
     with appropriate professional organizations, including State 
     and local governments.
       (g) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.

     SEC. 102. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Study and Report.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall study and 
     submit to Congress and the President a written report and 
     draft legislation as necessary and appropriate on the Federal 
     statistical system including--
       (1) recommendations on whether the Federal statistical 
     system could be reorganized by consolidating the statistical 
     functions of agencies that carry out statistical programs;
       (2) recommendations on how the consolidation described in 
     paragraph (1) may be achieved without disruption in the 
     release of statistical products;
       (3) any other recommendations regarding how the Federal 
     statistical system could be reorganized to achieve greater 
     efficiency, improve quality, timeliness, and adaptability to 
     change in carrying out Federal statistical programs;
       (4) recommendations on possible improvements to procedures 
     for the release of major economic and social indicators by 
     the United States; and
       (5) recommendations to ensure requirements that State data 
     and information shall be maintained in a confidential, 
     consistent, and comparable manner.
       (b) Presidential Review.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Time period for review.--Not later than 15 days after 
     the receipt of the report (including any draft legislation) 
     under subsection (a), the President shall approve or 
     disapprove of the report.
       (B) Approval or inaction.--If the President approves the 
     report, the Commission shall submit the report to Congress on 
     the day following such approval. If the President does not 
     disapprove the report, the Commission shall submit the report 
     to Congress on the day following the 15-day period described 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Disapproval.--If the President disapproves the report, 
     the President shall note his specific objections and any 
     suggested changes to the Commission.
       (D) Final report after disapproval.--The Commission shall 
     consider any objections and suggested changes submitted by 
     the President and may modify the report based on those 
     objections and suggested changes. Not later than 10 days 
     after receipt of the President's disapproval under 
     subparagraph (C), the Commission shall submit the final 
     report (as modified if modified) to Congress.
       (c) Statistical Reorganization Bill.--
       (1) In general.--If the written report submitted to 
     Congress under subsection (a) contains recommendations on the 
     consolidation of the Federal statistical functions of the 
     United States into a Federal Statistical Service, the report 
     shall contain draft legislation incorporating such 
     recommendations under subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Draft legislation.--Draft legislation submitted to 
     Congress under this subsection shall be strictly limited to 
     implementation of recommendations for the consolidation or 
     reorganization of the statistical functions of Federal 
     agencies.
       (3) Provisions in draft legislation.--Draft legislation 
     submitted to Congress under this subsection that would 
     establish a Federal Statistical Service shall--
       (A) provide for an Administrator and Deputy Administrator 
     of the Federal Statistical Service, and the creation of other 
     officers as appropriate; and
       (B) contain a provision designating the Administrator as a 
     member of the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy 
     established under section 3504(e)(8) of title 44, United 
     States Code.
       (d) Other Duties of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall also conduct 
     comprehensive studies and submit reports to Congress on all 
     matters relating to the Federal statistical infrastructure, 
     including longitudinal surveys conducted by private agencies 
     and partially funded by the Federal Government for the 
     purpose of identifying opportunities to improve the quality 
     of statistics in the United States.
       (2) Inclusions.--Studies under this subsection shall 
     include--
       (A) a review and evaluation of the mission of various 
     statistical agencies and the relevance of such missions to 
     current and future needs;
       (B) an evaluation of key statistics and measures and 
     recommendations on ways to improve such statistics so that 
     the statistics better serve the intended major purposes;
       (C) a review of interagency coordination of statistical 
     data and recommendations of methods to standardize collection 
     procedures and surveys, as appropriate, and presentation of 
     data throughout the Federal system;
       (D) a review of information technology and recommendations 
     of appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data, 
     with special emphasis on resources such as the Internet that 
     allow the public to obtain information in a timely and cost-
     effective manner;
       (E) an identification and examination of issues regarding 
     individual privacy in the context of statistical data;
       (F) a comparison of the United States statistical system to 
     statistical systems of other nations for the purposes of 
     identifying best practices;
       (G) a consideration of the coordination of statistical data 
     with other nations and international agencies, such as the 
     Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and
       (H) recommendations regarding the presentation to the 
     public of statistical data collected by Federal agencies, and 
     standards of accuracy for statistical data used by Federal 
     agencies, including statistical data relating to--
       (i) the national poverty level and county poverty levels in 
     the United States;
       (ii) the Consumer Price Index;
       (iii) the gross domestic product; and
       (iv) other indicators of economic and social activity, 
     including marriage and divorce in the United States.
       (e) Definition of Federal Statistical Service.--As used in 
     this section, the term ``Federal Statistical Service'' means 
     an entity established after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act as an independent agency in the executive branch, the 
     purpose of which is to carry out Federal statistical programs 
     and to which the statistical functions of Federal statistical 
     agencies are transferred.

     SEC. 103. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act 
     at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as 
     the Commission considers appropriate.
       (b) Obtaining Information.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this Act. 
     Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the head of 
     that department or agency shall furnish that information to 
     the Commission.
       (c) Contract Authority.--The Commission may contract with 
     and compensate government and private agencies or persons 
     without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 
     U.S.C. 5).

     SEC. 104. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman or a majority of its members.
       (b) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (c) Delegation of Authority.--Any member or agent of the 
     Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     Act.
       (d) Voting.--The Commission shall adopt any recommendation 
     by a vote of a majority of its members.

     SEC. 105. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Pay of Members.--Members of the Commission appointed 
     under paragraphs (2)(B), (3), or (4) of section 101(b) shall 
     be entitled to receive the daily equivalent of the rate of 
     basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day 
     (including travel time) during which they are engaged in the 
     actual performance of duties vested in the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Staff.--The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of 
     personnel as it considers appropriate, including an Executive 
     Director.
       (d) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--Staff of 
     the Commission may be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of that title relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that an individual so 
     appointed may not receive pay in excess of the highest basic 
     rate of pay established for the Senior Executive Service 
     under section 5382 of such title.

     SEC. 106. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Postal and Printing Services.-- The Commission may use 
     the United States mails and obtain printing and binding 
     services in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the United States.
       (b) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
       (c) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 107. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

[[Page S640]]

     SEC. 108. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR STATISTICAL REORGANIZATION 
                   BILL.

       (a) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     section is enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such it 
     shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, or of that House to which it specifically 
     applies, and shall supersede other rules only to the extent 
     that they are inconsistent with this section; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent 
     as in the case of any other rule of that House.
       (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``statistical reorganization bill'' means only a bill of 
     either House of Congress--
       (1) that is identical to the draft legislation submitted to 
     Congress by the Commission under section 102(b); and
       (2) that is introduced as provided in subsection (c).
       (c) Introduction and Referral.--Within 15 legislative days 
     after the Commission submits to Congress legislation under 
     section 102(b), such legislation shall be introduced (by 
     request) in the House by the Majority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and shall be introduced (by request) in the 
     Senate by the Majority Leader of the Senate. Such bills shall 
     be referred to the appropriate committee in each House.
       (d) Period for Committee and Floor Consideration.--
       (1) Discharge.--If the committee of either House to which a 
     statistical reorganization bill has been referred has not 
     reported it at the close of the sixtieth day after its 
     introduction, such committee may be discharged from further 
     consideration of the bill upon a petition supported in 
     writing in the Senate by 10 Members of the Senate and in the 
     House of Representatives by 40 Members of the House of 
     Representatives and it shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar.
       (2) Days.--For purposes of this subsection, in computing a 
     number of days in either House, there shall be excluded the 
     days on which that House is not in session because of an 
     adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain or an 
     adjournment of the Congress sine die.
       (e) Floor Consideration in the House.--A motion in the 
     House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a 
     statistical reorganization bill shall be highly privileged 
     except that a motion to proceed to consider may only be made 
     on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which 
     the Member making the motion announces to the House his 
     intention to do so. The motion to proceed to consider is not 
     debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, 
     nor shall it be in order to move to reconsider the vote by 
     which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to.
       (f) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
       (1) Motion to proceed.--On or after the fifth day after the 
     date on which a statistical reorganization bill or conference 
     report is placed on the Senate calendar, it shall be in order 
     for any Senator to make a motion to proceed to consideration 
     of the bill or conference report. The motion shall be 
     privileged and not debatable. An amendment to the motion 
     shall not be in order, nor shall it be in order to move to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or 
     disagreed to.
       (2) Final passage.--Immediately following the conclusion of 
     the debate on a statistical reorganization bill or conference 
     report, the vote on final passage shall occur.
       (g) Conference.--In the Senate, a motion to elect or to 
     authorize the appointment of conferees shall not be 
     debatable.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for the Commission 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out the functions of 
     the Commission.
TITLE II--EFFICIENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF FEDERAL STATISTICAL SYSTEMS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Statistical 
     Confidentiality Act''.

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) High quality Federal statistical products and programs 
     are essential for sound business and public policy decisions.
       (2) The challenge of providing high quality statistics has 
     increased because the Nation's economy and society are more 
     complex, new technologies are available, and decision makers 
     need more complete and accurate data.
       (3) Maintaining quality requires full cooperation between 
     Federal statistical agencies and those persons and 
     organizations that respond to requests for information.
       (4) Federal statistical products and programs can be 
     improved, without reducing respondent cooperation, by 
     permitting carefully controlled sharing of data with 
     statistical agencies in a manner that is consistent with 
     confidentiality commitments made to respondents.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are the 
     following:
       (1) To provide that individually identifiable information 
     furnished either directly or indirectly to designated 
     statistical agencies for exclusively statistical purposes 
     shall not be disclosed in individually identifiable form by 
     such agencies for any other purpose without the informed 
     consent of the respondent.
       (2) To prohibit the use by such agencies, in individually 
     identifiable form, of any information collected, compiled, or 
     maintained solely for statistical purposes under Federal 
     authority, to make any decision or take any action directly 
     affecting the rights, benefits, and privileges of the person 
     to whom the information pertains, except with the person's 
     consent.
       (3) To reduce the reporting burden, duplication, and 
     expense imposed on the public by permitting interagency 
     exchange, solely for statistical purposes, of individually 
     identifiable information needed for statistical programs, and 
     to establish secure conditions for such exchanges.
       (4) To reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of 
     statistical programs by facilitating cooperative projects 
     between statistical agencies, and to create a secure 
     environment where expertise and data resources that reside in 
     different agencies can be brought together to address the 
     information needs of the public.
       (5) To reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure of 
     information maintained solely for statistical purposes by 
     designating specific statistical agencies that are authorized 
     to receive otherwise privileged information for such purposes 
     from other agencies, and to prescribe specific conditions and 
     procedures that must be complied with in any such exchange.
       (6) To establish a consistent basis under the requirements 
     of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (popularly 
     known as the ``Freedom of Information Act'') for exempting a 
     defined class of statistical information from compulsory 
     disclosure.
       (7) To ensure that existing avenues for public access to 
     administrative data or information under section 552a of 
     title 5, United States Code (popularly known as the ``Privacy 
     Act'') or section 552 of such title (popularly known as the 
     ``Freedom of Information Act'') are retained without change.
       (8) To establish consistent procedural safeguards for 
     records disclosed exclusively for statistical purposes, 
     including both public input and an oversight process to 
     ensure fair information practices.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) The term ``agency'' means--
       (A) any ``executive agency'' as defined under section 102 
     of title 31, United States Code; or
       (B) any ``agency'' as defined under section 3502 of title 
     44, United States Code.
       (2) The term ``agent'' means a person designated by a 
     Statistical Data Center to perform, either in the capacity of 
     a Federal employee or otherwise, exclusively statistical 
     activities authorized by law under the supervision or control 
     of an officer or employee of that Statistical Data Center, 
     and who has agreed in writing to comply with all provisions 
     of law that affect information acquired by that Statistical 
     Data Center.
       (3) The term ``identifiable form'' means any representation 
     of information that permits information concerning individual 
     subjects to be reasonably inferred by either direct or 
     indirect means.
       (4) The term ``nonstatistical purpose'' means any purpose 
     that is not a statistical purpose, and includes any 
     administrative, regulatory, adjudicatory, or other purpose 
     that affects the rights, privileges, or benefits of a 
     particular identifiable respondent.
       (5) The term ``respondent'' means a person who or 
     organization that--
       (A) is requested or required to supply information to an 
     agency;
       (B) is the subject of information requested or required to 
     be supplied to an agency; or
       (C) provides that information to an agency.
       (6) The term ``statistical activities''--
       (A) means the collection, compilation, processing, or 
     analysis of data for the purpose of describing or making 
     estimates concerning the whole or relevant groups or 
     components within, the economy, society, or the natural 
     environment; and
       (B) includes the development of methods or resources that 
     support those activities, such as measurement methods, 
     models, statistical classifications, or sampling frames.
       (7) The term ``statistical purpose''--
       (A) means the description, estimation, or analysis of the 
     characteristics of groups without regard to the identities of 
     individuals or organizations that comprise such groups; and
       (B) includes the development, implementation, or 
     maintenance of methods, technical or administrative 
     procedures, or information resources that support such 
     purposes.

     SEC. 204. STATISTICAL DATA CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Each of the following is designated as a 
     Statistical Data Center:
       (1) The Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of 
     Commerce.
       (2) The Bureau of the Census in the Department of Commerce.
       (3) The Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of 
     Labor.
       (4) The National Agricultural Statistics Service in the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (5) The National Center for Education Statistics in the 
     Department of Education.
       (6) The National Center for Health Statistics in the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       (7) The Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division 
     of the Energy Information Administration in the Department of 
     Energy.

[[Page S641]]

       (8) The Division of Science Resources Studies in the 
     National Science Foundation.
       (b) Designation.--In the case of a reorganization that 
     eliminates, or substantially alters the mission or functions 
     of, an agency or agency component listed under subsection 
     (a), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
     after consultation with the head of the agency proposing the 
     reorganization, may designate an agency or agency component 
     that shall serve as a successor Statistical Data Center under 
     the terms of this title, if the Director determines that--
       (1) the primary activities of the proposed Statistical Data 
     Center are statistical activities specifically authorized by 
     law;
       (2) the successor agency or component would participate in 
     data sharing activities that significantly improve Federal 
     statistical programs or products;
       (3) the successor agency or component has demonstrated its 
     capability to protect the individual confidentiality of any 
     shared data; and
       (4) the statutes that apply to the proposed Statistical 
     Data Center are not inconsistent with this title.
       (c) Notice and Comment.--The head of an agency seeking 
     designation as a successor under this section shall, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, provide public notice and an opportunity to 
     comment on the consequences of such designation and on those 
     determinations upon which the designation is proposed to be 
     based.
       (d) Prohibition Against Increase in Number of Centers.--No 
     action taken under this section shall increase the number of 
     Statistical Data Centers authorized by this title.

     SEC. 205. STATISTICAL DATA CENTER RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The Statistical Data Centers shall--
       (1) identify opportunities to eliminate duplication and 
     otherwise reduce reporting burden and cost imposed on the 
     public by sharing information for exclusively statistical 
     purposes;
       (2) enter into joint statistical projects to improve the 
     quality and reduce the cost of statistical programs;
       (3) safeguard the confidentiality of individually 
     identifiable information acquired for statistical purposes by 
     assuring its physical security and by controlling access to, 
     and uses made of, such information; and
       (4) respect the rights and privileges of the public by 
     observing and promoting fair information practices.

     SEC. 206. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Data or information acquired by a 
     Statistical Data Center for exclusively statistical purposes 
     shall be used only for statistical purposes. Such data or 
     information shall not be disclosed in identifiable form for 
     any other purpose without the informed consent of the 
     respondent.
       (b) Rule Distinguishing Data or Information.--If a 
     Statistical Data Center is authorized by any other statute to 
     collect data or information for nonstatistical purposes, the 
     head of the Statistical Data Center shall clearly distinguish 
     such data or information by rule. Such rule shall provide for 
     fully informing the respondents requested or required to 
     supply such data or information of such nonstatistical uses 
     before collecting such data or information.
       (c) Disclosure.--Data or information may be disclosed by an 
     agency to 1 or more Statistical Data Centers, if--
       (1) the disclosure and use are not inconsistent with any 
     provision of law or Executive order that explicitly limit the 
     statistical purposes for which such data or information may 
     be used;
       (2) the disclosure is not prohibited by law or Executive 
     order in the interest of national security;
       (3) the data or information are to be used exclusively for 
     statistical purposes by the Statistical Data Center or 
     Centers; and
       (4) the disclosure is made under the terms of a written 
     agreement between a Statistical Data Center or Centers and 
     the agency supplying information as authorized by this 
     subsection, specifying--
       (A) the data or information to be disclosed;
       (B) the purposes for which the data or information are to 
     be used; and
       (C) appropriate security procedures to safeguard the 
     confidentiality of the data or information.
       (d) Agreements.--Data or information supplied to a 
     Statistical Data Center under an agreement authorized under 
     subsection (b)(4) shall not be disclosed in identifiable form 
     by that Center for any purpose, except that data or 
     information collected directly by any party to such agreement 
     may be disclosed to any other party to that agreement for 
     exclusively statistical purposes specified in that agreement.
       (e) Notice.--Whenever a written agreement authorized under 
     subsection (c)(4) concerns data that respondents were 
     required by law to report and the agreement contains terms 
     that could not reasonably have been anticipated by 
     respondents who provided the data that will be disclosed, or 
     upon the initiative of any party to such an agreement, or 
     whenever ordered by the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, the terms of such agreement shall be described in 
     a public notice issued by the agency that intends to disclose 
     the data. Such notice shall allow a minimum of 60 days for 
     public comment before such agreement shall take effect. The 
     Director shall be fully apprised of any issues raised by the 
     public and may suspend the effect of such an agreement to 
     permit modifications responsive to public comments.
       (f) FOIA and Privacy Act.--The disclosure of data or 
     information by an agency under subsection (c) shall in no way 
     alter the responsibility of that agency under other statutes, 
     including sections 552 and 552a of title 5, United States 
     Code, for the disclosure or withholding of the same or 
     similar information retained by that agency.
       (g) Disclosure Provisions of Other Laws.--If information 
     obtained by an agency is released to another agency under 
     this section, all provisions of law (including penalties) 
     that relate to the unlawful disclosure of information apply 
     to the officers, employees, or agents of the agency to which 
     information is released to the same extent and in the same 
     manner as the provisions apply to the officers and employees 
     of the agency which originally obtained the information. The 
     officers, employees, and agents of the agency to which the 
     information is released, in addition, shall be subject to the 
     same provisions of law, including penalties, relating to the 
     unlawful disclosure of information that would apply to 
     officers and employees of that agency if the information had 
     been collected directly by that agency.

     SEC. 207. COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall coordinate and oversee the confidentiality 
     and disclosure policies established by this title.
       (b) Report of Disclosure Agreements.--
       (1) Report to the office of management and budget.--The 
     head of a Statistical Data Center shall report to the Office 
     of Management and Budget--
       (A) each disclosure agreement entered into under this 
     title;
       (B) the results of any review of information security 
     undertaken at the request of the Office of Management and 
     Budget; and
       (C) the results of any similar review undertaken on the 
     initiative of the Statistical Data Center or an agency 
     supplying data or information to a Statistical Data Center.
       (2) Report to congress.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall include a summary of all reports 
     submitted to the Director under this subsection and any 
     actions taken by the Director to advance the purposes of this 
     title in the Office's annual report to the Congress on 
     statistical programs.
       (c) Review and Approval of Rules.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall review and approve any 
     rules proposed pursuant to this title for consistency with 
     this title and chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code.

     SEC. 208. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or the head 
     of a Statistical Data Center or of an agency providing 
     information to a Center, may promulgate such rules as may be 
     necessary to implement this title.
       (b) Consistency.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall promulgate rules or provide such other 
     guidance as may be needed to ensure consistent interpretation 
     of this title by the affected agencies.
       (c) Agency Rules.--Rules governing disclosures of 
     information authorized by this title shall be promulgated by 
     the agency that originally collected the information, subject 
     to the review and approval required under this title.

     SEC. 209. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS AND PROPOSED CHANGES IN LAW.

       (a) Department of Commerce.--
       (1) The first section of the Act of January 27, 1938 (15 
     U.S.C. 176a; 52 Stat. 8) is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``The'' and inserting ``Except as provided in the 
     Statistical Confidentiality Act, the''.
       (2)(A) Chapter 10 of title 13, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after section 401 the following:

     ``Sec. 402. Exchange of census information with Statistical 
       Data Centers

       ``The Bureau of the Census is authorized to provide data 
     collected under this title to Statistical Data Centers 
     (Centers) named in the Statistical Confidentiality Act, or 
     their successors designated under the terms of that Act.''.
       (B) The table of sections for chapter 10 of title 13, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 401 the following:

``402. Exchange of census information with Statistical Data Centers.''.

       (b) Department of Energy.--
       (1) Section 205 of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135) is amended by adding after subsection 
     (l) the following new subsection:
       ``(m)(1)(A) The Administrator shall designate an 
     organizational unit to conduct statistical activities 
     pertaining to energy end use consumption information. Using 
     procedures authorized by the Statistical Confidentiality Act, 
     the Administrator shall ensure the security, integrity, and 
     confidentiality of the information that has been submitted in 
     identifiable form and supplied exclusively for statistical 
     purposes either directly to the Administrator or by other 
     Government agencies.
       ``(B) To carry out this section, the Administrator shall 
     establish procedures for the disclosure of these data to 
     Statistical Data Centers for statistical purposes only 
     consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the 
     Statistical Confidentiality Act.
       ``(2)(A) A person may not publish, cause to be published, 
     or otherwise communicate, statistical information designated 
     in paragraph

[[Page S642]]

     (1) in a manner that identifies any respondent.
       ``(B) A person may not use statistical information 
     designated in paragraph (1) for a nonstatistical purpose.
       ``(C) The identity of a respondent who supplies, or is the 
     subject of, information collected for statistical purposes--
       ``(i) may not be disclosed through any process, including 
     disclosure through legal process, unless the respondent 
     consents in writing;
       ``(ii) may not be disclosed to the public, unless 
     information has been transformed into a statistical or 
     aggregate form that does not allow the identification of the 
     respondent who supplied the information or who is the subject 
     of that information; and
       ``(iii) may not, without the written consent of the 
     respondent, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose 
     in an action, suit, or other judicial or administrative 
     proceeding.
       ``(D) Any person who violates subparagraphs (2)(A), (B), or 
     (C), upon conviction, shall be fined under title 18, United 
     States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(E) For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(i) The term `person' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 1 of title 1, United States Code, but also includes a 
     local, State, or Federal entity or officer or employee of a 
     local State or Federal entity.
       ``(ii) The terms `statistical activities', `identifiable 
     form', `statistical purpose', `nonstatistical purpose', and 
     `respondent' have the meaning given those terms in section 
     203 of the Statistical Confidentiality Act.
       ``(3) Statistical information designated in paragraph (1) 
     is exempt from disclosure under sections 205(f) and 407 of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act and paragraphs 12, 
     20, and 59 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, 
     or any other law which requires disclosure of that 
     information.''.
       (2) Section 205(f) of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7135) is amended by inserting ``, excluding 
     information designated solely for statistical purposes under 
     subsection (m)(1),'' after ``analysis''.
       (3) Section 407 of the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7177a) is amended by inserting ``, excluding 
     information designated solely for statistical purposes under 
     subsection (m)(1),'' after ``information''.
       (4) The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (A) in section 12 (15 U.S.C. 771), by adding after 
     subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) This section does not apply to information designated 
     solely for statistical purposes under section 205(m)(1) of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act.'';
       (B) in section 20(a)(3) (15 U.S.C. 779), by inserting ``, 
     excluding information designated solely for statistical 
     purposes under subsection (m)(1) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7135)'' after ``information''; 
     and
       (C) in section 59 (15 U.S.C. 790h), by inserting ``, 
     excluding information designated solely for statistical 
     purposes under subsection (m)(1) of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C 7135)'' after ``information''.
       (c) Department of Health and Human Services.--Section 306 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(o) Sharing of Identifying Information for Statistical 
     Purposes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may, subject to the 
     provisions of paragraph (2), designate as an agent of the 
     Center (within the meaning of section 203(2) of the 
     Statistical Confidentiality Act) an individual--
       ``(A) who is not otherwise an employee, official, or agent 
     of the Center; and
       ``(B) who enters into a written agreement with the Director 
     specifying terms and conditions for sharing of statistical 
     information.
       ``(2) Effect of designation.--An individual designated as 
     an agent of the Center pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to all restrictions on the use and disclosure of 
     statistical information obtained by the individual under the 
     agreement specified in paragraph (1)(B), and to all civil and 
     criminal penalties applicable to violations of such 
     restrictions, including penalties under section 1905 of title 
     18, United States Code, that would apply to the individual if 
     an employee of the Center.''.
       (d) Department of Labor.--The Commissioner of Labor 
     Statistics shall be authorized to designate agents, as 
     defined under section 203(2) of this title.
       (e) National Science Foundation.--Section 14 of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1873) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the paragraph following the heading of 
     subsection (i) and inserting the following:
       ``Information supplied to the Foundation or its contractor 
     in survey forms, questionnaires, or similar instruments for 
     purposes of section 3(a) (5) or (6) by an individual, by an 
     industrial or commercial organization, or by an educational 
     or academic institution that has received a pledge of 
     confidentiality from the Foundation, may not be disclosed to 
     the public unless the information has been transformed into 
     statistical or abstract formats that do not allow the 
     identification of the supplier. Such information shall be 
     used in identifiable form only for statistical purposes as 
     defined in the Statistical Confidentiality Act. The names of 
     individuals and organizations supplying such information may 
     not be disclosed to the public.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and 
     inserting the following new subsection after subsection (i):
       ``(j) Obligations of Researchers.--In support of functions 
     authorized by section 3(a) (5) or (6), the Foundation may 
     designate, at its discretion, authorized persons, including 
     employees of Federal, State, or local agencies (including 
     local educational agencies) and employees of private 
     organizations who may have access, for exclusively 
     statistical purposes as defined in the Statistical 
     Confidentiality Act, to identifiable information collected 
     pursuant to subsection (a) (5) or (6) of this title. No such 
     person may--
       ``(1) publish information collected under section 3(a) (5) 
     or (6) in such a manner that either an individual, an 
     industrial or commercial organization, or an educational or 
     academic institution that has received a pledge of 
     confidentiality from the Foundation can be specifically 
     identified;
       ``(2) permit anyone other than individuals authorized by 
     the Foundation to examine in identifiable form data relating 
     to an individual, to an industrial or commercial 
     organization, or to an educational or academic institution 
     that has received a pledge of confidentiality from the 
     Foundation; or
       ``(3) knowingly and willfully request or obtain any 
     confidential information described in subsection (i) from the 
     Foundation under false pretenses.
     Any person who violates these restrictions shall be guilty of 
     a misdemeanor and fined not more than $10,000.''.
       (f) Disclosure Penalties.--Section 1905 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, or agent of a Statistical Data Center 
     as defined in the Statistical Confidentiality Act,'' after 
     ``thereof''; and
       (2) by striking ``shall be fined not more than $1,000'' and 
     inserting ``shall be fined under this title''.

     SEC. 210. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Title 44, U.S.C.--This title, including the amendments 
     made by this title, does not diminish the authority under 
     section 3510 of title 44, United States Code, of the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget to direct, and of an 
     agency to make, disclosures that are not inconsistent with 
     any applicable law.
       (b) State law.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     abrogate applicable State law regarding the confidentiality 
     of data collected by the States.
       (c) FOIA.--Data or information acquired for exclusively 
     statistical purposes as provided in section 206 is exempt 
     from mandatory disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, pursuant to section 552(b)(3) of such 
     title.
                                  ____


Summary of the Federal Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999 \1\


                                OVERVIEW

       The Bill establishes a Federal Commission on Statistical 
     Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal statistical 
     system, and provides uniform safeguards for the 
     confidentiality of information acquired exclusively for 
     statistical purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Prepared by the staff of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 
     1/19/99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                FINDINGS

       The Congress, recognizing the importance of statistical 
     information in the development of national priorities and 
     policies and in the administration of public programs finds 
     that: the decentralized Federal statistical system has 
     limited the usefulness of statistics in defining problems and 
     determining national policies to deal with complex social and 
     economic issues; coordination is necessary to strengthen and 
     improve the quality of statistics, and to reduce duplication 
     and waste; high-quality Federal statistics are essential for 
     sound business and public policy decisions; the challenge of 
     providing high-quality statistics has increased because of 
     the complexity of our economy and society and because of the 
     need for more accurate information; maintaining the quality 
     of Federal statistics requires cooperation between the 
     Federal statistical agencies and respondents to Federal 
     statistical surveys; and Federal statistics may be improved 
     by data sharing among the statistical agencies in a 
     controlled manner that protects the confidentiality promised 
     to respondents.


                         SENSE OF THE CONGRESS

       The bill expresses the Sense of Congress that: A more 
     centralized statistical system is integral to efficiency; 
     Increased efficiency would result in better integration of 
     research methodology, survey design and economics of scale; 
     and The Chief Statistician of the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) must have the authority, personnel and other 
     resources necessary to carry out the duties.


    TITLE I--FEDERAL COMMISSION ON STATISTICAL POLICY ESTABLISHMENT

       A commission is established which is to be known as the 
     ``Federal Commission on Statistical Policy.''
       The Commission shall be composed of 16 members: eight to be 
     appointed by the President; four to be appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with 
     the Majority and Minority Leader; and four to be appointed by 
     the President pro tempore of the Senate in consultation with 
     the Majority and Minority Leader.

[[Page S643]]

       The Commission would have a term of 36 months from the date 
     of enactment.


                        DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

       Within 18 months of its appointment, the Commission shall 
     study and submit to Congress a written report on Federal 
     statistics that makes recommendations on: whether the Federal 
     statistical system could be reorganized by consolidating the 
     statistical functions of agencies that carry out statistical 
     programs; how such consolidation could be done without 
     disruption in the release of statistical products; whether 
     functions of other Federal agencies that carry out 
     statistical programs could be transferred to the Federal 
     Statistical Service; any other issues relating to the 
     reorganization of Federal statistical programs; and possible 
     improvements in procedures for the release of major economic 
     and social indicators.
       If the written report of the Commission contains 
     recommendations on the consolidation of the Federal 
     statistical functions of the United States into a newly 
     established independent Federal agency, designated as the 
     Federal Statistical Service, the report shall contain draft 
     legislation incorporating those recommendations. The 
     Commission should also make recommendations for nominations 
     for the appointment of an Administrator and Deputy 
     Administrator of the Federal Statistical Service.
       During the 36 month term of the Commission, it would also 
     be responsible for conducting comprehensive studies, and 
     submitting reports to Congress on all matters relating to the 
     Federal statistical infrastructure including: an evaluation 
     of the mission of various statistical agencies and the 
     relevance of such missions to current and future needs; a 
     review of information technology and recommendations of 
     appropriate methods for disseminating statistical data; and a 
     comparison of our statistical system with the systems of 
     other nations.


title ii--efficiency and confidentiality of federal statistical systems

       The title reaffirms policies that have been applied to 
     confidential data by statistical agencies for many decades 
     and extends these policies to protect confidentiality in an 
     environment which permits carefully controlled sharing of 
     information exclusively for statistical purposes. It 
     recognizes that the credible protection of confidentiality is 
     crucial to ensuring the level of cooperation which produces 
     accurate and timely responses to statistical inquiries.


                designation of statistical data centers

       The bill designates the BLS, BEA and Bureau of Census 
     National Agricultural Statistics Service, The National Center 
     for Education Statistics, The National Center for Health 
     Statistics, The Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics 
     Division of the Energy Information Administration, and The 
     Division of Science Resources Studies as Statistical Data 
     Centers; and assigns general responsibilities to the agencies 
     designated as Statistical Data Centers.


 disclosure of data or information by federal agencies to statistical 
                              data centers

       The bill establishes a uniform confidentiality policy for 
     data acquired for exclusively statistical purposes, by 
     prohibiting disclosures of such data for non-statistical 
     purposes and limiting disclosures for statistical purposes.


     coordination and oversight by office of management and budget

       The bill assigns OMB the responsibility for oversight, 
     reporting, coordination, and review and approval of any 
     implementing regulations.
                                  ____

                                               September 23, 1996.
     Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Hon. J. Robert Kerry,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Moynihan and Kerry: All of us are former 
     Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers. We write to 
     support the basic objectives and approach of your Bill to 
     establish the Commission to Study the Federal Statistical 
     System.
       The United States possesses a first-class statistical 
     system. All of us have in the past relied heavily upon the 
     availability of reasonably accurate and timely federal 
     statistics on the national economy. Similarly, our 
     professional training leads us to recognize how important a 
     good system of statistical information is for the efficient 
     operations of our complex private economy. But we are also 
     painfully aware that important problems of bureaucratic 
     organization and methodology need to be examined and dealt 
     with if the federal statistical system is to continue to meet 
     essential public and private needs.
       All of us have particular reason to remember the problems 
     which periodically arise under the current system of widely 
     scattered responsibilities. Instead of reflecting a balance 
     among the relative priorities of one statistical collection 
     effort against others, statistical priorities are set in a 
     system within which individual Cabinet Secretaries recommend 
     budgetary tradeoffs between their own substantive programs 
     and the statistical operations which their departments, 
     sometimes by historical accident, are responsible for 
     collecting. Moreover, long range planning of improvements in 
     the federal statistical system to meet the changing nature 
     and needs of the economy is hard to organize in the present 
     framework. The Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Council of Economic Advisers put a lot of effort into trying 
     to coordinate the system, often with success, but often 
     swimming upstream against the system.
       We are also aware, as of course are you, of a number of 
     longstanding substantive and methodological difficulties with 
     which the current system is grappling. These include the 
     increasing importance in the national economy of the service 
     sector, whose output and productivity are especially hard to 
     measure, and the pervasive effect both on measures of 
     national output and income and on the federal budget of the 
     accuracy (or inaccuracy) with which our measures of prices 
     capture changes in the quality of the goods and services we 
     buy.
       Without at all prejudging the appropriate measures to deal 
     with these difficult problems, we believe that a 
     thoroughgoing review by a highly qualified and bipartisan 
     Commission as provided in your Bill has great promise of 
     showing the way to major improvements.
           Sincerely,
         Professor Michael J. Boskin, Stanford University; Dr. 
           Martin Feldstein, National Bureau of Economic Research; 
           Alan Greenspan; Professor Paul W. McCracken, University 
           of Michigan; Raymond J. Saulnier; Charles L. Schultze, 
           The Brookings Institution; Beryl W. Sprinkel; Herbert 
           Stein, American Enterprise Institute; Professor Murray 
           Weidenbaum, Center for the Study of American Business.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 206. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
provide for improved data collection and evaluations of State 
Children's Health Insurance Programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          the CHIP DATA AND EVALUATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my colleague 
Senator Chafee the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999. 
This legislation would ensure comparable data and an adequate 
evaluation of children's health coverage under the new Children's 
Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid.
  In 1997, CHIP was established to provide health coverage for low-
income uninsured children. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided $48 
billion over ten years, mostly in the form of a block grant, for states 
to develop children's health insurance programs.
  New York and other states pioneered expanded children's health 
programs well before the enactment of CHIP. With new federal CHIP 
funding, more states are beginning to develop their own programs. To 
date, 48 states have CHIP plans that have been approved by the Health 
Care Financing Administration, with most just beginning to implement 
their programs. We await reports on the effectiveness of their efforts 
to cover the nation's uninsured children.


                           THE NEED FOR DATA

  Implementing their programs is the first challenge before the states. 
For the Federal government, the first challenge clearly will be to 
track the experience of children and of the CHIP programs. We will need 
data to answer some basic questions: Is the number of uninsured 
children being reduced over time, and how effective are the state CHIP 
programs at serving them? What are the best practices and initiatives 
for finding and enrolling the nation's uninsured children?
  We cannot begin to solve a problem until we can measure it. 
Appropriate program data and evaluation contributes to sound policy and 
program design. In 1994, the Welfare Indicators Act of that year--a 
bill that I introduced--became law. The bill directed the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to study the most useful statistics for 
tracking and predicting trends in three means-tested cash and 
nutritional assistance programs. The first of these, of course, was 
ADFC, but the first full Report came two months after AFDC was 
repealed.

  Without data to track its benefits, a program becomes vulnerable to 
reductions in funding. The most recent example is the Social Services 
Block Grant under Title XX of the Social Security Act, which funds a 
wide array of social services ranging from child care to home-delivered 
meals to the elderly. Little summary data on this program has been 
released and not all data is reported in a uniform manner. The welfare 
repeal bill enacted in 1996 reduced the block grant from $2.8 billion 
to $2.38 billion. Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998 limited funding 
for that year to $2.29 billion. The highway and mass transit bill 
enacted in 1998 further reduced grants to $1.7 billion by 2001.

[[Page S644]]

Most recently, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 accelerated that funding limitation 
to $1.9 billion in FY 1999.


          the chip data and evaluation improvement act of 1999

  The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999 calls for a 
detailed Federal CHIP evaluation by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. Current law requires a CHIP report from the Secretary to 
Congress; however, no funds were authorized. This bill would provide 
the necessary funds to conduct an evaluation. The evaluation would 
focus, in part, on outreach and enrollment and on the coordinated the 
existing Medicaid program and the new CHIP program.
  In this era of devolution of social programs, the Federal government 
has an increasingly critical responsibility to ensure adequate and 
comparable national data. This bill would ensure that standardized CHIP 
data is provided. At the very least, the Federal government should 
provide, on a national level, estimates of the number of children below 
the poverty level who are covered by CHIP and by Medicaid.
  The CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act would provide funding so 
that existing national surveys would provide reliable and comparable 
state-by-state data. The most fundamental question we, as policy 
makers, will be asking is whether the number of uninsured children is 
going down. With an increasing percent of uninsured, a stable rate 
might be considered a success! This bill would provide additional 
funding to the Census Bureau for its Current Population Survey--a 
national data source of the uninsured--to improve upon the reliability 
of its state-by-state estimates of uninsured children.
  In addition, the proposal would provide funding for another national 
survey to provide reliable state-by-state data on health care access 
and utilization for low-income children. Although this survey may also 
provide data on the number of uninsured, the CPS would be the primary 
source for such figures.
  Also, to develop more efficient and centralized statistics, this bill 
would coordinate a Federal clearinghouse for all data bases and reports 
on children's health. Centralized and complete information is the key 
to sound policy and programs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the summary and the full text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 206

       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 ``CHIP Data and Evaluation 
     Improvement Act of 1999.''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR RELIABLE ANNUAL STATE-BY-STATE ESTIMATES 
                   ON THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO DO NOT HAVE 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Adjustment to Current Population Survey To Include 
     State-by-State Data Relating to Children Without Health 
     Insurance Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall make 
     appropriate adjustments to the annual Current Population 
     Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census in order to 
     produce statistically reliable annual State data on the 
     number of low-income children who do not have health 
     insurance coverage, so that real changes in the uninsurance 
     rates of children can reasonably be detected. The Current 
     Population Survey should produce data under this subsection 
     that categorizes such children by family income, age, and 
     race or ethnicity. The adjustments made to produce such data 
     shall include, where appropriate, expanding the sample size 
     used in the State sampling units, expanding the number of 
     sampling units in a State, and an appropriate verification 
     element.
       ``(2) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter for the purpose of carrying out this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ACCESS AND 
                   UTILIZATION STATE-BY-STATE DATA.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh), 
     as amended by section 2, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Collection of Children's Health Care Access and 
     Utilization State-Level Data.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     National Center for Health Statistics (in this subsection 
     referred to as the `Center'), shall collect data on 
     children's health insurance through the State and Local Area 
     Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) for the 50 States and 
     the District of Columbia. Sufficient data shall be collected 
     so as to provide reliable, annual, State-by-State information 
     on the health care access and utilization of children in low-
     income households, and to allow for comparisons between 
     demographic subgroups categorized with respect to family 
     income, age, and race or ethnicity.
       ``(2) Survey design and content.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary, acting through the Center--
       ``(i) shall obtain input from appropriate sources, 
     including States, in designing the survey and making content 
     decisions; and
       ``(ii) at the request of a State, may collect additional 
     data to assist with a State's evaluation of the program 
     established under this title.
       ``(B) Reimbursement of costs of additional data.--A State 
     shall reimburse the Center for services provided under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(3) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter for the purpose of carrying out this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL EVALUATION OF STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh), 
     as amended by sections 2 and 3, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Federal Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through 
     contracts or interagency agreements, shall conduct an 
     independent evaluation of 10 States with approved child 
     health plans.
       ``(2) Selection of States.--In selecting States for the 
     evaluation conducted under this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall chose 10 States that utilize diverse approaches to 
     providing child health assistance, represent various 
     geographic areas (including a mix of rural and urban areas), 
     and contain a significant portion of uncovered children.
       ``(3) Matters included.--In addition to the elements 
     described in subsection (b)(1), the evaluation conducted 
     under this subsection shall include, but is not limited to, 
     the following:
       ``(A) Surveys of the target population (enrollees, 
     disenrollees, and individuals eligible for but not enrolled 
     in the program under this title).
       ``(B) Evaluation of effective and ineffective outreach and 
     enrollment practices with respect to children (for both the 
     program under this title and the medicaid program under title 
     XIX), and identification of enrollment barriers and key 
     elements of effective outreach and enrollment practices, 
     including practices that have successfully enrolled hard-to-
     reach populations such as children who are eligible for 
     medical assistance under title XIX but have not been enrolled 
     previously in the medicaid program under that title.
       ``(C) Evaluation of the extent to which State medicaid 
     eligibility practices and procedures under the medicaid 
     program under title XIX are a barrier to the enrollment of 
     children under that program, and the extent to which 
     coordination (or lack of coordination) between that program 
     and the program under this title affects the enrollment of 
     children under both programs.
       ``(D) An assessment of the effect of cost-sharing on 
     utilization, enrollment, and coverage retention.
       ``(E) Evaluation of disenrollment or other retention 
     issues, such as switching to private coverage, failure to pay 
     premiums, or barriers in the recertification process.
       ``(4) Submission to congress.--Not later than December 31, 
     2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the results of 
     the evaluation conducted under this subsection.
       ``(5) Funding.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the purpose 
     of conducting the evaluation authorized under this 
     subsection. Amounts appropriated under this paragraph shall 
     remain available without fiscal year limitation.''.

     SEC. 5. STANDARDIZED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL 
                   REPORTS.

       Section 2108(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397hh(a)) is amended by--
       (1) redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B), respectively and indenting appropriately;
       (2) by striking ``The State shall--'' and inserting the 
     following
       ``(1) In general.--The State shall--''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Standardized reporting requirements.--Each annual 
     report submitted under this subsection shall, in addition to 
     expenditure and other reporting requirements specified by the 
     Secretary, include the following:
       ``(A) Enrollee counts categorized by income (that at least 
     identifies enrollees with income below the poverty line), 
     age, and race or ethnicity, and, if income levels used in

[[Page S645]]

     State reporting differ from that prescribed by the Secretary, 
     a detailed description of the eligibility methodologies used 
     by the State, including all relevant income disregards, 
     exempted income, and eligibility family units.
       ``(B) The annual percentages of those individuals who 
     sought coverage (as determined by the Secretary) through the 
     screening and enrollment process established under the State 
     program under this title who were--
       ``(i) enrolled in the program under this title;
       ``(ii) enrolled in the medicaid program under title XIX; or
       ``(iii) determined eligible for, but not enrolled in, the 
     program under this title or the medicaid program under title 
     XIX.''.

     SEC. 6. INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT AND GAO REPORT ON ENROLLEES 
                   ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID.

       Section 2108 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1397hh), 
     as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Inspector General Audit and GAO Report.--
       ``(1) Audit.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, and every 
     third fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary, through the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, shall audit a sample from among the States 
     described in paragraph (2) in order to--
       ``(A) determine the number, if any, of enrollees under the 
     plan under this title who are eligible for medical assistance 
     under title XIX (other than as an optional targeted low-
     income children under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIV)); and
       ``(B) assess the progress made in reducing the number of 
     targeted uncovered low-income children relative to the goals 
     established in the State child health plan, as reported to 
     the Secretary in accordance with subsection (a)(2).
       ``(2) State described.--A State described in this paragraph 
     is a State with an approved State child health plan under 
     this title that does not, as part of such plan, provide 
     health benefits coverage under the State's medicaid program 
     under title XIX.
       ``(3) Monitoring and report from gao.--The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall monitor the audits 
     conducted under this subsection and, not later than March 1 
     of each fiscal year after a fiscal year in which an audit is 
     conducted under this subsection, shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the results of the audit conducted during the 
     prior fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 7. COORDINATION OF DATA COLLECTION WITH DATA 
                   REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE MATERNAL AND CHILD 
                   HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

       Subparagraphs (C)(ii) and (D)(ii) of section 506(a)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 706(a)(2)) are each 
     amended by inserting ``or the State plan under title XXI'' 
     after ``title XIX''.

     SEC. 8. COORDINATION OF DATA SURVEYS AND REPORTS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, shall 
     establish a clearinghouse for the consolidation and 
     coordination of all Federal data bases and reports regarding 
     children's health.

    Summary of the CHIP Data and Evaluation Improvement Act of 1999


                                purpose

       In 1997, 10.7 million children were uninsured. The new 
     State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and existing 
     state Medicaid programs are intended to provide coverage for 
     low-income children. The crucial question is whether the 
     number of uninsured children has been reduced. Improved 
     state-specific data is needed to provide that information. In 
     addition, the Federal government should evaluate the 
     effectiveness of these programs in finding and enrolling 
     children in health insurance.


                                proposal

       State-by-state Uninsured Counts and Children's Health Care 
     Access and Utilization. (1) Provide funds ($10 million 
     annually) to the Census Bureau to make appropriate 
     adjustments to the Current Population Survey (CPS) so that 
     the CPS can provide reliable state-by-state data on uninsured 
     children. (2) Provide funds ($9 million annually) to the 
     National Center for Health Statistics to conduct the 
     Children's Health portion of the State and Local Area 
     Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) in order to produce 
     reliable state-by-state date on the health care access and 
     utilization for low-income children covered by various 
     insurance programs such as Medicaid and CHIP.
       Federal Evaluation. With funding ($10 million), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services would submit to 
     Congress a Federal evaluation report that would include 10 
     states representing varying geographic, rural/urban, with 
     various program designs. The evaluation would include more 
     specific and comparable evaluation elements than are already 
     included under Title XXI, such as including surveys of the 
     target population (enrollees and other eligibles). The study 
     would evaluate outreach and enrollment practices (for both 
     CHIP and Medicaid), identify barriers to enrollment, assess 
     states' Medicaid and CHIP program coordination, assess the 
     effect of cost sharing on enrollment and coverage retention, 
     and identify the reasons for disenrollment/retention.
       Standardized Reporting. States would submit standardized 
     data to the Secretary, including enrollee counts 
     disaggregated by income (below 100%), race/ethnicity, and 
     age. If income could not be submitted in a standard form, the 
     state would submit a detailed description of eligibility 
     methodologies that outline relevant income disregards. States 
     would also submit percentages of individuals screened that 
     are enrolled in CHIP and in Medicaid, and the percent 
     screened eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.
       Administrative Spending Reports for Title XXI. States would 
     submit standardized spending reports for the following 
     administrative costs: data systems, outreach efforts and 
     program operation (eligibility/enrollment, etc.)
       Coordinate CHIP Data with Title V Data Requirements. 
     Existing reporting requirements for the Maternal and Child 
     Health Block Grant provide data based on children's health 
     insurance, including Medicaid. This bill would include the 
     CHIP program in its reporting.
       IG Audit and GAO Report. The Inspector General for the 
     Department of Health and Human Services would audit CHIP 
     enrollee data to identify children who are actually eligible 
     for Medicaid. The General Accounting Office will report the 
     results to Congress.
       Coordination of all Children Data and Reports. The 
     Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation in the 
     Department of Health and Human Services would consolidate all 
     federal data base information and reports on children's 
     health in a clearinghouse.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 207. A bill to amend title V of the Social Security Act to 
increase the authorization of appropriations for the maternal and child 
health services block grant and to promote integrated physical and 
specialized mental health services for children and adolescents; to the 
Committee on Finance.


          the maternal child health block grant authorization

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in November 1998, Essence Magazine 
reported that between 1980 and 1995 the suicide rate among Black males 
ages 10 to 19 more than doubled. According to a Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) study, suicide is now the third leading 
cause of death among all youth aged 15-19, and the fourth leading cause 
of death among children aged 10-14 nationally. In many states the 
problem is even worse. For example, suicide is the number one killer of 
adolescents 15-19 years old in Alaska and of children 10 to 14 years 
old in Oregon. The majority of children and adolescents at risk for 
suicidal behavior are not seen by mental health specialists; therefore, 
primary health care providers and others in regular contact with young 
people must be available to respond to these troubled youngsters.
  The legislation introduced today proposes to focus on seriously 
emotionally disabled children and adolescents and their families. 
Adolescents with special health needs, those experiencing chronic 
physical, developmental, behavioral, or serious emotional problems and 
requiring additional health and related services such as assistance in 
moving from pediatric to adult health care, to post-secondary education 
and employment will be helped by this bill. The Maternal and Child 
Health Bureau (MCHB) located within the Department of Health and Human 
Services is best situated to implement this program.

  The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) has roots that go back 
more than 80 years--to the creation of the Children's Bureau in 1912. 
This was the first government agency to act as an advocate for mothers, 
children, and adolescents. The Maternal and Child Health Services Block 
Grant, the bureau's principle statutory responsibility, was originally 
enacted in 1935 as Title V of the Social Security Act. The MCHB is 
charged with providing leadership, partnership, and resources to 
advance the health of all mothers, infants, children, and adolescents--
including families with low income, those with diverse racial and 
ethnic heritages, those with special health care needs, and those 
living in rural or isolated areas without access to care.
  Title V encompasses a program of grants to the states and two federal 
discretionary grant programs: Special Projects of Regional and National 
Significance (SPRANS) and Community Integrated Service Systems (CISS). 
Funds are used to support research, training, newborn screening, 
maternal and child health improvements. CISS is only funded when the 
Title V annual appropriation exceeds $600 million) which occurred for 
the first time in 1992. The CISS program provides direct support to 
public and private groups committed to building integrated health 
delivery systems that provide comprehensive services in local 
communities. Most importantly, the State

[[Page S646]]

Title V programs are required to coordinate with other related Federal 
health, education, and social service programs. For example, MCH 
programs have provided the technical expertise and the service delivery 
systems to ensure that expanded Medicaid eligibility and benefits 
result in improved access to services and improved health status of 
pregnant women and children.
  The federal Title V mandate places a unique responsibility on state 
MCH agencies to assure that children with special health care needs are 
identified and receive the care they need. State programs are required 
to develop family-centered, community-based, coordinated care systems 
for children with special health care needs. Services for these 
children are most often provided through specialty clinics and through 
purchase of private office or hospital-based outpatient and inpatient 
diagnostic, treatment, and follow up services. Three-fourths of the 
State MCH programs have supported local ``one-stop shopping'' models 
integrating access to Title V, Medicaid, the WIC food program, and 
other health or social services at one site. In New York, MCH helps to 
fund or operate regional pediatric resource centers for children with 
special needs.
  These centers offer multidisciplinary team care, family support and 
service coordination and they are beginning to integrate this approach 
into private practice settings where children are now receiving their 
specialty medical care. Yet, even though these programs have had 
encouraging results, most states' health care systems are unable to 
address all the needs of these vulnerable children--and adolescent 
youth with special health needs are particularly at risk. And that is 
why this legislation is so important. Under current law, Title V is 
permanently authorized at $705 million. It was last extended in FY 1993 
to conform to funding levels that went beyond the prior authorization 
level. This legislation would increase the current MCH Block Grant 
authorization level from $705 million to $840 million in FY 2000.
  Health care information and education for families with special 
health care needs is critical to the success of any integrated physical 
and mental health service program. The MCHB has begun family support 
efforts for families of children with special health care needs, and 
has a promising pilot program to build a national network of statewide 
family-run support services in FY 1999. The additional funding in this 
bill is intended to expand upon these family support efforts. With 
increased funding for the MCH Block Grant, SPRANS and CISS programs, 
the MCH Bureau will be well-positioned to collaborate successfully with 
other Federal and State partners to address this new project focus.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be inserted in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 207

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH 
                   SERVICES BLOCK GRANT.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 
     501(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is 
     amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``$705,000,000 for fiscal year 1994'' and inserting 
     ``$840,000,000 for fiscal year 2000''.
       (b) Promotion of Integrated Physical and Specialized Mental 
     Health Services.--Section 501(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and for'' and inserting ``for''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and for the promotion of integrated 
     physical and specialized mental health services for children 
     and adolescents'' before the semicolon; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) integrated physical and specialized mental health 
     services for children and adolescents.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 208. A bill to enhance family life; to the Committee on Finance.


                 the enhancing family life act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Enhancing 
Family Life Act of 1999, a bill inspired by an extraordinary set of 
proposals by one of our nation's most eminent social scientists, 
Professor James Q. Wilson. On December 4, 1997, I had the honor of 
hearing Professor Wilson--who is an old and dear friend--deliver the 
Francis Boyer Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The 
Boyer Lecture is delivered at AEI's annual dinner by a thinker who has 
``made notable intellectual or practical contributions to improved 
public policy and social welfare.'' Previous Boyer lecturers have 
included Irving Kristol, Alan Greenspan, and Henry Kissinger. In his 
lecture, Professor Wilson argued that ``two nations'' now exist within 
the United States. He said:

       In one nation, a child, raised by two parents, acquires an 
     education, a job, a spouse, and a home kept separate from 
     crime and disorder by distance, fences, or guards. In the 
     other nation, a child is raised by an unwed girl, lives in a 
     neighborhood filled with many sexual men but few committed 
     fathers, and finds gang life to be necessary for self-
     protection and valuable for self-advancement.

  Sadly, this is an all-too-accurate portrait of the American 
underclass, the problems of which have been the focus of decades of 
unsuccessful welfare reform and crime control efforts. We have tried a 
great many ``solutions,'' as Professor Wilson notes:

       Congress has devised community action, built public 
     housing, created a Job Corps, distributed Food Stamps, given 
     federal funds to low-income schools, supported job training, 
     and provided cash grants to working families.

  Yet still we are faced with two nations. Professor Wilson explains 
why: ``[t]he family problem lies at the heart of the emergence of two 
nations.'' He notes that as our families become weaker--as more and 
more American children are born outside of marriage and raised by one, 
not two, parents--the foundation of our society becomes weaker. This 
deterioration helps to explain why, as reported by the Census Bureau 
today, the poverty rate for American children is almost twice that for 
adults aged 18 to 64 (19.9 percent for children versus 10.9 percent for 
adults). And it grows increasingly difficult for government to address 
the problems of that ``second nation.'' Professor Wilson even quotes 
the Senator from New York to this effect: ``If you expect a government 
program to change families, you know more about government than I do.''

  Even so, Jim Wilson, quite characteristically, has fresh ideas about 
what might help. On the basis of recent scholarly research, and common 
sense, he urged in the Boyer Lecture that we refocus our attention on 
the vital period of early childhood. I was so impressed with his 
Lecture that afterward I set about writing a bill to put his 
recommendations into effect.
  The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 contains four key elements, all 
of which are related to families. First, it supports ``second change'' 
maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where 
young women would live with their children under strict adult 
supervision and have the support necessary to become productive members 
of society. The bill provides $45 million a year to create such homes 
or expand existing ones.
  Second, it promotes adoption. The bill expands the number of children 
in foster care eligible for federal adoption incentives. Too many 
children drift in foster care; we should do more to find them permanent 
homes. The bill also encourages states to experiment with ``per 
capita'' approaches to finding these permanent homes for foster 
children, a strategy Kansas has used with success.
  Third, it funds collaborative early childhood development programs. 
Recent research has reminded us of the critical importance of the first 
few years of a child's life. States would have great flexibility in the 
use of these funds; for example, the money could be used for pre-school 
programs for poor children or home visits of parents of young children. 
It provides $3.75 billion over five years for this purpose.
  Finally, the legislation creates a new education assistance program 
to enable more parents to remain home with young children. A parent who 
temporarily leaves the workforce to raise a child would be eligible for 
an educational grant, similar to the Pell Grant, to help parent enter, 
or re-

[[Page S647]]

enter, the labor market with skills and credentials necessary for 
success in today's economy once the child is older.
  Mr. President, this bill is a starting point. It is what Professor 
James Q. Wilson and I believe just might make a difference. We would 
certainly welcome the comments of others. I first introduced this 
legislation last September and have received several helpful 
suggestions. I look forward to further such conversations and comments.
  And I would commend to the attention of Senators and other interested 
persons the full text of Professor Wilson's lecture ``Two Nations,'' 
which is available from my office or from the American Enterprise 
Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation 
and the full text of the bill be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 208

       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 ``Enhancing 
     Family Life Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of Contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

                    TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN

Sec. 101. Second chance homes.
Sec. 102. Adoption promotion.
Sec. 103. Early childhood development.

                        TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS

Sec. 201. Parent grants.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The family is the foundation of public life.
       (2) The proportion of illegitimate births to teenagers has 
     increased astronomically from 13 percent of such births in 
     1950 to 76 percent of such births in 1996.
       (3) Children in one-parent families are more at risk for 
     many types of anti-social behavior.
       (4) The future of children is crucially determined during 
     the first few years of life.
                    TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN

     SEC. 101. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.

       (a) In General.--Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1397-1397f) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2008. SECOND CHANCE HOMES.

       ``(a) Entitlement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to any payment under 
     sections 2002 and 2007, beginning with fiscal year 2000, each 
     State shall be entitled to funds under this section for each 
     fiscal year for the establishment, operation, and support of 
     second chance homes for custodial parents under the age of 19 
     and their children.
       ``(2) Payment to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State shall be entitled to payment 
     under this section for each fiscal year in an amount equal to 
     its allotment (determined in accordance with subsection (b)) 
     for such fiscal year, to be used by such State for the 
     purposes set forth in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Transfers of funds.--The Secretary shall make 
     payments in accordance with section 6503 of title 31, United 
     States Code, to each State from its allotment for use under 
     this section.
       ``(C) Use.--Payments to a State from its allotment for any 
     fiscal year must be expended by the State in such fiscal year 
     or in the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(D) Technical assistance.--A State may use a portion of 
     the amounts described in subparagraph (A) for the purpose of 
     purchasing technical assistance from public or private 
     entities if the State determines that such assistance is 
     required in developing, implementing, or administering the 
     program funded under this section.
       ``(3) Second chance homes.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `second chance homes' means an entity that provides 
     custodial parents under the age of 19 and their children with 
     a supportive and supervised living arrangement in which such 
     parents would be required to learn parenting skills, 
     including child development, family budgeting, health and 
     nutrition, and other skills to promote their long-term 
     economic independence and the well-being of their children. A 
     second chance home may also serve as a network center for 
     other supportive services that might be available in the 
     community.
       ``(b) Allotment.--
       ``(1) Certain jurisdictions.--The allotment for any fiscal 
     year to Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, 
     American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be an 
     amount that bears the same ratio to the amount specified 
     under paragraph (3) as the allotment that the jurisdiction 
     receives under section 2003(a) for the fiscal year bears to 
     the total amount specified for such fiscal year under section 
     2003(c).
       ``(2) Other states.--The allotment for any fiscal year for 
     each State other than Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana 
     Islands shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to--
       ``(A) the amount specified under paragraph (3); reduced by
       ``(B) the total amount allotted for that fiscal year under 
     paragraph (1),
     as the allotment that the State receives under section 
     2003(b) for the fiscal year bears to the total amount 
     specified for such fiscal year under section 2003(c).
       ``(3) Amount specified.--The amount specified for purposes 
     of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be $40,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(c) Local Involvement.--Each State shall seek local 
     involvement from the community in any area in which a second 
     chance home receiving funds pursuant to this section is to be 
     established. In determining criteria for targeting funds 
     received under this section, each State shall evaluate the 
     community's commitment to the establishment and planning of 
     the home.
       ``(d) Limitations on the Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     funds made available under this section may not be used by 
     the State, or any other person with which the State makes 
     arrangements to carry out the purposes of this section, for 
     the purchase or improvement of land, or the purchase, 
     construction, or permanent improvement (other than minor 
     remodeling) of any building or other facility.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the limitation 
     contained in paragraph (1) upon the State's request for such 
     a waiver if the Secretary finds that the request describes 
     extraordinary circumstances to justify the waiver and that 
     permitting the waiver will contribute to the State's ability 
     to carry out the purposes of this section.
       ``(e) Treatment of Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--An Indian tribe may apply to the 
     Secretary to establish, operate, and support adult-supervised 
     group homes for custodial parents under the age of 19 and 
     their children in accordance with an application procedure to 
     be determined by the Secretary. Except as otherwise provided 
     in this subsection, the provisions of this section shall 
     apply to Indian tribes receiving funds under this subsection 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as the other 
     provisions of this section apply to States.
       ``(2) Allotment.--If the Secretary approves an Indian 
     tribe's application, the Secretary shall allot to such tribe 
     for a fiscal year an amount which the Secretary determines is 
     the Indian tribe's fair and equitable share of the amount 
     specified under paragraph (3) for all Indian tribes with 
     applications approved under this subsection (based on 
     allotment factors to be determined by the Secretary). The 
     Secretary shall determine a minimum allotment amount for all 
     Indian tribes with applications approved under this 
     subsection. Each Indian tribe with an application approved 
     under this subsection shall be entitled to such minimum 
     allotment.
       ``(3) Amount specified.--The amount specified under this 
     paragraph for all Indian tribes with applications approved 
     under this subsection is $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
     each succeeding fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(4) Indian tribe defined.--In this section, the term 
     `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 
     or other organized group or community, including any Alaska 
     Native entity which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to Indian 
     tribes because of their status as Indians.
       ``(f) Research and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount appropriated to carry out 
     this section for each fiscal year shall be increased by 2 
     percent and the Secretary shall reserve an amount equal to 
     that increase to pay for the costs of conducting, through 
     grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research and 
     evaluation projects regarding the second chance homes funded 
     under this section. In conducting such projects, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to projects that are undertaken 
     by independent and impartial organizations.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects 
     conducted in accordance with this subsection.''.
       (b) Recommendations on Use of Government Surplus 
     Property.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration, shall 
     submit recommendations to Congress on the extent to which 
     surplus properties of the United States Government may be 
     used for the establishment of second chance homes receiving 
     funds under section 2008 of the Social Security Act, as added 
     by subsection (a).

     SEC. 102. ADOPTION PROMOTION.

       (a) Adoption of Children With Special Needs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), a child 
     meets the requirements of this paragraph if such child--
       ``(i) prior to termination of parental rights and the 
     initiation of adoption proceedings was in the care of a 
     public or licensed private child care agency or Indian tribal 
     organization either pursuant to a voluntary placement 
     agreement (provided the child was in care for not more than 
     180 days) or as a result of a judicial determination to the 
     effect

[[Page S648]]

     that continuation in the home would be contrary to the safety 
     and welfare of such child, or was residing in a foster family 
     home or child care institution with the child's minor parent 
     (either pursuant to such a voluntary placement agreement or 
     as a result of such a judicial determination); and
       ``(ii) has been determined by the State pursuant to 
     subsection (c) to be a child with special needs, which needs 
     shall be considered by the State, together with the 
     circumstances of the adopting parents, in determining the 
     amount of any payments to be made to the adopting parents.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except as provided in paragraph (7), a child who is not a 
     citizen or resident of the United States and who meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as meeting 
     the requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).
       ``(C) A child who meets the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A), who was determined eligible for adoption assistance 
     payments under this part with respect to a prior adoption (or 
     who would have been determined eligible for such payments had 
     the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 been in effect at 
     the time that such determination would have been made), and 
     who is available for adoption because the prior adoption has 
     been dissolved and the parental rights of the adoptive 
     parents have been terminated or because the child's adoptive 
     parents have died, shall be treated as meeting the 
     requirements of this paragraph for purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii).''.
       (2) Exception.--Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, no payment may be made to parents with respect to 
     any child that--
       ``(i) would be considered a child with special needs under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(ii) is not a citizen or resident of the United States; 
     and
       ``(iii) was adopted outside of the United States or was 
     brought into the United States for the purpose of being 
     adopted.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as 
     prohibiting payments under this part for a child described in 
     subparagraph (A) that is placed in foster care subsequent to 
     the failure, as determined by the State, of the initial 
     adoption of such child by the parents described in such 
     subparagraph.''.
       (3) Requirement for use of state savings.--Section 473(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) A State shall spend an amount equal to the amount of 
     savings (if any) in State expenditures under this part 
     resulting from the application of paragraph (2) on and after 
     the effective date of the amendment to such paragraph made by 
     section 4(a) of the Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999 to 
     provide to children or families any service (including post-
     adoption services) that may be provided under this part or 
     part B.''.
       (b) Per Capita Child Welfare Demonstration Projects.--
     Section 1130(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Reservation.--Of the 10 demonstration projects 
     authorized under this subsection for each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2002, the Secretary, upon receipt of an 
     appropriate application, shall approve at least 3 
     demonstration projects in each of such fiscal years that are 
     designed to test a per capita approach for the successful 
     resolution of a foster care placement under which a private 
     entity contracts for a fixed amount to either restore a child 
     in foster care to the child's parent or parents or locate an 
     adoptive placement for the child.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 103. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.

       Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

                ``PART F--ASSISTANCE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

     ``SEC. 480. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       ``(2) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' means the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.
       ``(3) State board.--The term `State board' means a State 
     Early Learning Coordinating Board established under section 
     481(c).
       ``(4) Young child.--The term `young child' means an 
     individual from birth through age 5.
       ``(5) Young child assistance activities.--The term `young 
     child assistance activities' means the activities described 
     in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 482(b).

     ``SEC. 481. ALLOTMENTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make allotments 
     under subsection (b) to eligible States to pay for the 
     Federal share of the cost of enabling the States to make 
     grants to local collaboratives under section 482 for young 
     child assistance activities.
       ``(b) Allotment.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the funds appropriated under 
     section 484 for each fiscal year and not reserved under 
     subsection (i), the Secretary shall allot to each eligible 
     State an amount that bears the same relationship to such 
     funds as the total number of young children in poverty in the 
     State bears to the total number of young children in poverty 
     in all eligible States.
       ``(2) Young child in poverty.--In this subsection, the term 
     `young child in poverty' means an individual who--
       ``(A) is a young child; and
       ``(B) is a member of a family with an income below the 
     poverty line.
       ``(c) State Boards.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order for a State to be eligible to 
     obtain an allotment under this part, the chief executive 
     officer of the State shall establish, or designate an entity 
     to serve as, a State Early Learning Coordinating Board, which 
     shall receive the allotment and make the grants described in 
     section 482.
       ``(2) Established board.--A State board established under 
     paragraph (1) shall consist of the chief executive officer of 
     the State and members appointed by such chief executive 
     officer, including--
       ``(A) representatives of all State agencies primarily 
     providing services to young children in the State;
       ``(B) representatives of business in the State;
       ``(C) chief executive officers of political subdivisions in 
     the State;
       ``(D) parents of young children in the State;
       ``(E) officers of community organizations serving low-
     income individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the 
     State;
       ``(F) representatives of State nonprofit organizations that 
     represent the interests of young children in poverty, as 
     defined in subsection (b), in the State;
       ``(G) representatives of organizations providing services 
     to young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), 
     providing services through a family resource center, 
     providing home visits, or providing health care services, in 
     the State; and
       ``(H) representatives of local educational agencies.
       ``(3) Designated board.--The chief executive officer of the 
     State may designate an entity to serve as the State board 
     under paragraph (1) if the entity includes the chief 
     executive officer of the State and the members described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) of paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Designated state agency.--The chief executive officer 
     of the State shall designate a State agency that has a 
     representative on the State board to provide administrative 
     oversight concerning the use of funds made available under 
     this part and ensure accountability for the funds.
       ``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive an allotment 
     under this part, a State board shall annually submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 
     At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       ``(1) sufficient information about the entity established 
     or designated under subsection (c) to serve as the State 
     board to enable the Secretary to determine whether the entity 
     complies with the requirements of such subsection;
       ``(2) a comprehensive State plan for carrying out young 
     child assistance activities;
       ``(3) an assurance that the State board will provide such 
     information as the Secretary shall by regulation require on 
     the amount of State and local public funds expended in the 
     State to provide services for young children; and
       ``(4) an assurance that the State board shall annually 
     compile and submit to the Secretary information from the 
     reports referred to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(iii) that 
     describes the results referred to in section 482(d)(2)(F)(i).
       ``(e) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described 
     in subsection (a) shall be--
       ``(A) 85 percent, in the case of a State for which the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section 
     1905(b)) is not less than 50 percent but is less than 60 
     percent;
       ``(B) 87.5 percent, in the case of a State for which such 
     percentage is not less than 60 percent but is less than 70 
     percent; and
       ``(C) 90 percent, in the case of any State not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(2) State share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State shall contribute the remaining 
     share (referred to in this paragraph as the `State share') of 
     the cost described in subsection (a).
       ``(B) Form.--The State share of the cost shall be in cash.
       ``(C) Sources.--The State may provide for the State share 
     of the cost from State or local sources, or through donations 
     from private entities.
       ``(f) State Administrative Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may use not more than 5 percent 
     of the funds made available through an allotment made under 
     this part to pay for a portion, not to exceed 50 percent, of 
     State administrative costs related to carrying out this part.

[[Page S649]]

       ``(2) Waiver.--A State may apply to the Secretary for a 
     waiver of paragraph (1). The Secretary may grant the waiver 
     if the Secretary finds that unusual circumstances prevent the 
     State from complying with paragraph (1). A State that 
     receives such a waiver may use not more than 7.5 percent of 
     the funds made available through the allotment to pay for the 
     State administrative costs.
       ``(g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor the 
     activities of States that receive allotments under this part 
     to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part, 
     including compliance with the State plans.
       ``(h) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State that has received an allotment under this part is not 
     complying with a requirement of this part, the Secretary 
     may--
       ``(1) provide technical assistance to the State to improve 
     the ability of the State to comply with the requirement;
       ``(2) reduce, by not less than 5 percent, an allotment made 
     to the State under this section, for the second determination 
     of noncompliance;
       ``(3) reduce, by not less than 25 percent, an allotment 
     made to the State under this section, for the third 
     determination of noncompliance; or
       ``(4) revoke the eligibility of the State to receive 
     allotments under this section, for the fourth or subsequent 
     determination of noncompliance.
       ``(i) Reservation of Funds.--
       ``(1) Technical assistance.--From the funds appropriated 
     under section 484 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not more than 1 percent of the funds to pay for the 
     costs of providing technical assistance. The Secretary shall 
     use the reserved funds to enter into contracts with eligible 
     entities to provide technical assistance to local 
     collaboratives that receive grants under section 482 relating 
     to the functions of the local collaboratives under this part.
       ``(2) Research and evaluation.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the funds appropriated under 
     section 484 for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 
     2 percent of the funds to pay for the costs of conducting, 
     through grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research 
     and evaluation projects regarding the young child assistance 
     activities funded with amounts made available in accordance 
     with the requirements of this part. In conducting such 
     projects, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that 
     are undertaken by independent and impartial organizations.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this part, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to Congress on the research and evaluation projects conducted 
     in accordance with this paragraph.

     ``SEC. 482. GRANTS TO LOCAL COLLABORATIVES.

       ``(a) In General.--A State board that receives an allotment 
     under section 481 shall use the funds made available through 
     the allotment, and the State contribution made under section 
     481(e)(2), to pay for the Federal and State shares of the 
     cost of making grants, on a competitive basis, to local 
     collaboratives to carry out young child assistance 
     activities.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--A local collaborative that receives a 
     grant made under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall use funds made available through the grant to 
     provide, in a community, activities that consist of education 
     and supportive services, such as--
       ``(A) home visits for parents of young children;
       ``(B) services provided through community-based family 
     resource centers for such parents; and
       ``(C) collaborative pre-school efforts that link parenting 
     education for such parents to early childhood learning 
     services for young children; and
       ``(2) may use funds made available through the grant--
       ``(A) to provide, in the community, activities that consist 
     of--
       ``(i) activities designed to strengthen the quality of 
     child care for young children and expand the supply of high 
     quality child care services for young children;
       ``(ii) health care services for young children, including 
     increasing the level of immunization for young children in 
     the community, providing preventive health care screening and 
     education, and expanding health care services in schools, 
     child care facilities, clinics in public housing projects (as 
     defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))), and mobile dental and vision 
     clinics;
       ``(iii) services for children with disabilities who are 
     young children; and
       ``(iv) activities designed to assist schools in providing 
     educational and other support services to young children, and 
     parents of young children, in the community, to be carried 
     out during extended hours when appropriate; and
       ``(B) to pay for the salary and expenses of the 
     administrator described in subsection (e)(4), in accordance 
     with such regulations as the Secretary shall prescribe.
       ``(c) Multi-Year Funding.--In making grants under this 
     section, a State board may make grants for grant periods of 
     more than 1 year to local collaboratives with demonstrated 
     success in carrying out young child assistance activities.
       ``(d) Local Collaboratives.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section for a community, a local 
     collaborative shall demonstrate that the collaborative--
       ``(1) is able to provide, through a coordinated effort, 
     young child assistance activities to young children, and 
     parents of young children, in the community; and
       ``(2) includes--
       ``(A) all public agencies primarily providing services to 
     young children in the community;
       ``(B) businesses in the community;
       ``(C) representatives of the local government for the 
     county or other political subdivision in which the community 
     is located;
       ``(D) parents of young children in the community;
       ``(E) officers of community organizations serving low-
     income individuals, as defined by the Secretary, in the 
     community;
       ``(F) community-based organizations providing services to 
     young children and the parents of young children, such as 
     organizations providing child care, carrying out Head Start 
     programs, or providing pre-kindergarten education, mental 
     health, or family support services; and
       ``(G) nonprofit organizations that serve the community and 
     that are described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code.
       ``(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local collaborative shall submit an 
     application to the State board at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the State board may 
     require. At a minimum, the application shall contain--
       ``(1) sufficient information about the entity described in 
     subsection (d)(2) to enable the State board to determine 
     whether the entity complies with the requirements of such 
     subsection; and
       ``(2) a comprehensive plan for carrying out young child 
     assistance activities in the community, including information 
     indicating--
       ``(A) the young child assistance activities available in 
     the community, as of the date of submission of the plan, 
     including information on efforts to coordinate the 
     activities;
       ``(B) the unmet needs of young children, and parents of 
     young children, in the community for young child assistance 
     activities;
       ``(C) the manner in which funds made available through the 
     grant will be used--
       ``(i) to meet the needs, including expanding and 
     strengthening the activities described in subparagraph (A) 
     and establishing additional young child assistance 
     activities; and
       ``(ii) to improve results for young children in the 
     community;
       ``(D) how the local cooperative will use at least 60 
     percent of the funds made available through the grant to 
     provide young child assistance activities to young children 
     and parents described in subsection (f);
       ``(E) the comprehensive methods that the collaborative will 
     use to ensure that--
       ``(i) each entity carrying out young child assistance 
     activities through the collaborative will coordinate the 
     activities with such activities carried out by other entities 
     through the collaborative; and
       ``(ii) the local collaborative will coordinate the 
     activities of the local collaborative with--

       ``(I) other services provided to young children, and the 
     parents of young children, in the community; and
       ``(II) the activities of other local collaboratives serving 
     young children and families in the community, if any; and

       ``(F) the manner in which the collaborative will, at such 
     intervals as the State board may require, submit information 
     to the State board to enable the State board to carry out 
     monitoring under section 481(g), including the manner in 
     which the collaborative will--
       ``(i) evaluate the results achieved by the collaborative 
     for young children and parents of young children through 
     activities carried out through the grant;
       ``(ii) evaluate how services can be more effectively 
     delivered to young children and the parents of young 
     children; and
       ``(iii) prepare and submit to the State board annual 
     reports describing the results;
       ``(3) an assurance that the local collaborative will comply 
     with the requirements of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of 
     paragraph (2), and subsection (g); and
       ``(4) an assurance that the local collaborative will hire 
     an administrator to oversee the provision of the activities 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (b).
       ``(f) Distribution.--In making grants under this section, 
     the State board shall ensure that at least 60 percent of the 
     funds made available through each grant are used to provide 
     the young child assistance activities to young children (and 
     parents of young children) who reside in school districts in 
     which half or more of the students receive free or reduced 
     price lunches under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1751 et seq.).
       ``(g) Local Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The local collaborative shall contribute 
     a percentage (referred to in this subsection as the `local 
     share') of the cost of carrying out the young child 
     assistance activities.
       ``(2) Percentage.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     specify the percentage referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Form.--The local share of the cost shall be in cash.
       ``(4) Source.--The local collaborative shall provide for 
     the local share of the cost through donations from private 
     entities.
       ``(5) Waiver.--The State board shall waive the requirement 
     of paragraph (1) for poor

[[Page S650]]

     rural and urban areas, as defined by the Secretary.
       ``(h) Monitoring.--The State board shall monitor the 
     activities of local collaboratives that receive grants under 
     this part to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 
     part.

     ``SEC. 483. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       ``Funds appropriated under this part shall be used to 
     supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local 
     public funds expended to provide services for young children.

     ``SEC. 484. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part--
       ``(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(3) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2004; and
       ``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 
     and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
                        TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS

     SEC. 201. PARENT GRANTS.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to provide 
     parents with grants for career development and retraining 
     after a period of child rearing.
       (b) Program Authority and Method of Distribution.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under subsection 
     (f), the Secretary of Education (in this section referred to 
     as the ``Secretary'') may pay to each eligible institution 
     such sums as may be necessary to pay to each qualifying 
     parent for each academic year that the qualifying parent is 
     in attendance at an institution of higher education, a parent 
     grant, in an amount determined in accordance with subsection 
     (c), for each child for which the qualifying parent remains 
     outside the labor force.
       (2) Qualifying parent.--In this section, the term 
     ``qualifying parent'' means an individual who--
       (A) is the custodial parent of a child under the age of 6;
       (B) has no earned income as defined in section 32(c)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (C) is not receiving assistance under a State program 
     funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or supplemental security income 
     benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).
       (3) Distribution.--Funds under this section shall be 
     disbursed and made available to qualifying parents in the 
     same manner as Federal Pell Grants are disbursed and made 
     available to institutions of higher education and students 
     under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), except that in the 
     case of a parent grant awarded to a qualifying parent for 
     expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school diploma or 
     its recognized equivalent, the Secretary shall make the grant 
     funds available to the qualifying parent.
       (c) Amount.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of a 
     parent grant for which a qualifying parent is eligible under 
     this section for an academic year is equal to--
       (A) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual 
     income of $50,000 or less, the maximum amount of the Federal 
     Pell Grant awarded under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 for such year; and
       (B) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual 
     income of more than $50,000 but not more than $75,000, \1/2\ 
     of the maximum amount of the Federal Pell Grant so awarded 
     for such year.
       (2) Special rules.--
       (A) Calendar year awards.--A qualifying parent is eligible 
     for a parent grant under this section for each complete 
     calendar year the parent is outside the labor force, except 
     that the Secretary shall prorate the amount for which the 
     qualifying parent is eligible for the first year in which a 
     child is born if the qualifying parent is outside the labor 
     force for at least 4 months of the calendar year in which the 
     child is born.
       (B) Simultaneous awards.--A qualifying parent is eligible 
     for a parent grant simultaneously for each child for which 
     the parent remains outside the labor force.
       (C) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award a qualifying 
     parent a parent grant for any period the parent remains 
     outside the labor force to pursue education with a parent 
     grant awarded under this section.
       (d) Uses.--
       (1) In general.--A parent grant awarded under this 
     section--
       (A) shall be used not later than 15 years after the year 
     for which the grant is awarded; and
       (B) shall be used to pay--
       (i) the cost of attendance (as determined in accordance 
     with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087ll)) at an institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 481 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088)); or
       (ii) for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school 
     diploma or its recognized equivalent.
       (2) Aggregation of awards.--A qualifying parent may 
     aggregate parent grants awarded for more than 1 year or more 
     than 1 child for use in a single academic year.
       (3) Rollover.--A qualifying parent may use any grant funds 
     awarded for an academic year that are not used in the 
     academic year, for use in a subsequent academic year, subject 
     to paragraph (1)(A).
       (e) Research and Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated to carry out 
     this section for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve 2 percent of such amounts to pay for the costs of 
     conducting, through grant, contract, or interagency 
     agreement, research and evaluation projects regarding the 
     parent grants awarded in accordance with the requirements of 
     this section. In conducting such projects, the Secretary 
     shall give priority to projects that are undertaken by 
     independent and impartial organizations.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects 
     conducted in accordance with this subsection.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year.
                                  ____


 The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

 (Based on the 1997 Francis Boyer Lecture by Professor James Q. Wilson)


                         Section 1. Short Title

       This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing Family Life Act of 
     1999.''


                          Section 2. Findings

       The Congressional findings support the importance of 
     families in society and social policy.


                    Title I--Assistance for Children

                  Section 101. ``Second Chance Homes''

       The bill would provide $45 million annually to establish or 
     expand ``second chance'' maternity homes for unwed teenage 
     mothers. These are group homes where mothers live with their 
     children under adult supervision and strict rules while 
     learning good parenting skills.


                    Section 102. Adoption Promotion

       The bill would expand the number of ``special needs'' 
     children in foster care for which federal adoption subsidies 
     are available. It ``de-links'' eligibility for these 
     subsidies from the income level of the foster child's 
     biological parents. (Under current law, a foster child 
     determined to have special needs only qualifies for a federal 
     adoption subsidy if the child's birth parents are welfare-
     eligible.) The subsidies would help adoptive parents meet the 
     particular emotional and physical challenges of troubled 
     children and so they can provide the children permanent 
     homes.
       In addition, last year's ``Adoption and Safe Families Act'' 
     authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     grant child welfare demonstration waivers to ten states each 
     year. The bill would reserve three of each ten waivers to 
     states wishing to test ``per capita'' approaches to finding 
     permanent homes for children in foster care, as Kansas has 
     done. Under a per capita approach, states or localities 
     contract on a fixed sum basis with agencies to reunite foster 
     children with their biological families or place them with 
     adoptive parents. Because the agency, typically a non-profit 
     social service agency, receives a fixed sum per child (rather 
     than unlimited reimbursement of costs) the agency may settle 
     the child in a permanent home more quickly.


                Section 103. Early Childhood Development

       The bill provides $3.75 billion over five years for 
     collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent 
     research has demonstrated the importance of the earliest 
     years in a child's life in the child's intellectual and 
     emotional development. States could use the funds for home 
     visiting programs, parenting education, high-quality child 
     care, and preventive health services. States would have great 
     flexibility in deciding which services to provide.


                     Section II--``Parent Grants''

       The bill would create a new education assistance program to 
     provide grants to parents who choose to remain with young 
     children. The grants would allow parents to obtain the 
     training, or re-training, needed to prosper and advance 
     careers after a period of time outside the labor force. A 
     custodial parent with children under the age of six and no 
     earned income, welfare, or SSI receipt would be eligible to 
     receive a benefit equivalent to the largest Pell Grant 
     available for that year (about $2,700 in FY 1998). The 
     benefit--to be called a ``Parent Grant''--could only be used 
     for expenses associated with post-secondary education or 
     completion of high school. Parents could accumulate grants 
     (one for each year outside of the labor market) but would be 
     required to use the grant within 15 years of the year for 
     which the grant was earned. Eligibility would be subjected to 
     income limits ($75,000/year maximum, subject to revision on 
     the basis of cost estimates). The program would be 
     administered by the Education Department, in parallel with 
     Pell Grants and other financial aid programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 209. A bill to prohibit States from imposing a family cap under 
the program of temporary assistance to needy families; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                 legislation to prohibit the family cap

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
prohibit states from imposing the so called ``family cap'' as part of 
their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. The 
``family

[[Page S651]]

cap'' is a policy under which a child born to a poor family on 
assistance is simply ignored when calculating the family's benefit--as 
if the child, this new infant, did not exist and had no needs. More 
than 20 states have imposed some version of this cap as part of their 
TANF programs.
  As I have said in previous debate on this subject, these children 
have not asked to be conceived, and they have not asked to come into 
the world. We have an elemental responsibility to them. And so states 
ought not deny benefits to these children because of the actions of 
their parents.
  We recently received the results of an evaluation of welfare reform 
in New Jersey, the first state to impose such a ``family cap.'' As it 
is only one study, one should be cautious about generalizing from the 
results. Still, it was striking to note according to the study, that 
over the four-year observation period ``[m]embers of the experimental 
group [i.e. those under a family cap] also experienced an abortion rate 
that was 14 percent higher than the control group [i.e. those not under 
a cap].'' Is that really the outcome that authors of the 1996 welfare 
law intended? Further, the evaluation notes of the New Jersey welfare 
reform effort, of which the cap as a component, that ``[w]e found no 
evidence that [the program] had any systemic positive impact on 
employment, employment stability, or earnings among AFDC recipients.'' 
That is, it did little to move welfare recipients to work, the 
ostensible objective of the 1996 welfare law.
  And so, with this bit of evidence to reinforce my original position, 
I propose today to end the family cap, and I ask unanimous consent that 
a summary of the legislation and its full text be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 209

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF A FAMILY CAP UNDER 
                   THE TANF PROGRAM.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(12) Ban on family cap.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 may not, under the State program funded 
     under this part, deny assistance to a family in respect of an 
     individual because the individual was born after the family 
     became eligible for or began receiving assistance under the 
     program.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) No tanf funds for program with family cap.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a State 
     that violates section 408(a)(12) during a fiscal year shall 
     remit to the Secretary all funds paid to the State under this 
     part for the fiscal year, and no payment shall be made under 
     this part to a State that has in effect a program that would 
     be funded under this part but for a law, regulation, or 
     policy that is inconsistent with such section.''.
                                  ____


  Family Cap Prohibition Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions

     I. Prohibition on Imposition of a Family Cap
       The bill prohibits a state from imposing a ``family cap'' 
     as part of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
     program. Under the 1996 welfare law states are permitted to 
     deny additional assistance to families on TANF when another 
     child is born to that family and 23 states have done so in 
     some way. This policy, known as the ``family cap,'' would be 
     prohibited.
     II. Penalty
       A state found in violation of this policy would lose TANF 
     funding.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 210. A bill to establish a medical education trust fund, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                medical education trust fund act of 1999

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would 
establish a Medical Education Trust Fund to support America's 144 
accredited medical schools and 1,250 graduate medical education 
teaching institutions. These institutions are national treasures; they 
are the very best in the world. Yet today they find themselves in a 
precarious financial situation as market forces reshape the health care 
delivery system in the United States. Explicit and dedicated funding 
for these institutions, which this legislation will provide, will 
ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the 
quality of its health care system.
  This legislation requires that the public sector, through the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an 
assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute broad-based and 
fair financial support.
  My particular interest in this subject began in 1994, when the 
Finance Committee took up the President's Health Security Act. I was 
Chairman of the Committee at the time. In January of that year, I asked 
Dr. Paul Marks, M.D., President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer 
Center in New York City, if he would arrange a ``seminar'' for me on 
health care issues. He agreed, and gathered a number of medical school 
deans together one morning in New York.
  Early on in the meeting, one of the seminarians remarked that the 
University of Minnesota might have to close its medical school. In an 
instant I realized I had heard something new. Minnesota is a place 
where they open medical schools, not close them. How, then, could this 
be? The answer was that Minnesota, being Minnesota, was a leading state 
in the growth of competitive health care markets, in which managed care 
organizations try to deliver services at lower costs. In this 
environment, HMOs and the like do not send patients to teaching 
hospitals, absent which you cannot have a medical school.
  We are in the midst of a great era of discovery in medical science. 
It is certainly not a time to close medical schools. This great era of 
medical discovery is occurring right here in the United States, not in 
Europe like past ages of scientific discovery. And it is centered in 
New York City. This heroic age of medical science started in the late 
1930s. Before then, the average patient was probably as well off, 
perhaps better, out of a hospital as in one. Progress from that point 
sixty years ago has been remarkable. The last few decades have brought 
us images of the inside of the human body based on the magnetic 
resonance of bodily tissues; laser surgery; micro surgery for 
reattaching limbs; and organ transplantation, among other wonders. 
Physicians are now working on a gene therapy that might eventually 
replace bypass surgery. I can hardly imagine what might be next.
  After months of hearings and debate on the President's Health 
Security Act, I became convinced that special provisions would have to 
be made for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and medical research 
if we were not to see this great moment in medical science suddenly 
constrained. To that end, when the Committee on Finance voted 12 to 8 
on July 2, 1994 to report the Health Security Act, it included a 
Graduate Medical Education and Academic Health Centers Trust Fund. The 
Trust Fund provided an 80 percent increase in federal funding for 
academic medicine; as importantly, it represented stable, long-term 
funding. While nothing came of the effort to enact universal health 
care coverage, the medical education trust fund enjoyed widespread 
support. An amendment by Senator Malcolm Wallop to kill the trust fund 
by striking the source of its revenue--a 1.75 percent assessment on 
health insurance premiums--failed on a 7-13 vote in the Finance 
Committee.
  I continued to press the issue in the first session of the 104th 
Congress. On September 29, 1995, during Finance Committee consideration 
of budget reconciliation legislation, I offered an amendment to 
establish a similar trust fund. My amendment failed on a tie vote, 10 
to 10. Notably, however, the House version of the reconciliation bill 
did include a graduate medical education trust fund. That provision 
ultimately passed both houses as part of the conference agreement, 
which was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. The budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1997 as passed by Congress also appeared to 
assume that a similar trust fund was to be included in the Medicare 
reconciliation bill--a bill which never materialized.
  The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative 
Bill Archer, was largely responsible for the inclusion of trust fund 
provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 and the budget resolution 
for fiscal year 1997. He and I share a strong commitment to ensuring 
the continued success of our system of medical education. Indeed, 
Chairman Archer and I were both honored in 1996 to receive the

[[Page S652]]

American Association of Medical Colleges' Public Service Excellence 
Award.

  That is the history of this effort, briefly stated.
  Medical education is one of America's most precious public resources. 
Within our increasingly competitive health care system, it is rapidly 
becoming a public good--that is, a good from which everyone benefits, 
but for which no one is willing to pay. Therefore, it should be 
explicitly financed with contributions from all sectors of the health 
care system, not just the Medicare program as is the case today. The 
fiscal pressures of a competitive health market are increasingly 
closing off traditional implicit revenue sources (such as additional 
payments from private payers) that have supported medical schools, 
graduate medical education, and research until now. In its June, 1995 
Report to Congress, the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission 
(ProPAC), created to advise Congress on Medicare Hospital Insurance 
(Part A) payment, summarized the situation of teaching hospitals as 
follows:

       As competition in the health care system intensifies, the 
     additional costs borne by teaching hospitals will place them 
     at a disadvantage relative to other facilities. The role, 
     scale, function, and number of these institutions 
     increasingly will be challenged. . . . Accelerating price 
     competition in the private sector . . . is reducing the 
     ability of teaching hospitals to obtain the higher patient 
     care rates from other payers that traditionally have 
     contributed to financing the costs associated with graduate 
     medical education.

  ProPAC's June, 1996 Report to Congress confirmed that ``major 
teaching hospitals have the dual problems of higher overall losses from 
uncompensated care and less above-cost revenue from private insurers.''
  The State of New York provides a good example of what is happening as 
health care markets become more competitive. Effective at the end of 
the 1996 calendar year, New York repealed a state law that set hospital 
rates. Hospitals must now negotiate their fees with each and every 
health plan in the state. Where teaching hospitals were once guaranteed 
a payment that recognized, to some degree, its higher costs of 
providing services, the private sector is free to squeeze down payments 
to hospitals with no such recognition. While the State of New York 
operates funding pools that provide partial support for graduate 
medical education and uncompensated care, it is largely up to the 
teaching hospitals to try to win higher rates than other hospitals when 
negotiating contracts with health plans. Some may succeed in doing so, 
but most will probably not. New York's state law was unique, but the 
same process of negotiation between hospitals and private health plant 
takes place across the country. Who, in this context, will pay for the 
higher costs of operating teaching hospitals?
  It is worth mentioning that the NY state funding pools for GME were 
established as a temporary, yet important source of support for GME 
until Federal law--like the bill I am introducing today--can be passed 
by Congress. While New York has historically recognized the value of 
supporting GME through the state funding pools, this source of funding 
is currently in jeopardy of not being reauthorized by the state 
legislature.
  It is obvious that teaching hospitals can no longer rely on higher 
payments from private payers to do so. Nor should they. The 
establishment of this trust fund, which explicitly reimburses teaching 
hospitals for the costs of graduate medical education, will ensure that 
teaching hospitals can pursue their vitally important patient care, 
training, and research missions in the face of an increasingly 
competitive health system.
  Medical schools also face an uncertain future. There are many policy 
issues that need to be examined regarding the role of medical schools 
in our health system, but two threats faced by medical schools require 
immediate attention. This legislation addresses both. First, many 
medical schools are immediately threatened by the dire financial 
condition of their affiliated teaching hospitals. Medical schools rely 
on teaching hospitals to provide a place for their faculty to practice 
and perform research, a place to send third and fourth-year medical 
school students for training, and for some direct revenues. By 
improving the financial condition of teaching hospitals, this 
legislation significantly improves the outlook for medical schools.

  The second immediate threat faced by medical schools stems from their 
reliance on a portion of the clinical practice revenue generated by 
their faculties to support their operations. As competition within the 
health system intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues 
are shrinking. This legislation provides payments to medical schools 
from the Trust Fund that are designed to partially offset this loss of 
revenue.
  As we begin the 106th Congress, the Bipartisan Commission on the 
Future of Medicare as established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is 
debating its recommendations to assure the long-term solvency and 
viability of the Medicare program. One of the most important policy 
discussions the Commission has undertaken centers on Medicare's role in 
the funding of Graduate Medical Education. In order to remain the world 
leader in graduate medical education, we must continue to maintain 
Medicare's commitment to GME and to the nation's teaching hospitals. I 
urge the Commission to maintain GME support through the Medicare 
program in order to assure a stable, federal source of funding. Several 
Commission members have raised the alarming idea of subjecting GME to 
an annual appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
dangerous notion. It would be a tragedy for our medical schools and 
teaching institutions. Pitting GME against other important federal 
priorities would likely result in a substantial reduction in the 
federal commitment to GME.
  None of the foregoing is meant to suggest that the new competitive 
forces reshaping health care have brought only negative results. To the 
contrary, the onset of competition has had many beneficial effects, the 
restraint of growth on average in health insurance premiums being the 
most obvious. But as Monsignor Charles J. Fahey of Fordham warned in 
testimony before the Finance Committee in 1994, we must be wary of the 
``commodification of health care,'' by which he meant that health care 
is not just another commodity. We can rely on competition to hold down 
costs in much of the health system, but we must not allow it to bring a 
premature end to this great age of medical discovery, an age made 
possible by this country's exceptionally well-trained health 
professionals and superior medical schools and teaching hospitals. This 
legislation complements a competitive health market by providing tax-
supported funding for the public services provided by teaching 
hospitals and medical schools.
  Accordingly, the Medical Education Trust Fund established in the 
legislation I have just reintroduced would receive funding from three 
sources broadly representing the entire health care system: a 1.5 
percent tax on health insurance premiums (the private sector's 
contribution), Medicare and Medicaid (the latter two sources comprising 
the public sector's contribution). The relative contribution from each 
of these sources will be in rough proportion to the medical education 
costs attributable to their respective covered populations.
  Over the five years following enactment, the Medical Education Trust 
Fund provides average annual payments of about $17 billion. The tax on 
health insurance premiums (including self-insured health plans) raises 
approximately $5 billion per year for the Trust Fund. Federal health 
programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the Trust Fund: $8 
billion of current Medicare graduate medical education payments and $4 
billion in federal Medicaid spending.
  This legislation is only a first step. It establishes the principle 
that, as a public good, medical education should be supported by 
dedicated, long-term Federal funding. To ensure that the United States 
continues to lead the world in the quality of its medical education and 
its health system as a whole, the legislation would also create a 
Medical Education Advisory Commission to conduct a thorough study and 
make recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration 
projects, regarding the following:
  Alternative and additional sources of medical education financing;
  Alternative methodologies for financing medical education;

[[Page S653]]

  Policies designed to maintain superior research and educational 
capacities in an increasingly competitive health system;
  The appropriate role of medical schools in graduate medical 
education; and
  Policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate medical 
education payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals, 
including children's hospitals.
   Mr. President, the services provided by this Nation's teaching 
hospitals and medical schools--groundbreaking research, highly skilled 
medical care, and the training of tomorrow's physicians--are vitally 
important and must be protected in this time of intense economic 
competition in the health system.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and the text of 
the bill, respectively, be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 210

       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 ``Medical 
     Education Trust Fund Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Medical Education Trust Fund.
Sec. 3. Amendments to medicare program.
Sec. 4. Amendments to medicaid program.
Sec. 5. Assessments on insured and self-insured health plans.
Sec. 6. Medical Education Advisory Commission.
Sec. 7. Demonstration projects.

     SEC. 2. MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND.

       The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding after title XXI the following new title:

               ``TITLE XXII--MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FUND


                      ``table of contents of title

``Sec. 2201. Establishment of Trust Fund.
``Sec. 2202. Payments to medical schools.
``Sec. 2203. Payments to teaching hospitals.

     ``SEC. 2201. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the Medical Education 
     Trust Fund (in this title referred to as the `Trust Fund'), 
     consisting of the following accounts:
       ``(1) The Medical School Account.
       ``(2) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
       ``(3) The Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.
       ``(4) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account.
       ``(5) The Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account.

     Each such account shall consist of such amounts as are 
     allocated and transferred to such account under this section, 
     sections 1886(l) and 1936, and section 4503 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986. Amounts in the accounts of the Trust 
     Fund shall remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Expenditures From Trust Fund.--Amounts in the 
     accounts of the Trust Fund are available to the Secretary for 
     making payments under sections 2202 and 2203.
       ``(c) Investment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     invest amounts in the accounts of the Trust Fund which the 
     Secretary determines are not required to meet current 
     withdrawals from the Trust Fund. Such investments may be made 
     only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States. 
     For such purpose, such obligations may be acquired on 
     original issue at the issue price, or by purchase of 
     outstanding obligations at the market price.
       ``(2) Sale of obligations.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may sell at market price any obligation acquired under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Availability of income.--Any interest derived from 
     obligations held in each such account, and proceeds from any 
     sale or redemption of such obligations, are hereby 
     appropriated to such account.
       ``(d) Monetary Gifts to Trust Fund.--There are appropriated 
     to the Trust Fund such amounts as may be unconditionally 
     donated to the Federal Government as gifts to the Trust Fund. 
     Such amounts shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     accounts described in subsection (a) in the same proportion 
     as the amounts in each of the accounts bears to the total 
     amount in all the accounts of the Trust Fund.

     ``SEC. 2202. PAYMENTS TO MEDICAL SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Federal Payments to Medical Schools for Certain 
     Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a medical school that in 
     accordance with paragraph (2) submits to the Secretary an 
     application for fiscal year 2000 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall make payments for such year to the 
     medical school for the purpose specified in paragraph (3). 
     The Secretary shall make such payments from the Medical 
     School Account in an amount determined in accordance with 
     subsection (b), and may administer the payments as a 
     contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
       ``(2) Application for payments.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), an application for payments under such paragraph for a 
     fiscal year is in accordance with this paragraph if--
       ``(A) the medical school involved submits the application 
     not later than the date specified by the Secretary; and
       ``(B) the application is in such form, is made in such 
     manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and 
     information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(3) Purpose of payments.--The purpose of payments under 
     paragraph (1) is to assist medical schools in maintaining and 
     developing quality educational programs in an increasingly 
     competitive health care system.
       ``(b) Availability of Trust Fund for Payments; Annual 
     Amount of Payments.--
       ``(1) Availability of trust fund for payments.--The 
     following amounts shall be available for a fiscal year for 
     making payments under subsection (a) from the amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medical School Account under 
     sections 1886(l), 1936, 2201(c)(3), and 2201(d), and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
       ``(A) In the case of fiscal year 2000, $200,000,000.
       ``(B) In the case of fiscal year 2001, $300,000,000.
       ``(C) In the case of fiscal year 2002, $400,000,000.
       ``(D) In the case of fiscal year 2003, $500,000,000.
       ``(E) In the case of fiscal year 2004, $600,000,000.
       ``(F) In the case of each subsequent fiscal year, the 
     amount determined under this paragraph for the previous 
     fiscal year updated through the midpoint of such previous 
     fiscal year by the estimated percentage change in the general 
     health care inflation factor (as defined in subsection (d)) 
     during the 12-month period ending at that midpoint, with 
     appropriate adjustments to reflect previous underestimations 
     or overestimations under this subparagraph in the projected 
     health care inflation factor.
       ``(2) Amount of payments for medical schools.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the annual amount available 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the amount of payments 
     required under subsection (a) to be made to a medical school 
     that submits to the Secretary an application for such year in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(2) is an amount equal to an 
     amount determined by the Secretary in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Development of formula.--The Secretary shall develop 
     a formula for allocation of funds to medical schools under 
     this section consistent with the purpose described in 
     subsection (a)(3).
       ``(c) Medical School Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `medical school' means a school of medicine 
     (as defined in section 799 of the Public Health Service Act) 
     or a school of osteopathic medicine (as defined in such 
     section).
       ``(d) General Health Care Inflation Factor.--The term 
     `general health care inflation factor' means the Consumer 
     Price Index for Medical Services as determined by the Bureau 
     of Labor Statistics.

     ``SEC. 2203. PAYMENTS TO TEACHING HOSPITALS.

       ``(a) Formula Payments to Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any fiscal year beginning 
     after September 30, 1999, the Secretary shall make payments 
     to each eligible entity that, in accordance with paragraph 
     (2), submits to the Secretary an application for such fiscal 
     year. Such payments shall be made from the Trust Fund, and 
     the total of the payments to the eligible entity for the 
     fiscal year shall equal the sum of the amounts determined 
     under subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) with respect to such 
     entity.
       ``(2) Application.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
     application shall contain such information as may be 
     necessary for the Secretary to make payments under such 
     paragraph to an eligible entity during a fiscal year. An 
     application shall be treated as submitted in accordance with 
     this paragraph if it is submitted not later than the date 
     specified by the Secretary, and is made in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary may require.
       ``(3) Periodic payments.--Payments under paragraph (1) to 
     an eligible entity for a fiscal year shall be made 
     periodically, at such intervals and in such amounts as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate (subject to applicable 
     Federal law regarding Federal payments).
       ``(4) Administrator of programs.--The Secretary shall carry 
     out responsibility under this title by acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration.
       ``(5) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this title, the 
     term `eligible entity', with respect to any fiscal year, 
     means--
       ``(A) for payment under subsections (b) and (c), an entity 
     which would be eligible to receive payments for such fiscal 
     year under--
       ``(i) section 1886(d)(5)(B), if such payments had not been 
     terminated for discharges occurring after September 30, 1999;
       ``(ii) section 1886(h), if such payments had not been 
     terminated for cost reporting periods beginning after 
     September 30, 1999; or
       ``(iii) both sections; or

[[Page S654]]

       ``(B) for payment under subsections (d) and (e)--
       ``(i) an entity which meets the requirement of subparagraph 
     (A); or
       ``(ii) an entity which the Secretary determines should be 
     considered an eligible entity.
       ``(b) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital 
     Indirect Account under section 1886(l)(1), and subsections 
     (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal 
     to the percentage of the total payments which would have been 
     made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section 
     1886(d)(5)(B) if such payments had not been terminated for 
     discharges occurring after September 30, 1999.
       ``(c) Determination of Amount From Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Medicare Teaching Hospital 
     Direct Account under section 1886(l)(2), and subsections 
     (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year is equal 
     to the percentage of the total payments which would have been 
     made to the eligible entity in such fiscal year under section 
     1886(h) if such payments had not been terminated for cost 
     reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1999.
       ``(d) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Indirect Account for such fiscal year under section 
     1936, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201, and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an 
     eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total 
     payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have 
     been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(d)(5)(B) 
     if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1999; and
       ``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu 
     of medicare patients.
       ``(e) Determination of Amount From Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount determined for an eligible 
     entity for a fiscal year under this subsection is the amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of the total amount 
     allocated and transferred to the Non-Medicare Teaching 
     Hospital Direct Account for such fiscal year under section 
     1936, subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201, and section 
     4503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage for any fiscal year for an 
     eligible entity is equal to the percentage of the total 
     payments which, as determined by the Secretary, would have 
     been made in such fiscal year under section 1886(h) if--
       ``(A) such payments had not been terminated for cost 
     reporting periods beginning after September 30, 1999; and
       ``(B) non-medicare patients were taken into account in lieu 
     of medicare patients.''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(5)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``The Secretary shall provide'' and 
     inserting the following: ``For discharges occurring before 
     October 1, 1999, the Secretary shall provide'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(11)(C), by inserting after 
     ``paragraph (5)(B)'' ``(notwithstanding that payments under 
     paragraph (5)(B) are terminated for discharges occurring 
     after September 30, 1999)'';
       (3) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``the Secretary shall provide'' and inserting ``the Secretary 
     shall, subject to paragraph (7), provide''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The authority to make payments under 
     this subsection (other than payments made under paragraphs 
     (3)(D) and (6)) shall not apply with respect to--
       ``(i) cost reporting periods beginning after September 30, 
     1999; and
       ``(ii) any portion of a cost reporting period beginning on 
     or before such date which occurs after such date.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--This paragraph may not be 
     construed as authorizing any payment under section 1861(v) 
     with respect to graduate medical education.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Transfers to Medical Education Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Indirect costs of medical education.--
       ``(A) Transfer.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 2000 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated 
     by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the 
     balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal 
     year) as the amount transferred under clause (i) bears to the 
     total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund under title XXII 
     (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and 
     (d) of section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account of such Trust 
     Fund.

       ``(B) Determination of amounts.--The Secretary shall make 
     an estimate for each fiscal year involved of the nationwide 
     total of the amounts that would have been paid under 
     subsection (d)(5)(B) to hospitals during the fiscal year if 
     such payments had not been terminated for discharges 
     occurring after September 30, 1999.
       ``(2) Direct costs of medical education.--
       ``(A) Transfer.--
       ``(i) In general.--From the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 2000 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund an amount equal to the amount estimated 
     by the Secretary under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under clause 
     (i)--

       ``(I) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the 
     balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal 
     year) as the amount transferred under clause (i) bears to the 
     total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund under title XXII 
     (excluding amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and 
     (d) of section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust 
     Fund.

       ``(B) Determination of amounts.--For each hospital, the 
     Secretary shall make an estimate for the fiscal year involved 
     of the amount that would have been paid under subsection (h) 
     to the hospital during the fiscal year if such payments had 
     not been terminated for cost reporting periods beginning 
     after September 30, 1999.
       ``(C) Allocation between funds.--In providing for a 
     transfer under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall provide for an allocation of the amounts 
     involved between part A and part B (and the trust funds 
     established under the respective parts) as reasonably 
     reflects the proportion of direct graduate medical education 
     costs of hospitals associated with the provision of services 
     under each respective part.''.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO MEDICAID PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:


                    ``transfer of funds to accounts

       ``Sec. 1936. (a) Transfer of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall transfer to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund established under title XXII an amount 
     equal to the amount determined under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount transferred under 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) for the fiscal year (reduced by the 
     balance in such account at the end of the preceding fiscal 
     year) as the amount transferred under paragraph (1) bears to 
     the total amounts transferred to such Trust Fund (excluding 
     amounts transferred under subsections (c)(3) and (d) of 
     section 2201) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the 
     Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust 
     Fund, in the same proportion as the amounts transferred to 
     each account under section 1886(l) relate to the total 
     amounts transferred under such section for such fiscal year.
       ``(b) Amount Determined.--
       ``(1) Outlays for acute medical services during preceding 
     fiscal year.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the Secretary 
     shall determine 5 percent of the total amount of Federal 
     outlays made under this title for acute medical services, as 
     defined in paragraph (2), for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(2) Acute medical services defined.--The term `acute 
     medical services' means items and services described in 
     section 1905(a) other than the following:
       ``(A) Nursing facility services (as defined in section 
     1905(f)).
       ``(B) Intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded 
     services (as defined in section 1905(d)).

[[Page S655]]

       ``(C) Personal care services (as described in section 
     1905(a)(24)).
       ``(D) Private duty nursing services (as referred to in 
     section 1905(a)(8)).
       ``(E) Home or community-based services furnished under a 
     waiver granted under subsection (c), (d), or (e) of section 
     1915.
       ``(F) Home and community care furnished to functionally 
     disabled elderly individuals under section 1929.
       ``(G) Community supported living arrangements services 
     under section 1930.
       ``(H) Case-management services (as described in section 
     1915(g)(2)).
       ``(I) Home health care services (as referred to in section 
     1905(a)(7)), clinic services, and rehabilitation services 
     that are furnished to an individual who has a condition or 
     disability that qualifies the individual to receive any of 
     the services described in a previous subparagraph.
       ``(J) Services furnished in an institution for mental 
     diseases (as defined in section 1905(i)).
       ``(c) Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents 
     the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the 
     payment to the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect 
     Account, the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account, 
     and the Medical School Account of amounts determined in 
     accordance with subsections (a) and (b).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective on and after October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 5. ASSESSMENTS ON INSURED AND SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

       (a) General Rule.--Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) is amended 
     by adding after chapter 36 the following new chapter:

                ``CHAPTER 37--HEALTH RELATED ASSESSMENTS

``Subchapter A. Insured and self-insured health plans.

         ``Subchapter A--Insured and Self-Insured Health Plans

``Sec. 4501. Health insurance and health-related administrative 
              services.
``Sec. 4502. Self-insured health plans.
``Sec. 4503. Transfer to accounts.
``Sec. 4504. Definitions and special rules.

     ``SEC. 4501. HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTH-RELATED 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed--
       ``(1) on each taxable health insurance policy, a tax equal 
     to 1.5 percent of the premiums received under such policy, 
     and
       ``(2) on each amount received for health-related 
     administrative services, a tax equal to 1.5 percent of the 
     amount so received.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--
       ``(1) Health insurance.--The tax imposed by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall be paid by the issuer of the policy.
       ``(2) Health-related administrative services.--The tax 
     imposed by subsection (a)(2) shall be paid by the person 
     providing the health-related administrative services.
       ``(c) Taxable Health Insurance Policy.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the term `taxable health insurance policy' means any 
     insurance policy providing accident or health insurance with 
     respect to individuals residing in the United States.
       ``(2) Exemption of certain policies.--The term `taxable 
     health insurance policy' does not include any insurance 
     policy if substantially all of the coverage provided under 
     such policy relates to--
       ``(A) liabilities incurred under workers' compensation 
     laws,
       ``(B) tort liabilities,
       ``(C) liabilities relating to ownership or use of property,
       ``(D) credit insurance, or
       ``(E) such other similar liabilities as the Secretary may 
     specify by regulations.
       ``(3) Special rule where policy provides other coverage.--
     In the case of any taxable health insurance policy under 
     which amounts are payable other than for accident or health 
     coverage, in determining the amount of the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a)(1) on any premium paid under such policy, 
     there shall be excluded the amount of the charge for the 
     nonaccident or nonhealth coverage if--
       ``(A) the charge for such nonaccident or nonhealth coverage 
     is either separately stated in the policy, or furnished to 
     the policyholder in a separate statement, and
       ``(B) such charge is reasonable in relation to the total 
     charges under the policy.

     In any other case, the entire amount of the premium paid 
     under such policy shall be subject to tax under subsection 
     (a)(1).
       ``(4) Treatment of prepaid health coverage arrangements.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any arrangement described 
     in subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) such arrangement shall be treated as a taxable health 
     insurance policy,
       ``(ii) the payments or premiums referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)(i) shall be treated as premiums received for a taxable 
     health insurance policy, and
       ``(iii) the person referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) shall 
     be treated as the issuer.
       ``(B) Description of arrangements.--An arrangement is 
     described in this subparagraph if under such arrangement--
       ``(i) fixed payments or premiums are received as 
     consideration for any person's agreement to provide or 
     arrange for the provision of accident or health coverage to 
     residents of the United States, regardless of how such 
     coverage is provided or arranged to be provided, and
       ``(ii) substantially all of the risks of the rates of 
     utilization of services is assumed by such person or the 
     provider of such services.
       ``(d) Health-Related Administrative Services.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `health-related administrative 
     services' means--
       ``(1) the processing of claims or performance of other 
     administrative services in connection with accident or health 
     coverage under a taxable health insurance policy if the 
     charge for such services is not included in the premiums 
     under such policy, and
       ``(2) processing claims, arranging for provision of 
     accident or health coverage, or performing other 
     administrative services in connection with an applicable 
     self-insured health plan (as defined in section 4502(c)) 
     established or maintained by a person other than the person 
     performing the services.
     For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of 
     subsection (c)(3) shall apply.

     ``SEC. 4502. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any applicable 
     self-insured health plan, there is hereby imposed a tax for 
     each month equal to 1.5 percent of the sum of--
       ``(1) the accident or health coverage expenditures for such 
     month under such plan, and
       ``(2) the administrative expenditures for such month under 
     such plan to the extent such expenditures are not subject to 
     tax under section 4501.

     In determining the amount of expenditures under paragraph 
     (2), rules similar to the rules of subsection (d)(3) apply.
       ``(b) Liability for Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The tax imposed by subsection (a) shall 
     be paid by the plan sponsor.
       ``(2) Plan sponsor.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `plan sponsor' means--
       ``(A) the employer in the case of a plan established or 
     maintained by a single employer,
       ``(B) the employee organization in the case of a plan 
     established or maintained by an employee organization, or
       ``(C) in the case of--
       ``(i) a plan established or maintained by 2 or more 
     employers or jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more 
     employee organizations,
       ``(ii) a voluntary employees' beneficiary association under 
     section 501(c)(9), or
       ``(iii) any other association plan,

     the association, committee, joint board of trustees, or other 
     similar group of representatives of the parties who establish 
     or maintain the plan.
       ``(c) Applicable Self-Insured Health Plan.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `applicable self-insured health plan' 
     means any plan for providing accident or health coverage if 
     any portion of such coverage is provided other than through 
     an insurance policy.
       ``(d) Accident or Health Coverage Expenditures.--For 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The accident or health coverage 
     expenditures of any applicable self-insured health plan for 
     any month are the aggregate expenditures paid in such month 
     for accident or health coverage provided under such plan to 
     the extent such expenditures are not subject to tax under 
     section 4501.
       ``(2) Treatment of reimbursements.--In determining accident 
     or health coverage expenditures during any month of any 
     applicable self-insured health plan, reimbursements (by 
     insurance or otherwise) received during such month shall be 
     taken into account as a reduction in accident or health 
     coverage expenditures.
       ``(3) Certain expenditures disregarded.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to any expenditure for the acquisition or 
     improvement of land or for the acquisition or improvement of 
     any property to be used in connection with the provision of 
     accident or health coverage which is subject to the allowance 
     under section 167, except that, for purposes of paragraph 
     (1), allowances under section 167 shall be considered as 
     expenditures.

     ``SEC. 4503. TRANSFER TO ACCOUNTS.

       ``For fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
     there are hereby appropriated and transferred to the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund under title XXII of the Social Security 
     Act amounts equivalent to taxes received in the Treasury 
     under sections 4501 and 4502, of which--
       ``(1) there shall be allocated and transferred to the 
     Medical School Account of such Trust Fund an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to the total amount available under 
     section 2202(b)(1) of such Act for the fiscal year (reduced 
     by the balance in such account at the end of the preceding 
     fiscal year) as the amount transferred to such Trust Fund 
     under this section bears to the total amounts transferred to 
     such Trust Fund (excluding amounts transferred under 
     subsections (c)(3) and (d) of section 2201 of such Act) for 
     such fiscal year; and
       ``(2) the remainder shall be allocated and transferred to 
     the Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Indirect Account and the 
     Non-Medicare Teaching Hospital Direct Account of such Trust 
     Fund, in the same proportion as the amounts transferred to 
     such account under section 1886(l) of such Act relate to the 
     total amounts transferred under such section for such fiscal 
     year.


[[Page S656]]


     Such amounts shall be transferred in the same manner as under 
     section 9601.

     ``SEC. 4504. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(1) Accident or health coverage.--The term `accident or 
     health coverage' means any coverage which, if provided by an 
     insurance policy, would cause such policy to be a taxable 
     health insurance policy (as defined in section 4501(c)).
       ``(2) Insurance policy.--The term `insurance policy' means 
     any policy or other instrument whereby a contract of 
     insurance is issued, renewed, or extended.
       ``(3) Premium.--The term `premium' means the gross amount 
     of premiums and other consideration (including advance 
     premiums, deposits, fees, and assessments) arising from 
     policies issued by a person acting as the primary insurer, 
     adjusted for any return or additional premiums paid as a 
     result of endorsements, cancellations, audits, or 
     retrospective rating. Amounts returned where the amount is 
     not fixed in the contract but depends on the experience of 
     the insurer or the discretion of management shall not be 
     included in return premiums.
       ``(4) United states.--The term `United States' includes any 
     possession of the United States.
       ``(b) Treatment of Governmental Entities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subchapter--
       ``(A) the term `person' includes any governmental entity, 
     and
       ``(B) notwithstanding any other law or rule of law, 
     governmental entities shall not be exempt from the taxes 
     imposed by this subchapter except as provided in paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Exempt governmental programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an exempt governmental 
     program--
       ``(i) no tax shall be imposed under section 4501 on any 
     premium received pursuant to such program or on any amount 
     received for health-related administrative services pursuant 
     to such program, and
       ``(ii) no tax shall be imposed under section 4502 on any 
     expenditures pursuant to such program.
       ``(B) Exempt governmental program.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `exempt governmental program' means--
       ``(A) the insurance programs established by parts A and B 
     of title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
       ``(B) the medical assistance program established by title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act,
       ``(C) any program established by Federal law for providing 
     medical care (other than through insurance policies) to 
     individuals (or the spouses and dependents thereof) by reason 
     of such individuals being--
       ``(i) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or
       ``(ii) veterans, and
       ``(D) any program established by Federal law for providing 
     medical care (other than through insurance policies) to 
     members of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4(d) of the 
     Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
       ``(c) No Cover Over to Possessions.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, no amount collected under this 
     subchapter shall be covered over to any possession of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for subtitle 
     D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to chapter 36 the following 
     new item:

``Chapter 37. Health related assessments.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to premiums received, and expenses 
     incurred, with respect to coverage for periods after 
     September 30, 1999.

     SEC. 6. MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an advisory 
     commission to be known as the Medical Education Advisory 
     Commission (in this section referred to as the ``Advisory 
     Commission'').
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Advisory Commission shall--
       (A) conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to--
       (i) the operation of the Medical Education Trust Fund 
     established under section 2201 of the Social Security Act (as 
     added by section 2);
       (ii) alternative and additional sources of graduate medical 
     education funding;
       (iii) alternative methodologies for compensating teaching 
     hospitals for graduate medical education;
       (iv) policies designed to maintain superior research and 
     educational capacities in an increasing competitive health 
     system;
       (v) the role of medical schools in graduate medical 
     education;
       (vi) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate 
     medical education payments to children's hospitals that 
     operate graduate medical education programs; and
       (vii) policies designed to expand eligibility for graduate 
     medical education payments to institutions other than 
     teaching hospitals;
       (B) develop recommendations, including the use of 
     demonstration projects, on the matters studied under 
     subparagraph (A) in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services and the entities described in paragraph 
     (2);
       (C) not later than January 2001, submit an interim report 
     to the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
       (D) not later than January 2003, submit a final report to 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (2) Entities described.--The entities described in this 
     paragraph are--
       (A) other advisory groups, including the Council on 
     Graduate Medical Education and the Medicare Payment Advisory 
     Commission;
       (B) interested parties, including the Association of 
     American Medical Colleges, the Association of Academic Health 
     Centers, and the American Medical Association;
       (C) health care insurers, including managed care entities; 
     and
       (D) other entities as determined by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (c) Number and Appointment.--The membership of the Advisory 
     Commission shall include 9 individuals who are appointed to 
     the Advisory Commission from among individuals who are not 
     officers or employees of the United States. Such individuals 
     shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, and shall include individuals from each of the 
     following categories:
       (1) Physicians who are faculty members of medical schools.
       (2) Officers or employees of teaching hospitals.
       (3) Officers or employees of health plans.
       (4) Deans of medical schools.
       (5) Such other individuals as the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.
       (d) Terms.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members of the Advisory Commission shall serve for the lesser 
     of the life of the Advisory Commission, or 4 years.
       (2) Service beyond term.--A member of the Advisory 
     Commission may continue to serve after the expiration of the 
     term of the member until a successor is appointed.
       (e) Vacancies.--If a member of the Advisory Commission does 
     not serve the full term applicable under subsection (d), the 
     individual appointed to fill the resulting vacancy shall be 
     appointed for the remainder of the term of the predecessor of 
     the individual.
       (f) Chair.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall designate an individual to serve as the Chair of the 
     Advisory Commission.
       (g) Meetings.--The Advisory Commission shall meet not less 
     than once during each 4-month period and shall otherwise meet 
     at the call of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or 
     the Chair.
       (h) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of 
     the Advisory Commission shall receive compensation for each 
     day (including travel time) engaged in carrying out the 
     duties of the Advisory Commission. Such compensation may not 
     be in an amount in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay 
     payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (i) Staff.--
       (1) Staff director.--The Advisory Commission shall, without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to competitive service, appoint a Staff Director who 
     shall be paid at a rate equivalent to a rate established for 
     the Senior Executive Service under 5382 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Additional staff.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall provide to the Advisory Commission such 
     additional staff, information, and other assistance as may be 
     necessary to carry out the duties of the Advisory Commission.
       (j) Termination of the Advisory Commission.--The Advisory 
     Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which 
     the Advisory Commission submits its final report under 
     subsection (b)(1)(D).
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 7. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish, by regulation, guidelines for the 
     establishment and operation of demonstration projects which 
     the Medical Education Advisory Commission recommends under 
     section 6(b)(1)(B).
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--For any fiscal year after 1999, amounts in 
     the Medical Education Trust Fund under title XXII of the 
     Social Security Act shall be available for use by the 
     Secretary in the establishment and operation of demonstration 
     projects described in subsection (a).
       (2) Funds available.--
       (A) Limitation.--Not more than \1/10\ of 1 percent of the 
     funds in such Trust Fund shall be available for the purposes 
     of paragraph (1).
       (B) Allocation.--Amounts under paragraph (1) shall be paid 
     from the accounts established under paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) of section 2201(a) of the Social Security Act, in the 
     same proportion as the amounts transferred to such accounts 
     bears to the total of amounts transferred to all 4 such 
     accounts for such fiscal year.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to authorize any change

[[Page S657]]

     in the payment methodology for teaching hospitals and medical 
     schools established by the amendments made by this Act.
                                  ____


        Summary of the Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1999


                                overview

       The legislation establishes a Medical Education Trust Fund 
     to support America's 144 medical schools and 1,250 graduate 
     medical education teaching institutions. These institutions 
     are in a precarious financial situation as market forces 
     reshape the health care delivery system. Explicit and 
     dedicated funding for these institutions will guarantee that 
     the United States continues to lead the world in the quality 
     of its health care system.
       The Medical Education Trust Fund Act of 1999 recognizes the 
     need to begin moving away from existing medical education 
     payment policies. Funding would be provided for demonstration 
     projects and alternative payment methods, but permanent 
     policy changes would await a report from a new Medical 
     Education Advisory Commission established by the bill. The 
     primary and immediate purpose of the legislation is to 
     establish as Federal policy that medical education is a 
     public good which should be supported by all sectors of the 
     health care system.
       To ensure that the burden of financing medical education is 
     shared equitably by all sectors, the Medical Education Trust 
     Fund will receive funding from three sources: a 1.5 percent 
     assessment on health insurance premiums (the private sector's 
     contribution), Medicare, and Medicaid (the public sector's 
     contribution). The relative contribution from each of these 
     sources is in rough proportion to the medical education costs 
     attributable to their respective covered populations.
       Over the five years following enactment, the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund will provide average annual payments of 
     about $17 billion, roughly doubling federal funding for 
     medical education. The assessment on health insurance 
     premiums (including self-insured health plans) contributes 
     approximately $5 billion per year to the Trust Fund. Federal 
     health programs contribute about $12 billion per year to the 
     Trust Fund: $8 billion in Medicare graduate medical education 
     payments and $4 billion in federal Medicaid spending.

 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL TRUST FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE, FIRST FIVE YEARS
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.5% assessment        Medicare          Medicaid            Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................               8                 4                17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     INTERIM PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES

                      Payments to medical schools

       Medical schools rely on a portion of the clinical practice 
     revenue generated by their faculties to support their 
     operations. As competition within the health system 
     intensifies and managed care proliferates, these revenues are 
     being constrained. Payments to medical schools from the Trust 
     Fund are designed to partially offset this loss of revenue. 
     Initially, these payments will be based upon an interim 
     methodology developed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services.

                     Payments to teaching hospitals

       To cover the costs of education, teaching hospitals have 
     traditionally charged higher rates than other hospitals. As 
     private payers become increasingly unwilling to pay these 
     higher rates, the future of these important institutions, and 
     the patient care, training, and research they provide, is 
     placed at risk. Payments from the Trust Fund reimburse 
     teaching hospitals for both the direct \1\ and indirect \2\ 
     costs of graduate medical education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      \1\Footnotes at end of summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Payments for direct costs are based on the actual costs of 
     employing medical residents. Payments for indirect costs are 
     based on the number of patients cared for in each hospital 
     and the severity of their illnesses as well as a measure of 
     the teaching load in that hospital.\3\ For the purposes of 
     payments to teaching hospitals, the allocation of Medicare 
     funds is based on the number of Medicare patients in each 
     hospital; the allocation of the tax revenue and Medicaid 
     funds is based on the number of non-Medicare patients in each 
     hospital.


                 MEDICAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMISSION

       The legislation also establishes a Medical Education 
     Advisory Commission to conduct a study and make 
     recommendations, including the potential use of demonstration 
     projects, regarding the following: operations of the Medical 
     Education Trust Fund; alternative and additional sources of 
     medical education financing; alternative methodologies for 
     distributing medical education payments; policies designed to 
     maintain superior research and education capacities in an 
     increasingly competitive health system; the role of medical 
     schools in graduate medical education; and policies designed 
     to expand, eligibility for graduate medical education 
     payments to institutions other than teaching hospitals, 
     including children's hospitals.
       The Commission, comprised of nine individuals appointed by 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, will be required 
     to issue an interim report no later than January 1, 2001, and 
     a final report no later than January 1, 2003.


                               Footnotes

     \1\ Medical residents' salaries are the primary direct cost.
     \2\ These indirect costs include the cost of treating more 
     seriously ill patients and the costs of additional tests that 
     may be ordered by medical residents.
     \3\ The legislation will use Medicare's measure of teaching 
     load as an interim measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mr. Bryan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Jeffords, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Murkowski, 
        Mr. Robb, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 211. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  employee educational assistance act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
permanently extend the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational 
assistance under section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code. This bill, 
cosponsored by Senator Roth, the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, ensures that employees may receive up to $5,250 
annually in tuition reimbursements or similar educational benefits for 
both undergraduate and graduate education from their employers on a 
tax-free basis.
  The provision enjoys virtually unanimous support in the Senate. In 
the 105th Congress, every member of the Committee on Finance sponsored 
legislation to make this provision permanent, and the full Senate twice 
voted to support it--in 1997 and again in 1998.
  The provision enjoys equally broad support in the business, labor, 
and education communities. I have received letters of support from 
groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, from labor 
and employee groups such as the College and University Personnel 
Association, and from professional groups such as the National Society 
of Professional Engineers.
  Why, then, is it not a permanent feature of the Tax Code today? 
Because, for reasons this Senator cannot understand, the provision has 
been opposed in the House.
  Section 127 should be permanent because it is one of the most 
successful education initiatives that the Federal Government has ever 
undertaken. Approximately one million persons benefits from this 
provision every year. And they benefit in the most auspicious of 
circumstances. An employer recognizes that the worker is capable of 
doing work at higher levels and skills and says, ``Will you go to 
school and get a degree so we can put you in a higher position than you 
have now--and with better compensation?'' Unlike so many of our job 
training programs that have depended on the hope that in the aftermath 
of the training there will be a job, here you have a situation where 
the worker already has a job and the employer agrees that the worker 
should improve his or her situation in a manner that is beneficial to 
all concerned.
  And the program works efficiently. It administers itself. It has no 
bureaucracy--there is no bureau in the Department of Education for 
employer-provided educational assistance, no titles, no confirmations, 
no assistant secretaries. There is nothing except the individual plan 
of an employer for the benefit of its employees.
  Since its inception in 1979, section 127 has enabled millions of 
workers to advance their education and improve their job skills without 
incurring additional taxes and a reduction in take-home pay. As one 
example of the reach of this provisions, IBM, a key New York employer, 
provides education assistance benefits worth millions of dollars to 
more than 4,000 participants a year.
  Without section 127, workers will find that the additional taxes or 
reduction in take-home pay impose a significant, even prohibitive, 
financial obstacle to further education. For example, an unmarried 
clerical worker pursuing a college diploma who has income of $21,000 in 
1999 ($10.50 per hour) and who received tuition reimbursement for two 
semesters of night courses--perhaps worth $4,000--wil owe additional 
Federal income and payroll taxes of $906 on this educational 
assistance.
  And the provision makes an important contribution to simplicity in 
the

[[Page S658]]

tax law. Absent section 127, a worker receiving educational benefits 
from an employer is taxed on the value of the education received, 
unless the education is directly related to the worker's current job 
and not remedial. Thus, the worker would be subject to tax if the 
education either qualifies him or her for a new job, or is necessary to 
meet the minimum educational requirements for the current job. Workers 
and employers--as well as the IRS for matters in audit--must carefully 
review the facts of each situation and judge whether the education is 
taxable under these rules, and employers are subject to penalties if 
they fail to properly adjust wage withholding for employees who receive 
taxable education. More work for tax advisors. Permanent reinstatement 
of section 127 will allow workers who receive, and employers who 
provide, education assistance to do so without such complexity.
  Section 127 has also helped to improve the quality of America's 
public education system at a fraction of the cost of direct-aid 
programs. A survey by the National Education Association a few years 
ago found that almost half of all American public schools systems 
provide tuition assistance to teachers seeking advanced training and 
degrees. This has enabled thousands of public schools teachers to 
obtain advanced degrees, enhancing the quality of instruction in our 
schools.
  A well-trained and educated work force is a key to our Nation's 
competitiveness in the global economy of the 21st century. Pressures 
from international competition and technological change require 
constant education and retraining to maintain and strengthen American 
industry's competitive position. Alan Greenspan, the esteemed Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve System's Board of Governors, remarked at 
Syracuse University in New York in December, 1997 that:

       Our business and workers are confronting a dynamic set of 
     forces that will influence our nations' ability to compete 
     worldwide in the years ahead. Our success in preparing 
     workers and managers to harness those forces will be an 
     important element in the outcome.
       . . . America's prospects for economic growth will depend 
     greatly on our capacity to develop and to apply new 
     technology.
       [A]n increasing number of workers are facing the likelihood 
     that they will need retooling during their careers. The 
     notion that formal degree programs at any level can be 
     crafted to fully support the requirements of one's lifework 
     is being challenged. As a result, education is increasingly 
     becoming a lifelong activity; businesses are now looking for 
     employees who are prepared to continue learning. . . .

  Section 127 has an important, perhaps vital, role to play in this 
regard. It permits employees to adapt and retrain without incurring 
additional tax liabilities and a reduction in take-home pay. By 
removing the tax burden from workers seeking education and retraining, 
section 127 helps to maintain American workers as the most productive 
in the industrialized and developing world.
  Indeed, recent evidence released by the Census Bureau demonstrates 
that the earnings gap between individuals with a college degree and 
those with only a high school education continues to grow. Those who 
hold bachelor's degrees on average made $40,478 last year, compared 
with $22,895 earned by the average high school graduate. In other 
terms, college graduates now earn 76 percent more than their 
counterparts with less education, up significantly from 57 percent in 
1975.
  Despite efforts by the Senate, the most recent extension of section 
127 excluded graduate level education. This was a mistake. 
Historically, one quarter of the individuals who have used section 127 
went to graduate schools. Ask major employees about their employee 
training and they will say nothing is more helpful than being able to 
send a promising young person, or middle management person, to a 
graduate school to learn a new field that has developed since that 
person acquired his or her education. As Dr. Greenspan stated,

       . . . education, especially to enhance advanced skills, is 
     so vital to the future growth of our economy.

  By eliminating graduate level education from section 127, we impose a 
tax increase on many citizens who work and go to graduate school at the 
same time. But not all of them. Only the ones whose education does not 
directly relate to their current jobs. For these unlucky persons, we 
have erected a barrier to their upward mobility. Who are these people? 
Perhaps an engineer seeking a master's degree in geology to enter the 
field of environmental science, or a bank teller seeking an MPA in 
accounting, or a production line worker seeking an MBA in management.
  Simple equity among taxpayers demands that section 127 be made 
permanent. Contrast each of the above examples with the following: The 
environmental geologist seeking a master's in geology, the bank 
accountant seeking an MPA, and the management trainee seeking an MBA; 
each of these persons could qualify for tax-free education, whereas 
their colleagues would not. There is no justification for this 
difference in tax treatment.
  Thus, section 127 removes a tax bias against lesser-skilled workers. 
The tax bias arises because lesser-skilled workers have narrower job 
descriptions, and a correspondingly greater difficulty proving that 
educational expenses directly relate to their current jobs. Less-
skilled workers are in greater need of remedial and basic education. 
And they are the ones least able to afford the imposition of tax on 
their educational benefits. As noted by Senator Packwood in a 1978 
Finance Committee hearing on this provision, employer-provided 
education is not taxable:

       . . . so long as it is related to the job, but the trouble 
     is, once you get higher in a corporation, more things seem to 
     be related to the job. If you are a vice president in charge 
     of marketing for Mobil Oil or General Motors, you could have 
     a wide expanse of educational experiences that would be job 
     related. . . . but for the poor devil in private enterprise 
     who dropped out of school at 16 and is working on a 
     production job and would like to move out of that, all you 
     can train him for is to do the production job better. . . . 
     [T]he lower skilled, the minorities, the less educated, are 
     also the ones circumscribed by law.

This has been confirmed in practice. A study published by the National 
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in December, 1995 
found that the average section 127 recipient earned less than $33,000, 
and a Coopers & Lybrand study found that participation rates decline as 
salary levels increase.
  I hope that Congress will recognize the importance of this provision, 
and enact it permanently. Our on-again, off-again approach to section 
127 has created great practical difficulties for the intended 
beneficiaries. Workers cannot plan sensibly for their educational 
goals, not knowing the extent to which accepting educational assistance 
may reduce their take-home pay. As for employers, the fits and starts 
of the legislative history of section 127 have been a serious 
administrative nuisance: there have been nine extensions of this 
provision since 1978, of which eight were retroactive. If section 127 
is in force, then there is no need to withhold taxes on educational 
benefits provided; if not, the job-relatedness of the educational 
assistance must be ascertained, a value assigned, and withholding 
adjusted accordingly. Uncertainty about the program's continuance has 
magnified this burden, and discouraged employers from providing 
educational benefits.
  For example, section 127 expired for a time after 1994. During 1995, 
employers did not know whether to withhold taxes or curtail their 
educational assistance programs. Workers did not know whether they 
would face large tax bills, and possible penalties and interest, and 
thus faced considerable risk in planning for their education. 
Constituents who called my office reported that they were taking fewer 
courses--or no courses--due to this uncertainty. And when we failed to 
extend the provision by the end of 1995, employers had to guess as to 
how to report their worker's incomes on the W-2 tax statements, and 
employees had to guess whether to pay tax on the benefits they 
received. In the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, we finally 
extended the provision retroactively to the beginning of 1995. As a 
result, we had to instruct the IRS to issue guidance expeditiously to 
employers and workers on how to obtain refunds.
  The current provision expires with respect to courses beginning after 
May 31, 2000. Will we subject our constituents, once again, to similar 
confusion? The legislation I introduce today would restore certainty to 
section 127 by maintaining it on a permanent basis for all education.

[[Page S659]]

  Encouraging workers to further their education and to improve their 
job skills is an important national priority. It is crucial for 
preserving our competitive position in the global economy. Permitting 
employees to receive educational assistance on a tax-free basis, 
without incurring significant cuts in take-home pay, is a demonstrated, 
cost-effective means for achieving these objectives. This is a 
wonderful piece of unobtrusive social policy. And it simplifies our tax 
system for one million workers and their employers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record, along with two letters, representative of many, 
I have received in support of the bill.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 211

       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 ``Employee Educational 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Permanent Extension.--Section 127 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion for educational 
     assistance programs) is amended by striking subsection (d) 
     and by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).
       (b) Repeal of Limitation on Graduate Education.--The last 
     sentence of section 127(c)(1) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``, and such term also does not include any payment 
     for, or the provision of any benefits with respect to, any 
     graduate level course of a kind normally taken by an 
     individual pursuing a program leading to a law, business, 
     medical, or other advanced academic or professional degree''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to expenses relating to courses beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Graduate education.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (b) shall apply with respect to expenses relating to courses 
     beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                                 Washington, DC, January 19, 1999.
     Hon. Daniel P. Moynihan,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Manufacturers (NAM), representing 18 million 
     working men and women in 14,000 small, medium and large 
     businesses across America, I want to commend you for your 
     willingness to introduce and sponsor S. 127 in the 106th 
     Congress. As you know, Section 127 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code enables employers to provide tax-free tuition assistance 
     for undergraduate education through 2000. The NAM supports 
     your efforts to provide not only a permanent extension of 
     Section 127, but the restoration of graduate-level assistance 
     as well.
       The NAM strongly believes that education and lifelong 
     learning are the key to continued economic growth and worker 
     prosperity. Last week, NAM President Jerry Jasinowski 
     participated in Vice President Gore's Summit on Skills for 
     21st Century and urged that government, labor, academic and 
     business leaders all take greater responsibility in 
     encouraging a stronger focus on lifelong learning. 
     Manufacturers have discovered the importance of education and 
     lifelong learning first hand. For instance, raising the 
     education level of workers by just one year raises 
     manufacturing productivity by 8.5 percent and each additional 
     year of post-high school education is worth 5-15 percent in 
     increased earnings to the worker. Despite the fact that 
     roughly 95 percent of manufacturers provide some form of 
     worker training and nearly half spend at least 2 percent of 
     payroll, 9 in 10 report a serious skills shortage. In short, 
     our economy will only continue to grow if our workers are 
     armed with the skills they need to thrive in tomorrow's 
     workplace. Permanent extension of Section 127 for both 
     undergraduate and graduate-level assistance will help do just 
     that.
       Again, thank you for your support for this important issue. 
     The NAM looks forward to working with you and Chairman Roth 
     in developing bipartisan support for S. 127. Please feel free 
     to contact me at (202) 637-3133 if the NAM can be of further 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sandra Boyd,      
     Assistant Vice President.
                                  ____

         National Association of Independent Colleges and 
           Universities,
                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 1999.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: I am writing to offer my sincere 
     appreciation for your sponsorship of legislation that will 
     permanently extend IRC Sec. 127 for both undergraduate and 
     graduate courses. On behalf of over 900 independent colleges 
     and universities across the country that make up the National 
     Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), 
     I thank you for your continued commitment to encouraging a 
     well-educated and properly-trained workforce through the 
     permanent extension of this tax credit.
       As you know, this important provision of the tax code 
     allows employees to exclude from their income the first 
     $5,250 of educational benefits paid by their employers. While 
     the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 temporarily extended the 
     benefit for undergraduate courses, graduate courses are 
     currently not included in the Sec. 127 extension that is set 
     to expire on May 31, 2000. Legislation that will permanently 
     extend the credit for both graduate and undergraduate courses 
     is absolutely critical.
       Employees benefit from Sec. 127 by keeping current in 
     rapidly advancing fields, improving basic skills, or, in 
     extreme cases, learning new skills. Sec. 127 also serves as 
     an effective means for entry level employees to move from low 
     wage jobs to higher wage jobs while remaining in the 
     workforce.
       Sec. 127 has always received strong support in both the 
     House and Senate, and as a time-tested initiative, it ought 
     to be included in any tax vehicle that comes before the 106th 
     Congress. NAICU looks forward to working with you and the 
     other supporters of this legislation to move the bill 
     forward.
       Again thank you for your continued efforts on this 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                       David L. Warren, President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 212. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the economic activity credit for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 213. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the limitation of the cover over of tax on distilled spirits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  S. 214. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the research and development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico and the possessions of the United States; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  S. 215. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
increase the allotments for territories under the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program; to the Committee on Finance.


                    PUERTO RICO LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my 
distinguished colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer, to introduce three 
tax measures designed to strengthen our commitment to enhancing the 
prospects for long-term economic growth in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, and a fourth piece of legislation to ensure fair funding for its 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Twice this decade, Congress has imposed significant tax increases on 
companies doing business in Puerto Rico. Those tax increases in 1993 
and 1996, agreed to in the context of broader deficit reduction and 
minimum wage legislation, substantially altered the economic 
relationship between the United States and the possessions. The 
legislation I introduce today will address several of the economic 
concerns caused by those tax increases and restore incentives for 
employment, investment, and business opportunities.
  Federal tax incentives for economic activity in Puerto Rico are 
nearly as old as the income tax itself. Under the Revenue Act of 1921, 
U.S. corporations that met two gross income tests were deemed 
``possessions corporations'' exempt from tax on all income derived from 
sources outside the United States. The possessions corporation 
exemption remained unchanged until 1976. Section 936 of the Internal 
Revenue Code, added by the Tax Reform Act of 1976, maintained the 
exemption for income derived by U.S. corporations from operations in a 
possession. It also exempted from tax the dividends remitted by a 
possessions corporation to its U.S. parent. However, to prevent the 
avoidance of tax on investments in foreign countries by possessions 
corporations, the 1976 Tax Reform Act eliminated the exemption for 
income derived outside the possessions.
  In 1993, Congress imposed significant limitations on Section 936. The 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 subjected Section 936 to two 
alternative limitations (the taxpayer may choose which limitation 
applies). One limitation is based on factors that reflect the 
corporation's economic activity in the possessions. The other 
limitation is based on a percentage of the

[[Page S660]]

credit that would be allowable under prior-law rules. The staff of the 
Joint Tax Committee estimated that the 1993 Act changes would raise 
$3.75 billion over five years.
  While Congress substantially limited tax incentives for companies 
doing business in Puerto Rico in 1993, the Small Business Job 
Protection Act of 1996 effectively repealed remaining federal tax 
incentives, subject to a 10-year transition rule for taxpayers with 
existing investments in Puerto Rico. The Joint Tax Committee staff 
estimated the 1996 changes would raise $10.5 billion over ten years.
  In committee report language accompanying the 1976 Act, Congress 
recognized that the Federal government imposes upon the possessions 
various requirements, such as minimum wage requirements and 
requirements to use U.S. flag ships in transporting goods between the 
United States and various possessions, that substantially increase the 
labor, transportation and other costs of establishing business 
operations in Puerto Rico. In the 1990s, in light of trade agreements 
such as NAFTA and increased economic competition from low-wage 
Caribbean countries, these concerns are particularly acute.
  Traditionally, Puerto Rico has been excluded from or underfinanced in 
many federal programs because, it has been argued, the island does not 
pay income taxes to the Federal government. For example, Puerto Rico 
has only minimal Federal participation in the Medicaid program. In 
1998, Puerto Rico's Medicaid program received approximately $170 
million in federal funds, whereas it could have received approximately 
$500 million if it were treated as a state. Clearly, Congress should 
not adopt a double standard of taxing Puerto Rico's economic activity 
while denying funding for federal programs.
  Mr. President, the first of the bills I introduce today, while not 
designed to reinstate prior law, seeks to build on the temporary wage 
credit that is currently provided in the Internal Revenue Code. The 
bill removes provisions that limit, in taxable years beginning after 
2001, the aggregate taxable income taken into account in determining 
the amount of the credit. Employers would generally be eligible for a 
tax credit equal to 60 percent of wages and fringe benefit expenses for 
employees located in Puerto Rico. New as well as existing employers 
would be rewarded for providing local jobs. Instead of expiring at the 
end of 2005, the credit would terminate three years later for tax years 
starting after 2008. Thus, businesses would have a 10 year period in 
which to take advantage of these incentives.

  A second proposal addresses the inequitable treatment of Puerto Rico 
under the tax credit for increasing research activities (the R&D tax 
credit). The R&D credit has never applied to qualified research 
conducted in Puerto Rico and the other U.S. possessions. Until 
recently, U.S. companies paid no taxes on Puerto Rico source income. As 
a result, there were no tax consequences to Puerto Rico's exclusion 
from the R&D credit. With the phasing out of section 936, applying the 
R&D credit to research expenditures in Puerto Rico has become a matter 
of fairness, and this legislation would ensure eligibility for 
companies operating in the possessions. The Government of Puerto Rico 
has made research and development a centerpiece of its new economic 
model, and Puerto Rico's 1998 Tax Incentives Act created a deduction 
for research and development expenses incurred for new or improved 
products or industrial processes. While the immediate cost of extending 
the R&D credit to Puerto Rico is minimal (in 1998, the Joint Tax 
Committee estimated the total five year revenue loss at $4 million), 
the long term benefits for Puerto Rico's diversifying economy could be 
significant.
  The third bill addresses a provision of the tax law a portion of 
which expired on September 30, 1998. The Puerto Rican Federal Relations 
Act and the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands mandate that all 
federal collections on insular products be transferred (``covered-
over'') to those unincorporated jurisdictions of our Nation. Further, 
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act provides that collections on 
all imported rum be transferred to the treasuries of Puerto Rico and 
the Virgin Islands. In 1984, because of a dispute concerning the use of 
the tax cover-over mechanism in Puerto Rico, the cover-over was limited 
to an amount of $10.50 per gallon tax on rum, rather than the full 
$13.50 per gallon tax. The disputed practice was discontinued many 
years ago. In 1993, Congress enacted a temporary increase in the rum 
cover-over, to $11.30, effective for five years. That provision expired 
on September 30, 1998, and the rum cover-over dropped back to $10.50. 
The legislation would restore the cover-over to the full amount of the 
excise tax collected on rum ($13.50 per proof gallon), as mandated in 
the basic laws regarding those jurisdictions and in the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative. Last September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 
such a proposal would cost $350 million over 5 years and $700 million 
over 10 years.
  Additionally, the proposal provides that, for a five-year period, 50 
cents per gallon of the cover-over to Puerto Rico would be further 
transferred to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust. The Conservation 
Trust, created for the protection of the natural resources and 
environmental beauty of Puerto Rico, was established by the Department 
of the Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1968. The Trust 
was initially funded through an oil import fee. More recently, it was 
primarily financed through Section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code. 
The Trust lost more than 80 percent of its funding as a consequence of 
the decision to phase-out section 936 and eliminate the Qualified 
Possession Source Investment Income provision in the tax code. The 
proposal to transfer a portion of the restored cover-over for five 
years to capitalize the Trust is projected to result in a permanent 
endowment.
  Lastly, I introduce a bill to provide sufficient funding for Puerto 
Rico and the Territories' Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP).
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established CHIP as a grant to states 
to cover uninsured low-income children. We provided approximately $20 
billion in the first five years. The original allocation formula would 
have provided only 0.25 percent of the funding to Puerto Rico and the 
Territories.
  Recognizing that this allocation provided insufficient funding for 
CHIP programs in Puerto Rico and the Territories, Congress increased 
their allotments by $32 million in the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1999. However, this 
increase was provided for Fiscal Year 1999 only.
  This bill would increase the allotments for Puerto Rico and the 
Territories for future years such that funding would equal about one 
percent of the total grant funding. Puerto Rico and the Territories 
account for about 1.52 percent of the nation's population. This would 
increase funding in Fiscal Year 2000 to $34.2 million. I urge my 
colleagues' support for this modest but significant legislation.
  In an era of open borders, expanding trade, and increasingly 
interlinked economic ties, the United States should not punish Puerto 
Rico by selectively applying some laws while denying the benefits of 
others. Economic conditions in Puerto Rico warrant special 
consideration. While the United States is enjoying the benefits of an 
historically unprecedented period of economic expansion, unemployment 
among Puerto Rico's 3.5 million inhabitants remains high at 12.5 
percent. The needs of Puerto Rico, and the importance of this 
provision, were magnified by the devastation recently caused by 
Hurricane Georges. Mr. President, now is the time to reinforce our 
close economic relationship with Puerto Rico. I hope my colleagues in 
the Senate will join me in working toward swift passage of these 
measures.
  Finally, Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
four measures be printed in full in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 212

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Puerto 
     Rico Economic Activity Credit Improvement Act of 1999''.

[[Page S661]]

       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS OF PUERTO RICO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Corporations Eligible To Claim Credit.--Section 
     30A(a)(2) (defining qualified domestic corporation) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Qualified domestic corporation.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) In general.--A domestic corporation shall be treated 
     as a qualified domestic corporation for a taxable year if it 
     is actively conducting within Puerto Rico during the taxable 
     year--
       ``(i) a line of business with respect to which the domestic 
     corporation is an existing credit claimant under section 
     936(j)(9), or
       ``(ii) an eligible line of business not described in clause 
     (i).
       ``(B) Limitation to lines of business.--A domestic 
     corporation shall be treated as a qualified domestic 
     corporation under subparagraph (A) only with respect to the 
     lines of business described in subparagraph (A) which it is 
     actively conducting in Puerto Rico during the taxable year.
       ``(C) Exception for corporations electing reduced credit.--
     A domestic corporation shall not be treated as a qualified 
     domestic corporation if such corporation (or any predecessor) 
     had an election in effect under section 936(a)(4)(B)(iii) for 
     any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1996.''
       (b) Application on Separate Line of Business Basis; 
     Eligible Line of Business.--Section 30A is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by 
     inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Application on Line of Business Basis; Eligible Lines 
     of Business.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Application to separate line of business.--
       ``(A) In general.--In determining the amount of the credit 
     under subsection (a), this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each substantial line of business 
     of the qualified domestic corporation.
       ``(B) Exceptions for existing credit claimant.--This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a substantial line of business 
     with respect to which the qualified domestic corporation is 
     an existing credit claimant under section 936(j)(9).
       ``(C) Allocation.--The Secretary shall prescribe rules 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, 
     including rules--
       ``(i) for the allocation of items of income, gain, 
     deduction, and loss for purposes of determining taxable 
     income under subsection (a), and
       ``(ii) for the allocation of wages, fringe benefit 
     expenses, and depreciation allowances for purposes of 
     applying the limitations under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Eligible line of business.--The term `eligible line 
     of business' means a substantial line of business in any of 
     the following trades or businesses:
       ``(A) Manufacturing.
       ``(B) Agriculture.
       ``(C) Forestry.
       ``(D) Fishing.
       ``(3) Substantial line of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the determination of whether a line of business 
     is a substantial line of business shall be determined by 
     reference to 2-digit codes under the North American Industry 
     Classification System (62 Fed. Reg. 17288 et seq., formerly 
     known as `SIC codes').''
       (c) Repeal of Base Period Cap.--
       (1) In general.--Section 30A(a)(1) (relating to allowance 
     of credit) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 30A(e)(1) is amended by 
     inserting ``but not including subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii) 
     thereof'' after ``thereunder''.
       (d) Application of Credit.--Section 30A(h) (relating to 
     applicability of section), as redesignated by subsection (b), 
     is amended by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2009''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 30A(b) is amended by striking ``within a 
     possession'' each place it appears and inserting ``within 
     Puerto Rico''.
       (2) Section 30A(d) is amended by striking ``possession'' 
     each place it appears.
       (3) Section 30A(f) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified income taxes.--The qualified income taxes 
     for any taxable year allocable to nonsheltered income shall 
     be determined in the same manner as under section 936(i)(3).
       ``(2) Qualified wages.--The qualified wages for any taxable 
     year shall be determined in the same manner as under section 
     936(i)(1).
       ``(3) Other terms.--Any term used in this section which is 
     also used in section 936 shall have the same meaning given 
     such term by section 936.''
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.

     SEC. 3. COMPARABLE TREATMENT FOR OTHER ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Corporations Eligible To Claim Credit.--Section 
     936(j)(2)(A) (relating to economic activity credit) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Economic activity credit.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a domestic corporation 
     which, during the taxable year, is actively conducting within 
     a possession other than Puerto Rico--

       ``(I) a line of business with respect to which the domestic 
     corporation is an existing credit claimant under paragraph 
     (9), or
       ``(II) an eligible line of business not described in 
     subclause (I),

     the credit determined under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be 
     allowed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995, 
     and before January 1, 2002.
       ``(ii) Limitation to lines of business.--Clause (i) shall 
     only apply with respect to the lines of business described in 
     clause (i) which the domestic corporation is actively 
     conducting in a possession other than Puerto Rico during the 
     taxable year.
       ``(iii) Exception for corporations electing reduced 
     credit.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a domestic corporation 
     if such corporation (or any predecessor) had an election in 
     effect under subsection (a)(4)(B)(iii) for any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 1996.''
       (b) Application on Separate Line of Business Basis; 
     Eligible Line of Business.--
       (1) In general.--Section 936(j) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Application on line of business basis; eligible 
     lines of business.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) Application to separate line of business.--
       ``(i) In general.--In determining the amount of the credit 
     under subsection (a)(1)(A) for a corporation to which 
     paragraph (2)(A) applies, this section shall be applied 
     separately with respect to each substantial line of business 
     of the corporation.
       ``(ii) Exceptions for existing credit claimant.--This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a line of business with respect 
     to which the qualified domestic corporation is an existing 
     credit claimant under paragraph (9).
       ``(iii) Allocation.--The Secretary shall prescribe rules 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this subparagraph, 
     including rules--

       ``(I) for the allocation of items of income, gain, 
     deduction, and loss for purposes of determining taxable 
     income under subsection (a)(1)(A), and
       ``(II) for the allocation of wages, fringe benefit 
     expenses, and depreciation allowances for purposes of 
     applying the limitations under subsection (a)(4)(A).

       ``(B) Eligible line of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `eligible line of business' means a 
     substantial line of business in any of the following trades 
     or businesses:
       ``(i) Manufacturing.
       ``(ii) Agriculture.
       ``(iii) Forestry.
       ``(iv) Fishing.''
       (2) New lines of business.--Section 936(j)(9)(B) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(B) New lines of business.--A corporation shall not be 
     treated as an existing credit claimant with respect to any 
     substantial new line of business which is added after October 
     13, 1995, unless such addition is pursuant to an acquisition 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).''
       (3) Separate lines of business.--Section 936(j), as amended 
     by paragraph (1), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Substantial line of business.--For purposes of this 
     subsection (other than paragraph (9)(B) thereof), the 
     determination of whether a line of business is a substantial 
     line of business shall be determined by reference to 2-digit 
     codes under the North American Industry Classification System 
     (62 Fed. Reg. 17288 et seq., formerly known as `SIC 
     codes').''
       (c) Repeal of Base Period Cap for Economic Activity 
     Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 936(j)(3) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Additional restricted reduced credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an existing credit 
     claimant to which paragraph (2)(B) applies, the credit 
     determined under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be allowed for 
     any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1998, and 
     before January 1, 2006, except that the aggregate amount of 
     taxable income taken into account under subsection (a)(1)(A) 
     for such taxable year shall not exceed the adjusted base 
     period income of such claimant.
       ``(B) Coordination with subsection (a)(4)(B).--The amount 
     of income described in subsection (a)(1)(A) which is taken 
     into account in applying subsection (a)(4)(B) shall be such 
     income as reduced under this paragraph.''
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 936(j)(2)(A), as amended by subsection (a), is 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2006''.
       (B) Section 30A(e)(1), as amended by section 2(c)(2), is 
     amended by striking ``subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii)'' and 
     inserting ``the exception under subsection (j)(3)(A)''.
       (d) Application of Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 936(j)(2)(A), as amended by this 
     section, is amended by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2009''.
       (2) Special rules for applicable possessions.--Section 
     936(j)(8)(A) is amended to read as follows:

[[Page S662]]

       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an applicable 
     possession--
       ``(i) this section (other than the preceding paragraphs of 
     this subsection) shall not apply for taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1995, and before January 1, 2006, with 
     respect to any substantial line of business actively 
     conducted in such possession by a domestic corporation which 
     is an existing credit claimant with respect to such line of 
     business, and
       ``(ii) this section (including this subsection) shall 
     apply--

       ``(I) with respect to any substantial line of business not 
     described in clause (i) for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 1998, and before January 1, 2009, and
       ``(II) with respect to any substantial line of business 
     described in clause (i) for taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2006, and before January 1, 2009.''

       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
       (2) New lines of business.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (b)(2) shall apply to taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1995.
                                  ____


                                 S. 213

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION OF COVER OVER OF TAX ON 
                   DISTILLED SPIRITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7652 (relating to limitation on 
     cover over of tax on distilled spirits) is amended by 
     striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsection (g) 
     as subsection (f).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7652(f) of such Code 
     (as so redesignated) is amended by striking ``subsection (f) 
     of this section'' in paragraph (1)(B) and inserting ``section 
     5001(a)(1)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to articles containing distilled spirits that are tax-
     determined after September 30, 1999.
       (2) Special rule.--
       (A) In general.--For the 5-year period beginning after 
     September 30, 1999, the treasury of Puerto Rico shall make a 
     Conservation Trust Fund transfer within 30 days from the date 
     of each cover over payment made during such period to such 
     treasury under section 7652(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       (B) Conservation trust fund transfer.--
       (i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     ``Conservation Trust Fund transfer'' means a transfer to the 
     Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund of an amount equal to 50 
     cents per proof gallon of the taxes imposed under section 
     5001 or section 7652 of such Code on distilled spirits that 
     are covered over to the treasury of Puerto Rico under section 
     7652(e) of such Code.
       (ii) Treatment of transfer.--Each Conservation Trust Fund 
     transfer shall be treated as principal for an endowment, the 
     income from which to be available for use by the Puerto Rico 
     Conservation Trust Fund for the purposes for which the Trust 
     Fund was established.
       (ii) Result of nontransfer.--

       (I) In general.--Upon notification by the Secretary of the 
     Interior that a Conservation Trust Fund transfer has not been 
     made by the treasury of Puerto Rico during the period 
     described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, except as provided in subclause (II), deduct and 
     withhold from the next cover over payment to be made to the 
     treasury of Puerto Rico under section 7652(e) of such Code an 
     amount equal to the appropriate Conservation Trust Fund 
     transfer and interest thereon at the underpayment rate 
     established under section 6621 of such Code as of the due 
     date of such transfer. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer such amount deducted and withheld, and the interest 
     thereon, directly to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund.
       (II) Good cause exception.--If the Secretary of the 
     Interior finds, after consultation with the Governor of 
     Puerto Rico, that the failure by the treasury of Puerto Rico 
     to make a required transfer was for good cause, and notifies 
     the Secretary of the Treasury of the finding of such good 
     cause before the due date of the next cover over payment 
     following the notification of nontransfer, then the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall not deduct the amount of such 
     nontransfer from any cover over payment.

       (C) Puerto rico conservation trust fund.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term ``Puerto Rico Conservation Trust 
     Fund'' means the fund established pursuant to a Memorandum of 
     Understanding between the United States Department of the 
     Interior and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated December 
     24, 1968.
                                  ____


                                 S. 214

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT TO RESEARCH IN PUERTO 
                   RICO AND THE POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is 
     amended by inserting ``, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or 
     any possession of the United States'' after ``United 
     States''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                  ____


                                 S. 215

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASED ALLOTMENTS FOR TERRITORIES UNDER THE 
                   STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(c)(4)(B)), as added by the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277), is amended by inserting ``, $34,200,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $25,200,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2004, $32,400,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2005 and 2006, and $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007'' before 
     the period.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 216. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
the limitation on the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative 
minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.


 legislation to repeal the limitation on foreign tax credits under the 
                   corporate alternative minimum tax

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on 
behalf of myself and my Finance Committee colleague, Senator Jeffords, 
to repeal a limitation in the Tax Code that results in the double 
taxation of certain foreign source income. The issue involves the 
effect of the corporate alternative minimum tax on income earned abroad 
by United States companies. Correction of this policy flaw is of 
significant importance to the affected companies, their current and 
future employees, and their shareholders.
  The U.S. taxes the worldwide income of its corporations, citizens and 
residents. Under the U.S. Tax Code, U.S. bilateral treaties, and 
international norms, it is generally accepted that income with a nexus 
to two countries should not be taxed by both jurisdictions, and that 
the jurisdiction in which active business income is earned typically 
should have the primary right to tax that income. To effectuate these 
principles and to avoid double taxation, the U.S. tax laws--since the 
Revenue Act of 1918--allow U.S. taxpayers to claim a foreign tax credit 
with respect to foreign income taxes paid on foreign source income, and 
thereby reduce U.S. income taxes on such income.
  It should be emphasized that the foreign tax credit is not a tax 
``loophole'' or ``preference.'' Rather, as noted by the U.S. Supreme 
Court in the 1932 case of Burnet versus Chicago, ``the primary design'' 
of the foreign tax credit system is to ``mitigate the evil of double 
taxation.''
  However, in enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress concluded 
that this salutary purpose was outweighed by another. At that time, 
Congress was concerned with a serious problem: repeated instances of 
large corporations with substantial economic profits (reported to 
shareholders in their annual reports) paying little or no Federal 
income taxes. In response, Congress rewrote the corporate alternative 
minimum tax.
  Congress had specific purposes in mind in rewriting the minimum tax. 
First, as noted by the Joint Tax Committee in its General Explanation 
of the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

       . . . Congress decided that it was inherently unfair for 
     high-income taxpayers to pay little or no tax due to their 
     ability to utilize tax preferences.

  An obvious and incontrovertible sentiment. Yet, as noted above, 
foreign tax credits are not tax preferences or loopholes.
  Congress was also concerned with appearances. The Joint Tax Committee 
Explanation continued:

       . . . Congress concluded that there must be a reasonable 
     certainty that, whenever a company publicly reports 
     significant earnings, that company will pay some tax for the 
     year.

  No argument here. And Congress ensured that companies reporting 
profits would in fact pay tax by, among other changes, requiring 
corporations to increase their ``alternative minimum taxable income'' 
by a percentage of the income reported on financial statements, and 
requiring the use of a slower depreciation schedule rather than 
accelerated depreciation for purposes of cost recovery.

[[Page S663]]

  But what about foreign tax credits? The Joint Tax Committee 
Explanation stated:

       . . . While Congress viewed allowance of the foreign tax 
     credit . . . as generally appropriate for minimum tax 
     purposes, it was considered fair to mandate at least a 
     nominal tax contribution from all U.S. taxpayers with 
     substantial economic income.

  To state it less elegantly, Congress believed that limited double 
taxation of a corporation's foreign source income was a lesser evil 
than allowing a corporation to fully use its foreign tax credits. The 
1986 tax act provided that foreign tax credits could be used to offset 
up to 90 percent of a corporation's minimum tax liability. Thus, 
affected taxpayers pay at least 10 percent of their alternative minimum 
tax, no matter that the tax relates to foreign source income earned in 
a high-tax foreign jurisdiction and that the taxpayer has paid tax on 
that income.
  Although Congress believed the 90 percent restriction to have been 
fair policy in 1986, the restriction can no longer be justified.
  First, we now have a decade of experience over which to judge the 
effect of the restriction. I am aware of at least one key employer in 
New York that alone has paid significant amounts of minimum tax due to 
this provision, some of which was incurred in years during which the 
company reported losses on a worldwide basis.
  Second, since the 1986 Act, there have been a number of significant 
modifications to the minimum tax. For example, the Taxpayer Relief Act 
of 1997 allows large corporate taxpayers to use accelerated 
depreciation under the minimum tax, and it repealed the minimum tax in 
its entirety for corporations with gross receipts of $5 million or 
less. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 allowed taxpayers to 
claim tax benefits under the minimum tax relating to oil & gas 
intangible drilling costs. Considering the post-1986 relaxations of the 
minimum tax, little purpose remains in the 90 percent limitation.
  Finally, since 1986, many of our largest businesses have seen 
tremendous expansion in their exports and foreign sales, thus 
substantially increasing the amount of foreign source income. At the 
same time, these companies must compete with foreign companies that do 
not have to bear double taxation. As my friend Senator Alfonse D'Amato 
noted when introducing similar legislation last year:

       The result is double (and even triple) taxation of income 
     that is used to support U.S. jobs, R&D and other activities.

  The restriction can no longer be justified.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 216

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FOREIGN TAX CREDIT UNDER 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Section 59(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to alternative minimum tax foreign tax 
     credit) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and by 
     redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 53(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``and if section 59(a)(2) 
     did not apply''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am joining with my colleague 
from New York, Senator Moynihan, to introduce a bill that will 
eliminate an aspect of our internal revenue laws that is fundamentally 
unfair to taxpayers with income from foreign sources.
  Under our system of taxation, U.S. citizens and domestic corporations 
earning income from sources outside the United States are subject to 
U.S. tax on that foreign-source income. In all likelihood, that income 
will also be subject to tax by the country where it was earned. Thus, 
the same income could be taxed twice, by two different countries. To 
guard against the double taxation of this income, the tax code allows 
taxpayers to offset their U.S. tax on foreign-source income with the 
foreign taxes paid on that income. This is accomplished by means of a 
foreign tax credit; that is, the foreign tax paid on foreign source 
income is credited against the U.S. tax that would otherwise be payable 
on that income. The details of the foreign tax credit rules are 
extraordinarily complex. (Indeed, virtually all of the Internal Revenue 
Code's provisions governing international taxation are complex.) The 
basic principle underlying the foreign tax credit rules, however, is 
simple: to provide relief from multiple taxation of the same income.
  Many U.S. taxpayers have to perform two tax computations. First, they 
compute their ``regular tax.'' Then, they compute their ``alternative 
minimum tax'' (AMT). As a rule, taxpayers pay the larger of these two 
computations, the ``regular tax'' or the AMT. The AMT was enacted to 
ensure that taxpayers qualifying for various tax ``preferences'' 
allowed by the Internal Revenue Code must pay a minimum amount of tax. 
While foreign tax credits guard against double taxation in the 
``regular tax'' computation, the principle of providing relief from 
double taxation falls by the wayside in the AMT computation. Under AMT 
rules, the allowable foreign tax credit is unlimited to 90 percent of a 
taxpayer's alternative minimum tax liability. Because of this 
limitation, income subject to foreign tax is also subject to U.S. tax. 
This rule operates to ensure double taxation, and the result is double 
(and even triple) taxation of income.
  There is no sound policy reason for denying relief from double 
taxation to taxpayers subject to the AMT. The foreign tax credit is not 
a ``preference'' that serves as an incentive for a particular activity 
or behavior, rather, it simply reflects the fundamental principle that 
income should not be subject to multiple taxation. The 90 percent 
limitation was enacted as part of the 1986 tax bill solely as a method 
of raising revenue. The bill that Senator Moynihan and I are 
introducing today will eliminate the AMT's 90 percent limitation on 
foreign tax credits. Eliminating this limitation will mean that 
taxpayers subject to the AMT will get the same relief from double 
taxation allowed to taxpayers subject to the regular tax.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 217. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the treatment of charitable transfers of collections of personal 
papers with a separate right to control access; to the Committee on 
Finance.


legislation to encourage donations of personal papers to historical and 
                       educational organizations

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on 
behalf of myself and Senators Inouye and Wellstone to correct a little-
known estate and gift tax provision that may inadvertently penalize 
persons who donate their personal papers and related items to a 
charitable organization for the historical record.
  The issue arises in connection with the donation of personal papers 
and related items to a university, library, historical society, or 
other charitable organizations. In general, such a transfer has no 
estate or gift tax consequences. While the value of any such transfer 
may be subject to taxation as a theoretical matter, as a practical 
matter the gift will not be taxed because a corresponding charitable 
deduction would be available. This is as it should be: the donor 
receives neither a tax benefit nor a tax burden, and the tax law is not 
a factor in the decision to make such a donation.
  Recently, however, estate planning lawyers have become concerned 
about situations in which such a gift might give rise to adverse tax 
consequences. The situation occurs where the donor retains (or 
transfers to his or her surviving spouse or children) various rights in 
the papers donated, such as a right to limit or control access. The 
restrictions might be in place for many understandable reasons, such as 
to protect the privacy of colleagues, correspondents, staffs, family 
and friends. Depending on how the retained rights are described in a 
deed of gift or will, and how such rights are treated under state law, 
the retention of various rights may cause the gift to fail to qualify 
for a charitable deduction under the estate and gift tax.
  The problem arises under a series of rules enacted in the Tax Reform 
Act of 1969 that were designed to prevent

[[Page S664]]

abuses in the transfer tax system. These rules were written, in part, 
to address situations involving taxpayers who claimed a charitable 
contribution deduction significantly in excess of the value of property 
that the charity was expected to receive. This result was accomplished 
by making a charitable gift in the form of an income or remainder 
interest in a trust, claiming an inflated charitable deduction through 
favorable valuation methods, and adopting an investment policy for the 
trust that significantly favored the noncharitable interest to the 
detriment of the charitable interest. In response, Congress established 
certain requirements to ensure that the charity would actually receive 
the portion of the property for which a deduction was allowed, and to 
deny a charitable deduction in cases where a ``split-interest'' gift 
was made that did not meet the specified requirements.
  These rules were not intended to apply to the donation of 
historically important papers. Unlike the abusive situations of the 
past where charities were unlikely to receive the benefit of the 
purported gifts, in this situation the charity takes physical 
possession of the collection of papers. This is not a tax scheme 
designed to exploit weak rules.
  I stated that there ``may'' be a problem with the estate and gift tax 
law because it is not clear whether the split-interest rule would 
disallow a charitable deduction in situations where donors have 
retained various rights to control and limit access to their papers. 
When do such limited rights reach the point of being recognized as a 
type of ownership interest under state law? I suspect that many 
prominent people have donated their papers in the past thirty years 
with similar restrictions, in reliance on documents prepared by 
knowledgeable legal advisors and curators, and never imagined that 
there could be adverse tax consequences.

  One way to get around this problem would be to avoid restrictions on 
the use of the papers. But that may not be practical, advisable, or 
desirable.
  We can look to those who served across the street, in the Supreme 
Court of the United States, for examples of the types of restrictions 
that have been imposed on donations of important papers of public 
figures. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who donated his papers to the 
Library of Congress, restricted access to those papers for 10 years 
after his death. Justice Hugo Black, who also donated his papers to the 
Library of Congress, restricted access during the lifetime of his 
heirs, and required that permission be obtained from the executors of 
his estate to use the collection, to publish any writings in the 
collection, or to publish any writings about them. Justice Potter 
Stewart donated his papers to the Library of Congress with the 
restriction that all Court materials be closed pending retirement of 
all justices who served on the Supreme Court with him.
  In contrast, Justice Thurgood Marshall donated his papers to ``be 
made available to the public at the discretion of the library,'' with 
the only restriction being that the use of the donated materials ``be 
limited to private study on the premises of the library by researchers 
or scholars engaged in serious research.'' This was interpreted to 
allow journalists to access the papers. The publication of certain 
information contained in the materials shortly after Justice Marshall's 
death was criticized. Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned 
that Supreme Court Justices might no longer donate their papers to the 
Library of Congress.
  Certainly, retained rights can have value, and could be subjected to 
commercial exploitation. One can imagine a publishing house would want 
access to the papers of prominent Members, Congressmen, or others, for 
use in biographies or on books related to the events that they helped 
shape.
  However, any opportunity to retain and bequeath commercially 
exploitable rights in historical papers free of estate taxes is of 
little importance relative to the need to preserve the documents for 
scholarly research. Consider decision memoranda from key aides, 
correspondence, notes of strategy sessions, recordings of telephone 
conversations such as those made by President Lyndon Johnson and only 
now being aired--will these documents be destroyed if the choice were 
to open the items upon death or to pay an estate tax on them? Consider 
Chief Justice Rehnquist's chilling warning.
  Yet, in most if not all cases, any retained rights can be expected to 
have little realizable value, and opportunities for commercial 
exploitation would appear to be quite limited in scope.
  To this Senator, the right thing to do is clear. I am introducing 
legislation to clarify the tax law. In brief, this legislation provides 
that a person may retain and bequeath limited qualified rights to a 
collection of papers and related items. I.e., a collection 
substantially all the items of which are in the form of letters, 
memoranda, notes, and similar materials. Qualified rights would include 
the right of access to the materials, and the right to designate, 
limit, and control access to the materials, for a period of time not to 
exceed 25 years after the death of the person who created (or 
collected) the materials.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record, along with a letter from our Senate Legal 
Counsel.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 217

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

     SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRANSFERS OF 
                   COLLECTIONS OF PERSONAL PAPERS WITH SEPARATE 
                   RIGHT TO CONTROL ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 14 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2705. TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE TRANSFERS OF COLLECTIONS 
                   OF PERSONAL PAPERS WITH SEPARATE RIGHT TO 
                   CONTROL ACCESS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of this subtitle, if--
       ``(1) an individual transfers an interest in qualified 
     property to a person, or for a use described in section 
     2055(a) or section 2522 (a) or (b), and
       ``(2) the individual retains or transfers to another person 
     the right to control access to such property for a period not 
     to exceed 25 years after the death of the individual,

     sections 2036, 2038, 2055(e)(2), and 2522(c)(2) shall not 
     apply solely by reason of the individual retaining or 
     transferring such right.
       ``(b) Special Rules Relating To Transfer of Right To 
     Control Access.--If any individual transfers the right to 
     control access described in subsection (a) to another person 
     for less than an adequate and full consideration in money or 
     money's worth--
       ``(1) no tax shall be imposed under this subtitle by reason 
     of the transfer, and
       ``(2) if the transfer involves the right being acquired, or 
     passed, from a decedent, section 1014 shall not apply and the 
     basis of the right in the hands of the transferee shall be 
     determined under rules similar to the rules under section 
     1015.
       ``(c) Qualified Property.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `qualified property' means a collection 
     substantially all of the items of which are in the form of 
     letters, memoranda, or similar property described in section 
     1221(3).''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for chapter 14 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:

   ``CHAPTER 14--SPECIAL VALUATION RULES; RULES AFFECTING SUBTITLE''.

       (2) The item relating to chapter 14 in the table of 
     chapters of subtitle B of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``rules.'' and inserting ``rules; rules affecting subtitle.''
       (3) The table of sections of chapter 14 of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 2705. Treatment of charitable transfers of collections of 
              personal papers with separate right to control access.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to any transfer made before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Office of Senate Legal Counsel,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1997.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan:
       I am writing to bring to your attention a recent 
     interpretation of federal gift and estate tax law that 
     threatens to interrupt the flow of historically significant 
     papers of our Nation's academic and historical research 
     institutions from public officials and public figures, 
     including Members of Congress. Over the past decades, public 
     officials have regularly donated their personal papers to 
     educational institutions or historical societies, often upon 
     their retirement, or bequeathed the papers at time of death. 
     Senators and other public officials typically restrict access 
     to portions of their papers for a period of years after 
     donation or bequest, in order

[[Page S665]]

     to protect the privacy interests of their correspondents, 
     constituents, staffs, and others. These donations provide the 
     donors with no income tax benefit, as government papers do 
     not generate a personal income tax deduction under the 
     Internal Revenue Code.
       The shared understanding up until now has been that such 
     donations also have no gift or estate tax consequence to the 
     donor, as long as the donation is made to a recognized 
     charitable organization. However, under a recent 
     interpretation of provisions of the gift and estate tax law 
     that render gifts of partial property interests ineligible 
     for the charitable deduction, the retained right to control 
     access to papers after they are donated or bequeathed could 
     disqualify these charitable gifts from the charitable gift 
     and estate tax deductions. This interpretation would render 
     charitable gifts of personal papers with a retained right to 
     control access subject to substantial and undeserved gift and 
     estate taxation.
       The possibility that these gift and estate tax provisions 
     could be interpreted to apply to gifts and bequests of 
     historical papers where rights of public access remain 
     discretionary for a period of time has deterred a number of 
     Senators in recent months from completing their plans to 
     donate their Senate papers to charitable institutions. Our 
     office has been in contact with a number of Senators whose 
     plans to donate their Senate papers have been interrupted by 
     this problem. It is unlikely that public officials will be 
     willing to make charitable donations of their papers until 
     this issue can be resolved so as to accommodate the important 
     interests in both scholarly preservation and privacy.
       Consideration of a legislative amendment to the charitable 
     gift and estate tax deduction provisions to clarify that 
     charitable gifts and bequests of public figures' papers are 
     intended to be free from taxation would serve the public 
     interest in ensuring that the personal records of Senators 
     and other officials and public figures are preserved in the 
     public domain so that they may one day become available to 
     scholars and researchers who document our Nation's history.
           Sincerely,
                                                Morgan J. Frankel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 218. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide for equitable duty treatment for certain wool used in 
making suits; to the Committee on Finance.


        temporarily reducing the tariffs on certain wool fabric

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
correct an anomaly in our tariff schedule that harms American companies 
like Hickey-Freeman and other producers of fine wool suits. I refer of 
course to the tariff on fine wool fabric. Hickey-Freeman has produced 
fine tailored suits in Rochester, New York since 1899. However, the 
U.S. tariff schedule currently makes it difficult for Hickey-Freeman to 
continue producing such suits in the United States.
  Companies like Hickey-Freeman that must import the very high quality 
wool fabric used to make men's and boys' suits pay a tariff of 30.6 
percent. They compete with companies that import finished wool suits 
from a number of countries. If these imported suits are from Canada or 
Mexico, the importers pay no tariff whatever. From other countries, the 
importers pay a compound duty of 19.2 percent plus 26.4 cents per 
kilogram, or about 19.8 percent ad valorem. Clearly, domestic 
manufacturers of wool suits are placed at a significant price 
disadvantage. Indeed, the tariff structure provides an incentive to 
import finished suits from abroad, rather than manufacture them in the 
United States.
  The bill Senators Schumer, Durbin and I are introducing today would 
correct this problem, at least temporarily. It suspends through 
December 31, 2004 the duty on the finest wool fabrics (known in the 
trade as Super 90s or higher grade)--fabrics that are produced in only 
very limited quantities in the United States. And it would reduce the 
duty for slightly lower grade but still very fine wool fabric (known as 
Super 70s and Super 80s) to 19.8 percent--equivalent to the duty that 
applies to most finished wool suits. The bill also provides that, in 
the event the President proclaims a duty reduction on wool suits, 
corresponding changes would be made to the tariffs applicable to 
``Super 70s'' and ``Super 80s'' grade wool fabric.
  I introduced a similar measure last year. I do so again because of 
the obvious inequity of this tariff inversion, which so clearly puts 
U.S. producers and workers at a competitive disadvantage. This bill 
represents a small step toward modifying a tariff schedule that favors 
foreign producers of wools suits at the expense of U.S. suit makers. We 
should do so permanently, and perhaps, in time, will do so. In the 
meantime, we ought to make this modest start.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 218

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

     SECTION 1. DUTY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FABRICS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of the U.S. notes the following 
     new note:
       ``13. For purposes of headings 9902.51.11 and 9902.51.12, 
     the term `suit' has the same meaning such term has for 
     purposes of headings 6203 and 6204.''; and
       (2) by inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
     headings:


``     9902.51.11      Fabrics, of carded
                        or combed wool,
                        all the foregoing
                        certified by the
                        importer as
                        `Super 70's' or
                        `Super 80's'
                        intended for use
                        in making suits,
                        suit-type jackets
                        or trousers
                        (provided for in
                        subheadings
                        5111.11.70,
                        5111.19.60,
                        5112.11.20, or
                        5112.19.90)......  19.8%        No change         No change         On or before 12/
                                                                                             31/2004
       9902.51.12      Fabrics, of carded
                        or combed wool,
                        all the foregoing
                        certified by the
                        importer as
                        `Super 90's' or
                        higher grade
                        intended for use
                        in making suits,
                        suit-type jackets
                        or trousers
                        (provided for in
                        subheadings
                        5111.11.70,
                        5111.19.60,
                        5112.11.20, or
                        5112.19.90)......  Free         Free (CA, IL,
                                                         MX)              No change         On or before 12/
                                                                                             31/2004          ''
                                                                                                               .

       (b) Staged Rate Reduction.--Any staged reduction of a rate 
     of duty set forth in heading 6203.31.00 of the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States that is proclaimed by 
     the President on or after the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall also apply to the corresponding rate of duty set forth 
     in heading 9902.51.11 of such Schedule (as added by 
     subsection (a)).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
     warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 219. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States 
Customs Service; to the Committee on Finance.


       introduction of the northern border trade facilitation act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Northern 
Border Trade Facilitation Act, a bill that addresses the urgent need 
for increased Customs inspectors and technology along the U.S.-Canadian 
border.
  The U.S.-Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the 
world. Canada is also our largest trading partner, with two-way trade 
surpassing $1 billion a day. Yet, the resources that we have provided 
to the Customs Service to process traffic and trade across this border 
are woefully deficient. In a hearing before the Senate Finance 
Committee in September 1998, we learned that the current number of 
authorized Customs inspectors working on the northern border remains 
essentially the same as it was in 1980, despite the fact that the 
number of commercial entries they must process has increased sixfold 
since then, from 1 million to 6 million per year. The increased 
workload reflects of course the tremendous growth in U.S.-Canada trade: 
two-way trade in 1988, the year before the U.S.-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement entered into force, was $194 billion. By 1997, the volume had 
doubled--to $387 billion. There has also been an enormous expansion in 
both

[[Page S666]]

commercial and passenger traffic across this border.
  The resources available to the Customs Service over the last decade 
have not kept pace with this enormous growth in workload. As a result, 
increased congestion and delays are evident at crossings all along the 
U.S.-Canadian border.
  This bill aims to correct these problems by authorizing the 
additional manpower and technology necessary to handle the increase in 
trade and traffic between the United States and Canada. In particular, 
this bill authorizes 375 additional ``primary lane'' inspectors and 125 
new cargo inspectors for the northern border, as well as 40 special 
agents and 10 intelligence agents. The bill also authorizes $29.240 
million for equipment and technology for the northern border.
  The bill will also accord Customs the statutory authorization to 
continue providing so-called ``preclearance services,'' whereby Customs 
inspects passengers and baggage prior to their departure from a foreign 
country rather than upon arrival in the United States. This program 
began in 1952 and has helped facilitate travel and decrease congestion 
at JFK international Airport and other ports of entry. Customs has 
indicated that without this new statutory authority, it will be unable 
to continue providing these services.
  Finally, this legislation gives Customs the authority to use $50 
million of the total amounts collected from the merchandise processing 
fee to modernize its automated commercial systems used to track and 
process imports and exports. Customs' efforts to modernize these 
systems are several years behind schedule and underfunded. The funds 
authorized by this bill constitute an essential step in providing 
Customs with the necessary resources to continue its modernization 
efforts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 219

       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 ``Northern Border Trade 
     Facilitation Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and Canada share the longest 
     undefended border in the world.
       (2) The United States and Canada enjoy the world's largest 
     bilateral trading relationship, and that relationship is 
     continuing to expand. Two-way trade between the United States 
     and Canada has more than doubled since the United States-
     Canada Free Trade Agreement was implemented, increasing from 
     $153,000,000,000 in 1988 to $320,000,000,000 in 1997.
       (3) On February 24, 1995, the United States and Canada 
     agreed to the Canada/United States of America Accord on Our 
     Shared Border (in this Act referred to as the ``Shared Border 
     Accord'') to promote common objectives along the border, 
     including--
       (A) facilitating the movement of commercial goods and 
     people between both countries;
       (B) reducing the costs of border management; and
       (C) enhancing protections against drugs, smuggling, and the 
     illegal and irregular movement of people.
       (4) The Shared Border Accord has already resulted in 
     increased harmonization, shared training, and joint 
     facilities between United States and Canadian customs 
     agencies.
       (5) Increased trade has resulted in a significant increase 
     in merchandise entries and cross-border traffic between the 
     United States and Canada. For example--
       (A) formal entries of merchandise on the Northern border 
     have increased sixfold from 1,000,000 in 1980 to 6,000,000 in 
     1997;
       (B) the number of individuals crossing the Northern border 
     has more than doubled from 54,000,000 in 1989 to 112,000,000 
     in 1997; and
       (C) approximately 40,000,000 privately-owned vehicles cross 
     the Northern land border annually.
       (6) The staffing and technology acquisitions of the Customs 
     Service have not kept pace with the increased trade and 
     traffic along the Northern border. For example--
       (A) the current number of authorized United States Customs 
     inspectors along the United States-Canadian border is 
     essentially the same as the number employed in 1980;
       (B) United States Customs understaffing is the primary 
     cause of congestion at border crossings;
       (C) Customs Service acquisitions of new technology for 
     border management have been principally deployed on the 
     Southern border despite the enormous growth in trade and 
     traffic across the United States-Canadian border; and
       (D) outmoded technologies and inadequate equipment have 
     increased congestion along the Northern border.
       (7) Since 1952, the Customs Service has performed 
     preclearance activities in Canada, inspecting passengers and 
     baggage prior to their departure from Canada rather than upon 
     arrival in the United States. Such preclearance activities 
     have facilitated the movement of people and merchandise 
     across the United States-Canadian border.
       (8) The Customs Service has stated that it is eliminating 
     the preclearance positions because it believes that it no 
     longer has the statutory authority to fund the positions.
       (9) Loss of these positions would increase congestion and 
     delays at United States ports as the Customs Service would 
     require inspections to be performed in the United States, 
     rather than abroad.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to facilitate 
     commerce and the movement of people and traffic across the 
     United States-Canadian border, while maintaining enforcement, 
     by--
       (1) authorizing the funds necessary to open all of the 
     Customs Service's primary inspection lanes along the United 
     States-Canadian border during peak hours;
       (2) authorizing the funds necessary to supply the Customs 
     Service with the appropriate advanced technology to conduct 
     inspections along the United States-Canadian border and to 
     participate fully in the Shared Border Accord;
       (3) authorizing the Customs Service to pay for preclearance 
     positions in Canada out of the funds already being collected 
     from passenger processing fees; and
       (4) authorizing the Customs Service to use a portion of the 
     funds collected from the merchandise processing fee to 
     develop automated commercial systems to facilitate the 
     processing of merchandise.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS 
SERVICE FOR ENHANCED INSPECTION AND TRADE FACILITATION ALONG THE UNITED 
                         STATES-CANADIAN BORDER

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       In order to reduce commercial delays and congestion, open 
     all primary lanes during peak hours at ports on the northern 
     border, and enhance the investigative resources of the 
     Customs Service, there are authorized to be appropriated for 
     salaries, expenses, and equipment for the United States 
     Customs Service for purposes of carrying out this title--
       (1) $75,896,800 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (2) $43,931,790 for fiscal year 2001.

     SEC. 102. PEAK HOURS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT 
                   FOR THE UNITED STATES-CANADA BORDER.

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 
     101, $49,314,800 in fiscal year 2000 and $41,273,590 in 
     fiscal year 2001 shall be for--
       (1) a net increase of 375 inspectors for the United States-
     Canadian border, in order to open all primary lanes during 
     peak hours and enhance investigative resources;
       (2) a net increase of 125 inspectors to be distributed at 
     large cargo facilities on the United States-Canadian border 
     as needed to process and screen cargo (including rail cargo) 
     and reduce commercial waiting times; and
       (3) a net increase of 40 special agents, and 10 
     intelligence analysts to facilitate the activities of the 
     additional inspectors authorized by paragraphs (1) and (2).

     SEC. 103. CARGO INSPECTION EQUIPMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES-
                   CANADA BORDER.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under section 101, 
     $26,582,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition 
     and other expenses associated with implementation and 
     deployment of cargo inspection equipment along the United 
     States-Canadian border as follows:
       (1) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (2) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (3) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (4) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (5) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (6) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (7) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors 
     to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic 
     volume.
       (8) $600,000 for 30 fiber optic scopes.
       (9) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate;
       (10) $3,000,000 for 10 x-ray vans with particle detectors.
       (11) $40,000 for 8 AM loop radio systems.
       (12) $400,000 for 100 vehicle counters.
       (13) $1,200,000 for 12 examination tool trucks.
       (14) $2,400,000 for 3 dedicated commuter lanes.
       (15) $1,050,000 for 3 automated targeting systems.
       (16) $572,000 for 26 weigh-in-motion sensors.
       (17) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communication Systems (TECS).

[[Page S667]]

       (b) Fiscal Year 2001.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2001 under section 101, $2,658,200 shall be for 
     the maintenance and support of the equipment and training of 
     personnel to maintain and support the equipment described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment; 
     Transfer of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 2000 under section 101 
     for the acquisition of equipment other than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment described in 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the amount specified in 
     any of paragraphs (1) through (17) of subsection (a) for 
     equipment specified in any other of such paragraphs (1) 
     through (17).
              TITLE II--ADDITIONAL PRECLEARANCE ACTIVITIES

     SEC. 201. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       (a) Additional Preclearance Activities.--Section 
     13031(f)(3)(A)(iii) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)(3)(A)(iii)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(iii) to the extent funds remain available after making 
     reimbursements under clause (ii), in providing salaries for 
     up to 50 full-time equivalent inspectional positions to 
     provide preclearance services.''.
       (b) Collection of Fees for Passengers Aboard Commercial 
     Vessels.--Section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraph (5) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), for the arrival of 
     each passenger aboard a commercial vessel or commercial 
     aircraft from a place outside the United States (other than a 
     place referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)), $5.
       ``(B) For the arrival of each passenger aboard a commercial 
     vessel from a place referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), 
     $1.75''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``(A) No fee'' and 
     inserting ``(A) Except as provided in subsection (a)(5)(B), 
     no fee''.
       (c) Use of Merchandise Processing Fees for Automated 
     Commercial Systems.--Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Of the amounts collected under paragraphs (9) and 
     (10) of subsection (a), $50,000,000 shall be available to the 
     Customs Service, subject to appropriations Acts, for 
     automated commercial systems. Amounts made available under 
     this paragraph shall remain available until expended.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NOYNIHAN:
  S. 220. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to consolidate and 
improve the trade adjustment assistance and NAFTA transitional 
adjustment assistance programs under that Act, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


          trade adjustment assistance improvements act of 1999

  Nr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am introducing today legislation that 
will preserve a decades-old commitment by the United States Government 
to the American worker. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Improvements 
Act of 1999 will ensure that the trade adjustment assistance programs 
for workers and for firms, first established in 1962 and now set to 
expire on June 30, 1999, will continue uninterrupted through September 
30, 2001. The legislation also proposes a number of reforms to these 
programs to help make them into more effective tools for assisting 
workers who lose their jobs as a result of competition from imports or 
shifts in production to overseas sites.
  By way of background, the Trade Adjustment Assistance program 
provides eligible workers with income support, training and other forms 
of assistance. It also grants technical help to eligible companies to 
improve their manufacturing, marketing and other capabilities in the 
face of import competition.
  First outlined in 1954 by United Steel Workers President David 
MacDonald, the basic Trade Adjustment Assistance program was enacted in 
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 as part of President Kennedy's vision 
of American trade policy. It was based on a modest and fair request 
from American labor: if some workers are to lose their jobs as a result 
of freer trade that benefits the country as a whole, a program should 
be established to help those workers find new employment. The Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program was the response. As Luther Hodges, 
President Kennedy's Secretary of Commerce, told the Finance Committee 
during consideration of the Trade Expansion Act:

       Both workers and firms may encounter special difficulties 
     when they feel the adverse effects of import competition. 
     This is import competition caused directly by the Federal 
     Government when it lowers tariffs as part of a trade 
     agreement undertaken for the long-term economic good of the 
     country as a whole.
       The Federal Government has a special responsibility in this 
     case. When the Government has contributed to economic 
     injuries, it should also contribute to the economic 
     adjustments required to repair them.

  The 1962 Act established the basic TAA programs for workers and for 
firms. Then in 1993, Congress included in the implementing legislation 
for the North American Free Trade Agreement a new adjustment assistance 
program for workers--the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance 
program. Unlike the basic TAA program for workers, which provides 
training and income support only for workers who lose their jobs as a 
result of competition from imports, the NAFTA-TAA program also provides 
assistance when workers lose their jobs because their factories have 
shifted production to Mexico or Canada. Moreover, the training 
requirements under the two programs differ somewhat. The bill I am 
introducing today incorporates a number of modifications to the worker 
TAA programs that the Administration, in consultation with concerned 
worker groups, has proposed. And I must also acknowledge the 
considerable efforts of Congressmen Matsui and Bonior on this matter 
during the last Congress, which yielded a reform bill similar to the 
one I am introducing today.
  The most significant of the reforms would merge the two separate 
programs for workers, in an effort to make the program more effective 
and responsible to workers, while at the same time reducing 
administrative costs. Key features of the merged programs include the 
following:
  (1) Eligible workers may receive benefits because production has 
shifted to any country, and not just to either Mexico or Canada as the 
law currently provides;
  (2) The Secretary of Labor will expedite her consideration of 
petitions for assistance. Instead of the current 60-day review of TAA 
cases, this bill would require that determinations be made within 40 
days;
  (3) Certified workers will be required to enroll in training within 
16 weeks of layoff or eight weeks after being certified as eligible for 
TAA benefits, whichever is later, in order to qualify for extended 
income support while in training. This provision is intended to promote 
the earliest possible adjustment; and
  (4) The bill provides for a net increase of $40 million in training 
funds to ensure that adequate resources will be available to provide 
workers with the training they need to make the transition to a new 
job.
  Mr. President, it is essential that the United States Congress live 
up to its longstanding commitment to the American worker. The Trade 
Adjustment Assistance programs must not be allowed to lapse. We have an 
obligation, as well, to ensure that these programs operate in an 
effective and efficient manner. The reforms proposed by the 
Administration deserve the Senate's consideration. Time is of the 
essence, however, and I urge that the Senate act promptly to 
reauthorize the TAA programs.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 220

       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 ``Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Improvements Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSOLIDATED TRADE ADJUSTMENT 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2317) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 245. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Labor for each of the

[[Page S668]]

     fiscal years 1999 through 2001 such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the purposes of this chapter.''.
       (2) Temporary extension of NAFTA assistance.--Section 
     250(d)(2) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``June 30, 1999, shall not exceed $15,000,000'' and 
     inserting September 30, 1999, shall not exceed $30,000,000''.
       (b) Repeal of NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance 
     Program.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter D of chapter 2 of title II of 
     such Act (19 U.S.C. 2331) is hereby repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 249A of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2322) is hereby repealed.
       (B) The table of contents of such Act is amended--
       (i) by striking the item relating to section 249A; and
       (ii) by striking the items relating to subchapter D of 
     chapter 2 of title II.
       (c) Termination.--Section 285 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2271 
     note) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (c)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     assistance, vouchers, allowances, or other payments may be 
     provided under chapter 2, and no technical assistance may be 
     provided under chapter 3, after September 30, 2001.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``June 30, 1999,'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1999,''.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) Subsections (a) and (c).--The amendments made by 
     subsections (a) and (c) take effect on--
       (A) July 1, 1999; or
       (B) the date of enactment of this Act,
     whichever is earlier.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     take effect on--
       (A) October 1, 1999; or
       (B) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
     whichever is later.

     SEC. 3. FILING OF PETITIONS AND PROVISION OF RAPID RESPONSE 
                   ASSISTANCE; EXPEDITED REVIEW OF PETITIONS BY 
                   SECRETARY OF LABOR.

       (a) Filing of Petitions and Provision of Rapid Response 
     Assistance.--Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2271(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) A petition for certification of eligibility to 
     apply for adjustment assistance for a group of workers under 
     this chapter may be filed with the Governor of the State in 
     which such workers' firm or subdivision is located by any of 
     the following:
       ``(A) The group of workers (including workers in an 
     agricultural firm or subdivision of any agricultural firm).
       ``(B) The certified or recognized union or other duly 
     authorized representative of such workers.
       ``(C) Employers of such workers, one-stop operators or one-
     stop partners (as defined in section 101 of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801)), or State employment 
     agencies, on behalf of such workers.
       ``(2) Upon receipt of a petition filed under paragraph (1), 
     the Governor shall--
       ``(A) immediately transmit the petition to the Secretary of 
     Labor (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 
     `Secretary');
       ``(B) ensure that rapid response assistance and basic 
     readjustment services authorized under other Federal laws are 
     made available to the workers covered by the petition to the 
     extent authorized under such laws; and
       ``(C) assist the Secretary in the review of the petition by 
     verifying such information and providing such other 
     assistance as the Secretary may request.
       ``(3) Upon receipt of the petition, the Secretary shall 
     promptly publish notice in the Federal Register that the 
     Secretary has received the petition and initiated an 
     investigation.''.
       (b) Expedited Review of Petitions by Secretary of Labor.--
     Section 223(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 2273(a)) is amended in 
     the first sentence by striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``40 
     days''.

     SEC. 4. ADDITION OF SHIFT IN PRODUCTION AS BASIS FOR 
                   ELIGIBILITY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) A group of workers (including workers in any 
     agricultural firm or subdivision of an agricultural firm) 
     shall be certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for 
     adjustment assistance under this chapter pursuant to a 
     petition filed under section 221 if the Secretary determines 
     that--
       ``(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in 
     such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm 
     have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened 
     to become totally or partially separated; and
       ``(2)(A)(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm 
     or subdivision have decreased absolutely;
       ``(ii) imports of articles like or directly competitive 
     with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have 
     increased; and
       ``(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
     contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat 
     of separation and to the decline in the sales or production 
     of such firm or subdivision; or
       ``(B) there has been a shift in production by such workers' 
     firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or 
     directly competitive with articles which are produced by such 
     firm or subdivision.''.

     SEC. 5. INFORMATION ON CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS.

       Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(e) The Secretary shall collect and maintain 
     information--
       ``(1) identifying the countries to which firms have shifted 
     production resulting in certifications under section 
     222(a)(2)(B), including the number of such certifications 
     relating to each country; and
       ``(2) to the extent feasible, identifying the countries 
     from which imports of articles have resulted in 
     certifications under section 222(a)(2)(A), including the 
     number of such certifications relating to each country.''.

     SEC. 6. ENROLLMENT IN TRAINING REQUIREMENT.

       Section 231(a)(5)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2291(a)(5)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
       (2) by adding ``and'' after the comma at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) the enrollment required under clause (i) occurs no 
     later than the latest of--
       ``(I) the last day of the 16th week after the worker's most 
     recent total separation from adversely affected employment 
     which meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2);
       ``(II) the last day of the 8th week after the week in which 
     the Secretary issues a certification covering the worker; or
       ``(III) 45 days after the later of the dates specified in 
     subclause (I) or (II), if the Secretary determines there are 
     extenuating circumstances that justify an extension in the 
     enrollment period;''.

     SEC. 7. WAIVERS OF TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 231(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2291(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) The Secretary may issue a written statement to a 
     worker waiving the enrollment in the training requirement 
     described in subsection (a)(5)(A) if the Secretary determines 
     that such training requirement is not feasible or appropriate 
     for the worker, as indicated by 1 or more of the following:
       ``(A) The worker has been notified that the worker will be 
     recalled by the firm from which the qualifying separation 
     occurred.
       ``(B) The worker has marketable skills as determined 
     pursuant to an assessment of the worker, which may include 
     the profiling system under section 303(j) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)), carried out in accordance 
     with guidelines issued by the Secretary.
       ``(C) The worker is within 2 years of meeting all 
     requirements for entitlement to old-age insurance benefits 
     under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.) (except for application therefor).
       ``(D) The worker is unable to participate in training due 
     to the health of the worker, except that a waiver under this 
     subparagraph shall not be construed to exempt a worker from 
     requirements relating to the availability for work, active 
     search for work, or refusal to accept work under Federal or 
     State unemployment compensation laws.
       ``(E) The first available enrollment date for the approved 
     training of the worker is within 45 days after the date of 
     the determination made under this paragraph, or, if later, 
     there are extenuating circumstances for the delay in 
     enrollment, as determined pursuant to guidelines issued by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(F) There are insufficient funds available for training 
     under this chapter, taking into account the limitation under 
     section 236(a)(2)(A).
       ``(G) The duration of training appropriate for the 
     individual to obtain suitable employment exceeds the 
     individual's maximum entitlement to basic and additional 
     trade readjustment allowances and, in addition, financial 
     support available through other Federal or State programs, 
     including title III of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) or chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, that would enable the 
     individual to complete a suitable training program cannot be 
     assured.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall specify the duration of the 
     waiver under paragraph (1) and shall periodically review the 
     waiver to determine whether the basis for issuing the waiver 
     remains applicable. If at any time the Secretary determines 
     such basis is no longer applicable to the worker, the 
     Secretary shall revoke the waiver.
       ``(3) Pursuant to the agreement under section 239, the 
     Secretary may authorize the State or State agency to carry 
     out activities described in paragraph (1) (except for the 
     determination under subparagraphs (F) and (G) of paragraph 
     (1)). Such agreement shall include a requirement that the 
     State or State agency submit to the Secretary the written 
     statements provided pursuant to paragraph (1) and a statement 
     of the reasons for the waiver.
       ``(4) The Secretary shall submit an annual report to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives identifying the 
     number of workers who received waivers and the average 
     duration of such waivers issued under this subsection during 
     the preceding year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 231(a)(5)(C) of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2291(a)(5)(C)) is amended by striking 
     ``certified''.

[[Page S669]]

     SEC. 8. PROVISION OF TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOWANCES DURING 
                   BREAKS IN TRAINING.

       Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293(f)) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``14 days'' and inserting ``30 days''.

     SEC. 9. INCREASE IN ANNUAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS FOR 
                   TRAINING.

       Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2296(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``$80,000,000'' and all 
     that follows through $70,000,000 and inserting 
     ``$150,000,000''.

     SEC. 10. ELIMINATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 236(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2296(d)) is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     takes effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 11. COORDINATION WITH ONE-STOP DELIVERY SYSTEMS, THE JOB 
                   TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT, AND THE WORKFORCE 
                   INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998.

       (a) Coordination With One-Stop Delivery Systems.--Section 
     235 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2295) is amended by 
     inserting ``, including the services provided through one-
     stop delivery systems described in section 134(c) of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (19 U.S.C. 2864(c))'' before 
     the period at the end of the first sentence.
       (b) Coordination With Job Training Partnership Act and 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998.--Section 239(e) such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2311(e)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``or title I of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998'' and inserting ``or under 
     the provisions relating to dislocated worker employment and 
     training activities set forth in chapter 5 of subtitle B of 
     title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     2861 et seq.), as the case may be,''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Such coordination shall include use of common reporting 
     systems and elements, including common elements relating to 
     participant data and performance outcomes (including 
     employment, retention of employment, and wages).''.

     SEC. 12. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Part II of subchapter B of chapter 2 of 
     title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2295 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 238A. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Application.--Any adversely affected worker covered 
     by a certification under subchapter A of this chapter may 
     file an application with the Secretary for the provision of 
     supportive services, including transportation, child and 
     dependent care, and other similar services.
       ``(b) Conditions.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     filed under subsection (a) and provide supportive services to 
     an adversely affected worker only if the Secretary determines 
     that--
       ``(1) the provision of such services is necessary to enable 
     the worker to participate in or complete training; and
       ``(2) the provision of such services is consistent with the 
     provision of supportive services to participants under the 
     program of employment and training assistance for dislocated 
     workers carried out under title III of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform 
     Act of 1999, or under the provisions relating to dislocated 
     worker employment and training activities set forth in 
     chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2861 et seq.), as the case 
     may be.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of such 
     Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 238 the following:

``Sec. 238A. Supportive services.''.

     SEC. 13. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 225.--Section 225(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2275(b)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) by striking ``or subchapter D''.
       (b) Section 240.--Section 240(a) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 
     2312(a)) is amended by striking ``subchapter B of''.

     SEC. 14. AVAILABILITY OF CONTINGENCY FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2317), as amended by section 2, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``There are authorized'' and inserting 
     ``(a) In General.--There are authorized''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Contingency Funds.--Subject to the limitation 
     contained in section 236(a)(2), if in any fiscal year the 
     funds available to carry out the programs under this chapter 
     are exhausted, there shall be made available from funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated amounts sufficient to 
     carry out such programs for the remainder of the fiscal 
     year.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on--
       (1) July 1, 1999; or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act,
     whichever is earlier.

     SEC. 15. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking ``for the period 
     beginning October 1, 1998, and ending June 30, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2001''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     takes effect on--
       (1) July 1, 1999; or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act,
     whichever is earlier.

     SEC. 16. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROVISION.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, this Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 
     on--
       (1) October 1, 1999; or
       (2) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,

     whichever is later.
       (b) Transition.--The Secretary of Labor may promulgate such 
     rules as the Secretary determines to be necessary to provide 
     for the implementation of the amendments made by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 221. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act to combat fraud and price-gouging committed in 
connection with the provision of consumer goods and services for the 
cleanup, repair, and recovery from the effects of a major disaster 
declared by the President, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


           the disaster victims crime prevention act of 1999

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Disaster Victims 
Crime Prevention Act of 1999, which would stop fraud against victims of 
federal disasters. As with legislation I offered in the past, my 
measure would make it a federal crime to defraud persons through the 
sale of materials or services for cleanup, repair, and recovery 
following a federally declared disaster. The senior senator from Hawaii 
[Mr. Inouye] joins me in sponsoring this bill.
  Everyone knows the tremendous costs incurred during a natural 
disaster. During the winter of 1997 through the spring of 1998, there 
were tornadoes and flooding in the southeastern states that caused $1 
billion in damage and resulted in at least 132 deaths. From December 
1996 to January 1997, severe flooding over portions of California, 
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Montana resulted in $3 billion in 
damages, while in September 1996, Hurricane Fran struck North Carolina 
and Virginia at a cost of $5 billion. During the past decade, there 
have been a number of deadly natural disasters throughout the United 
States and its territories including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, 
tornadoes, ice storms, wildfires, mudslides, and blizzards.
  Through round-the-clock media coverage, Americans have front row 
seats to the destruction caused by these catastrophic events. We 
sympathetically watch television as families sift through the debris of 
their lives and as men and women assess the loss of their businesses. 
We witness the concern of others, such as Red Cross volunteers passing 
out blankets and food and citizens traveling hundreds of miles to help 
rebuild strangers' homes.
  Despite the outpouring of public support that follows these 
disasters, there are unscrupulous individuals who prey on the trusting 
and unsuspecting victims whose immediate concerns are applying for 
disaster assistance, seeking temporary shelter, and rebuilding their 
lives.
  My interest in this was heighten by Hurricane Iniki, which on 
September 11, 1992, leveled the island of Kauai in Hawaii and caused 
$1.6 billion in damage. As the people of Kauai began the recovery and 
rebuilding process, a contractor promising quick home repair took 
disaster benefits from numerous homeowners and fled the area without 
completing promised construction. Most of these fraud victims never 
found relief.
  Every disaster has examples of individuals who are victimized twice--
first by the disaster and later by unconscionable price hikes and 
fraudulent contractors. In the wake of the 1993 Midwest flooding, Iowa 
officials found that some vendors raised the price of portable toilets 
from $60 a month to $60 a day! In other flood-hit areas, carpet 
cleaners hiked their prices to $350 per hour, while telemarketers set 
up telephone banks to solicit funds for phony flood-related charities. 
Nor will television viewers forget the scenes of beleaguered South 
Floridians buying generators, plastic sheeting, and bottled water at 
outrageous prices in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew.
  The Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1999 would criminalize 
some

[[Page S670]]

of the activities undertaken by unprincipled people whose sole intent 
is to defraud hard-working men and women. This legislation will make it 
a federal crime to defraud persons through the sale of materials or 
services for cleanup, repair, and recovery following a federally 
declared disaster.
  While the Stafford Natural Disaster Act currently provides for civil 
and criminal penalties for the misuse of disaster funds, it fails to 
address contractor fraud. To fill this gap, our legislation would make 
it a federal crime to take money fraudulently from a disaster victim 
and fail to provide the agreed upon material or service for the 
cleanup, repair, and recovery.
  The Stafford Act also fails to address price gouging. Although it is 
the responsibility of the states to impose restrictions on price 
increases prior to a federal disaster declaration, federal penalties 
for price gouging should be imposed once a federal disaster has been 
declared. I am pleased to incorporate a provision in this bill 
initiated by our former colleague and cosponsor of this legislation in 
the 105th Congress, Senator John Glenn, who, following Hurricane 
Andrew, sought to combat price gouging and excessive pricing of goods 
and services legislatively.
  I am pleased to note that there is extensive cooperation among the 
various state and local offices that deal with fraud and consumer 
protection issues, and it is quite common for these fine men and women 
to lend their expertise to their colleagues from out-of-state during a 
natural disaster. This exchange of experiences and practical solutions 
has created a strong support network.
  My bill would ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
develop public information in order to ensure that residents within a 
federally declared disaster area do not fall victim to fraud. The 
development of public information materials to advise disaster victims 
about ways to detect and avoid fraud would come under the jurisdiction 
of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  At the present time, FEMA, under the guidance of its director, James 
Lee Witt, has done an outstanding job in meeting natural disasters. I 
believe there is only admiration and praise for the cooperation that 
now exists between FEMA and state agencies dealing with natural 
disasters. Therefore, I have no doubt that government at all levels 
would benefit from the dissemination of federal anti-fraud related 
material following the declaration of a disaster by the President.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that 
sends a strong message to anyone thinking of defrauding a disaster 
victim or raising prices unnecessarily on everyday commodities during a 
natural disaster.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 22. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for 
national standard to prohibit the operation of motor vehicles by 
intoxicated individuals; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


                   safe and sober streets act of 1999

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Safe and 
Sober Streets Act of 1999 with Senator DeWine--a bill that will, if 
enacted into law, save 500-700 lives a year. The Safe and Sober Streets 
Act establishes a legal limit for drunken driving at .08 Blood Alcohol 
Content (BAC) in all 50 states.
  Mr. President, Senator DeWine and I offered this very bill last March 
as an amendment to the ISTEA reauthorization bill, now known as TEA-21, 
on behalf of the millions victims of drunk driving crashes. We were 
joined by 22 other cosponsors. I am proud to say that the Senate--this 
body--voted 62 to 32 to adopt this amendment. It was supported by one 
half of each caucus.
  The Senate cast this strong vote because it knew that establishing 
.08 as the legal definition of drunken driving is responsible and will 
save lives. The Senate knew that this bill would encourage states to 
adopt .08 BAC laws. Without it, states will get bogged down in 
legislative gridlock and will not be able to pass their own .08 BAC 
laws. As a result, lives that could have been saved will have instead 
been lost.
  Mr. President, the Senate spoke loud and clear when it voted to adopt 
.08. We voted to save lives. We voted to protect our families from the 
grief associated with losing a loved one to drunk driving. We resisted 
the pressure of a powerful special interest and voted against drunk 
driving. The President called on Congress to pass the bill and he would 
have signed it into law.
  The problem came after the Senate's resounding vote. The special 
interests stepped up their pressure tactics to stop our .08 amendment. 
Despite commitments granted, the House Rules Committee denied a vote. 
Democracy was squelched in back-room politics.
  Last May, Mr. President, the TEA-21 conference leaders--seven 
people--ignored the will of the Senate and the American people. The 
final TEA-21 bill dropped the .08 BAC provision and replaced it with a 
$500 million, six-year incentive grant program specifically for .08 
BAC. The incentive grant program, as constructed in TEA-21, will not 
produce national .08 standard.
  Mr. President, when it comes to an issue like the minimum drinking 
age, which I authored here in the Senate in 1984, or the Zero Tolerance 
for underage drinking and driving, authored by Senator Byrd in 1995 or 
.08 in 1998, there are only two things the federal government can do. 
We can encourage the states to act by giving them money or withholding 
it until they have acted. The former has never worked, but the latter 
already has.
  Withholding federal resources, which has been tested and proven 
constitutionally sound, has worked. All 50 states have a minimum 
drinking age of 21. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
tell us that the 21 law has saved the lives of over 10,000 precious 
young Americans. South Carolina just became the 50th state to pass a 
Zero Tolerance statute. No state has ever lost federal highway dollars 
because of the federal government's efforts to insure that our nation's 
young people do not drink and drive.
  The only consequence has been that lives have been saved.
  Mr. President, under the bill that In am introducing today, all 
states would have three years in which to adopt .08 BAC as the DWI 
definition. After those three years, states would, as with the 21 
drinking age and Zero Tolerance, face a withholding of five percent of 
their highway construction funds. Those who voted against the Safe and 
Sober Streets Act or prevented a vote in the other body said this was a 
choice between sanctions and incentives. It is not. This was, and is, a 
choice between what works and what does not.
  Worse, the incentive grant program contained in TEA-21 is a classic 
case of how not to construct an incentive grant program. For example, 
most of the money goes to states that have already adopted .08 laws. 
Why provide incentive grants to states which have already acted? What 
incentive does a state need to pass .08 if it has already passed .08? 
Yet, that's what the $500 million incentive grant program does.
  Mr. President, we have provided a fig leaf to cover our shame for 
failing to do what 70 percent of the American people expected us to 
do--to override the narrow special interest and act to protect public 
health and safety.
  Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC is the right level for DWI. 
Adopting this level will simply bring the United States into the ranks 
of most other industrialized nations in setting reasonable drunk 
driving limits. Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Austria and 
Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France, Belgium, Finland and the 
Netherlands' limit is .05 BAC. Sweden's is .02 BAC.
  Last year, supporters of our amendment included President Clinton. 
The National Safety Council. The Center for Disease Control. The 
American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Kemper, State Farm and 
Nationwide insurance companies. Mothers Against Drunk Driving. American 
College of Emergency Physicians. Consumer Federation of America. 
National Fire Protection Association. Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety. Newspaper editorial boards, such as The New York Times, The 
Washington Post, and The Baltimore Sun.
  But more important than the support of scores of businesses, health 
and science organizations, governmental agencies, public opinion 
leaders, is the support from the families and friends of victims of 
drunk driving--like the Fraziers of Westminister, Maryland,

[[Page S671]]

and Louise and Ronald Hammell, of Tuckerton, New Jersey. Brenda and 
Randy lost their nine year old daughter, Ashley, to drunk driving. 
Louise and Ronald lost their 17 year old son, Matthew, to drunk 
driving.
  Mr. President, organizations who support this bill have one thing in 
mind: the public's interest. The health and safety of our communities 
and of our roads is in the public's interest.
  Every thirty minutes, someone in America--a mother, husband, child, 
grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol related crash. In the 
United States, 39 percent of all fatal crashes are alcohol related. 
Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and 
injuries.
  .08 is a reasonable and responsible level at which to draw the line 
in fighting drunk driving. It is at .08 that a person is drunk and 
should not be driving.
  Adopting .08 BAC is just common sense. Think of it this way: you are 
in your car at night, driving on a two lane road. Your child is sitting 
next to you. You see a car's headlights approaching. The driver is a 
170 pound man who just came from a bar, and drank five bottles of beer 
in one hour on an empty stomach. If he were driving in Maryland, he 
would not be considered drunk. But if he were driving in Virginia, he 
would be. Does this make sense? We should not have a patchwork quilt of 
laws when we are dealing with drunk driving.
  This bill--.08--simply reflects what sound science and research 
proves, and interjects some reality into our definition of drunk 
driving and applies it to all 50 states.
  No objective, credible person or organization can deny that adopting 
.08 BAC laws is the right thing to do. This bill does not eliminate the 
incentive grant program. In deference to those who authorized the 
incentive grant program, but who also supported my .08 bill, this bill 
specifically keeps the grant program. States will have the benefit of 
incentives for the first five years. After that, the money will be 
withheld. But, given past experience, I expect no state to lose funds.
  The Senate has strongly supported this once. It should do so again. I 
urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 222

       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 ``Safe and Sober Streets Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL STANDARD TO PROHIBIT OPERATION OF MOTOR 
                   VEHICLES BY INTOXICATED INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 165. National standard to prohibit operation of motor 
       vehicles by intoxicated individuals

       ``(a) Withholding of Apportionments for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2003.--The Secretary shall withhold 5 
     percent of the amount required to be apportioned to any State 
     under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) 
     on October 1, 2002, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--The Secretary shall 
     withhold 10 percent (including any amounts withheld under 
     paragraph (1)) of the amount required to be apportioned to 
     any State under each of paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of 
     section 104(b) on October 1, 2003, and on October 1 of each 
     fiscal year thereafter, if the State does not meet the 
     requirements of paragraph (3) on that date.
       ``(3) Requirements.--A State meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the State has enacted and is enforcing a law 
     providing that an individual who has an alcohol concentration 
     of 0.08 percent or greater while operating a motor vehicle in 
     the State is guilty of the offense of driving while 
     intoxicated (or an equivalent offense that carries the 
     greatest penalty under the law of the State for operating a 
     motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol).
       ``(b) Period of Availability; Effect of Compliance and 
     Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Period of availability of withheld funds.--
       ``(A) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2004.--Any 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment to any 
     State on or before September 30, 2004, shall remain available 
     until the end of the third fiscal year following the fiscal 
     year for which the funds are authorized to be appropriated.
       ``(B) Funds withheld after september 30, 2004.--No funds 
     withheld under this section from apportionment to any State 
     after September 30, 2004, shall be available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(2) Apportionment of withheld funds after compliance.--
     If, before the last day of the period for which funds 
     withheld under subsection (a) from apportionment are to 
     remain available for apportionment to a State under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the State meets the requirements of subsection 
     (a)(3), the Secretary shall, on the first day on which the 
     State meets the requirements, apportion to the State the 
     funds withheld under subsection (a) that remain available for 
     apportionment to the State.
       ``(3) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned 
     funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any funds apportioned under paragraph 
     (2) shall remain available for expenditure until the end of 
     the third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     funds are so apportioned.
       ``(B) Treatment of certain funds.--Sums not obligated at 
     the end of the period referred to in subparagraph (A) shall 
     lapse.
       ``(4) Effect of noncompliance.--If, at the end of the 
     period for which funds withheld under subsection (a) from 
     apportionment are available for apportionment to a State 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the State does not meet the 
     requirements of subsection (a)(3), the funds shall lapse.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``165. National standard to prohibit operation of motor vehicles by 
              intoxicated individuals.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 223. A bill to help communities modernize public school 
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                  the public school modernization act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Public 
School Modernization Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined in this 
effort by my cosponsors, Senators Robb, Kennedy, Daschle, Conrad, 
Bingaman, Edwards, Torricelli, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Boxer, and 
Johnson.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is about 
opportunity. If there is one essential job of a responsive government, 
it is to provide opportunity--especially for young Americans. A solid 
education allows young people to open the door to a world of 
opportunity.
  However, too many American children open the door each morning to 
enter a schoolhouse with inadequate facilities for a modern learning 
environment. To help remedy this situation, my Public School 
Modernization Act will fuel a nationwide effort to renovate older 
schools and build new, state-of-art educational facilities.
  Mr. President, that is why this legislation must be at the top of the 
agenda for the 106th Congress. As we face the new millennium, we must 
invest in our young people--our future. Congress must look ahead to the 
challenges of the next century and prepare a new generation of 
Americans to continue our world leadership in innovation, industry, 
arts and science.
  Mr. President, this legislation will improve the very base, the very 
foundation of American education. Our children's educational experience 
begins with the buildings they learn in every day.
  We know the condition of these buildings has a direct impact on 
learning. A Georgetown University study revealed that the achievement 
levels of students taught in substandard educational facilities were 11 
percent lower than students in modern facilities. Similarly, a 1996 
Virginia study also found an 11 percentile point difference between 
students in substandard buildings and those in modern facilities. Both 
of these studies were controlled for other variables, such as a 
student's socioeconomic status.
  Mr. President, this data, and numerous other studies like it, allows 
us to formulate a simple equation: Modern Schools Equal Better 
Learning.
  Unfortunately, too many of our nation's school buildings fall into 
the inadequate category. A 1995 General Accounting Office report 
revealed that one-third of all schools, serving 14 million students, 
need extensive repair or replacement. In addition, 7 million students 
attend school every day with life-threatening safety code violations.

[[Page S672]]

How can we expect our children to effectively focus on their lessons in 
such an environment?
  In my home state of New Jersey we have a range of school 
modernization needs. The condition of low income, urban school 
facilities were at issue in a decades-long lawsuit that was recently 
settled. However, the problem is not just an urban problem. In my 
State, and across the U.S., it is a suburban and rural problem as well.
  For example, suburban Montgomery Township has seen its enrollment 
grow by 99.6 percent over last 6 years. Another suburban district, 
South Brunswick, has seen enrollment grow by 60 percent in the past 
five years. One South Brunswick's student, sixth grader Amy Wolf, told 
me that the overcrowding of facilities has prevented teachers from 
working on a ``one to one'' basis with students.
  This overcrowding often costs students their normal recreation area. 
Former playgrounds and sports fields on many suburban school campuses 
are becoming classroom trailer parks because of escalating enrollment.
  In addition to overcrowding, suburban schools are crumbling. Many of 
these facilities, built quickly in the 1960s, are not holding up well 
and need extensive repair.

  And in older, urban schools the condition and age of buildings is 
making it harder to move more computers into the classrooms or wire 
schools to the Internet. According to the GAO report, nearly half of 
all schools don't have an electrical system ready for the full-scale 
use of computers. In addition, 60 percent lack the conduits necessary 
to connect classrooms to a computer network.
  Mr. President, to remedy this situation, my Public School 
Modernization Act presents school districts all over the country with a 
unique opportunity to renovate existing buildings and build new 
schoolhouses from the ground up. The bill will provide special bond 
authority to school districts that will allow these districts to raise 
the necessary funds for school modernization by offering Federal tax 
credits to bondholders in lieu of traditional interest payments by 
States or school districts.
  The low cost feature for school districts is a simple concept. The 
districts will not be obligated to pay interest to the bondholders. 
Rather the bondholders would receive a Federal tax credit equivalent to 
interest payments.
  Mr. President, these savings will free up local school district funds 
for teaching and learning. The savings could also result in significant 
property tax relief for the community.
  In addition, this federal legislation will not interfere in local 
control of education. The Public School Modernization Act offers 
opportunity--not continuous Federal oversight or Federal agency sign-
off for every project. The act simply requires States and school 
districts to conduct a survey of their school facility needs and make 
sure that the bonding authority is distributed in a way that ensures 
that schools with the greatest needs and least resources do indeed 
benefit from the program.
  This new bond authority will be split between two programs. Most of 
the authority will result from a new program, called Qualified School 
Construction Bonds. The majority of this bond authority, 65 percent, 
will be allocated to States in proportion to each State's share of 
funds under the Title I Basic Grant formula. The remaining 35 percent 
of the authority to issue these special, 15 year bonds, would be 
allocated to the 100 school districts with the largest number of low 
income children and in addition, to as many as 25 districts that 
demonstrate a particular need, such as very high enrollment growth or a 
low level of resources.
  The rest of the bond authority will come from an existing program, 
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997. It also provides a tax credit in lieu of interest, but for a 
variety of school expenses, including school modernization. This bond 
program will be significantly expanded and improved by this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, the time for this legislation is now, and it must be 
enacted during this Congress. The vast majority of Americans support a 
major federal investment in modernizing public schools. It should be a 
bipartisan goal, and I hope that a number of Republicans will cosponsor 
on this bill before it becomes law.
  The Public School Modernization Act is long overdue, especially when 
you consider that President Eisenhower first called for Federal school 
construction legislation in his 1955 State of the Union address. I hope 
we can make this proposal a reality before the 45th anniversary of 
President Eisenhower's call to action.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
  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. 223

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public School Modernization 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to the General Accounting Office, one-third 
     of all elementary and secondary schools in the United States, 
     serving 14,000,000 students, need extensive repair or 
     renovation.
       (2) School infrastructure problems exist across the 
     country, in urban, suburban, and rural school districts.
       (3) Many States and school districts will need to build new 
     schools in order to accommodate increasing student 
     enrollments; the Department of Education has predicted that 
     the Nation will need an additional 6,000 schools by 2006.
       (4) Many schools do not have the physical infrastructure to 
     take advantage of computers and other technology needed to 
     meet the challenges of the next century.
       (5) The Federal Government, by providing tax credits to 
     bondholders to substitute for interest paid by school 
     districts, can lower the costs of State and local school 
     infrastructure investment, creating an incentive for States 
     and localities to increase their own infrastructure 
     improvement efforts and help ensure that all students are 
     able to attend schools that are equipped for the 21st 
     century.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide Federal 
     tax credits to bondholders, in lieu of interest owed by 
     school districts, to help States and localities to modernize 
     public school facilities and build the additional public 
     schools needed to educate the increasing number of students 
     who will enroll in the next decade.

     SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter U of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to incentives for 
     education zones) is amended to read as follows:

 ``PART IV--INCENTIVES FOR QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZATION BONDS

``Sec. 1397E. Credit to holders of qualified public school 
              modernization bonds.
``Sec. 1397F. Qualified zone academy bonds.
``Sec. 1397G. Qualified school construction bonds.

     ``SEC. 1397E. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL 
                   MODERNIZATION BONDS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who 
     holds a qualified public school modernization bond on the 
     credit allowance date of such bond which occurs during the 
     taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the 
     tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year the amount 
     determined under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined 
     under this subsection with respect to any qualified public 
     school modernization bond is the amount equal to the product 
     of--
       ``(A) the credit rate determined by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (2) for the month in which such bond was issued, 
     multiplied by
       ``(B) the face amount of the bond held by the taxpayer on 
     the credit allowance date.
       ``(2) Determination.--During each calendar month, the 
     Secretary shall determine a credit rate which shall apply to 
     bonds issued during the following calendar month. The credit 
     rate for any month is the percentage which the Secretary 
     estimates will on average permit the issuance of qualified 
     public school modernization bonds without discount and 
     without interest cost to the issuer.
       ``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a) 
     for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in 
     section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
       ``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of 
     subchapter A (other than subpart C thereof, relating to 
     refundable credits).
       ``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable 
     under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by 
     paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be 
     carried to the succeeding taxable year and

[[Page S673]]

     added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(d) Qualified Public School Modernization Bond; Credit 
     Allowance Date.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified public school modernization bond.--The term 
     `qualified public school modernization bond' means--
       ``(A) a qualified zone academy bond, and
       ``(B) a qualified school construction bond.
       ``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance 
     date' means, with respect to any issue, the last day of the 
     1-year period beginning on the date of issuance of such issue 
     and the last day of each successive 1-year period thereafter.
       ``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given to such term by 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965. Such term includes the local educational agency that 
     serves the District of Columbia but does not include any 
     other State agency.
       ``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
       ``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of 
     Columbia and any possession of the United States.
       ``(4) Public school facility.--The term `public school 
     facility' shall not include any stadium or other facility 
     primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other 
     events for which admission is charged to the general public.
       ``(f) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income 
     includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer 
     under this section and the amount so included shall be 
     treated as interest income.
       ``(g) Bonds Held By Regulated Investment Companies.--If any 
     qualified public school modernization bond is held by a 
     regulated investment company, the credit determined under 
     subsection (a) shall be allowed to shareholders of such 
     company under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1397F. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

       ``(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bond.--For purposes of this 
     part--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified zone academy bond' 
     means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
       ``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are 
     to be used for a qualified purpose with respect to a 
     qualified zone academy established by a local educational 
     agency,
       ``(B) the bond is issued by a State or local government 
     within the jurisdiction of which such academy is located,
       ``(C) the issuer--
       ``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
       ``(ii) certifies that it has written assurances that the 
     private business contribution requirement of paragraph (2) 
     will be met with respect to such academy, and
       ``(iii) certifies that it has the written approval of the 
     local educational agency for such bond issuance, and
       ``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue 
     does not exceed 15 years.
       ``(2) Private business contribution requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     private business contribution requirement of this paragraph 
     is met with respect to any issue if the local educational 
     agency that established the qualified zone academy has 
     written commitments from private entities to make qualified 
     contributions having a present value (as of the date of 
     issuance of the issue) of not less than 10 percent of the 
     proceeds of the issue.
       ``(B) Qualified contributions.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `qualified contribution' means any 
     contribution (of a type and quality acceptable to the local 
     educational agency) of--
       ``(i) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy 
     (including state-of-the-art technology and vocational 
     equipment),
       ``(ii) technical assistance in developing curriculum or in 
     training teachers in order to promote appropriate market 
     driven technology in the classroom,
       ``(iii) services of employees as volunteer mentors,
       ``(iv) internships, field trips, or other educational 
     opportunities outside the academy for students, or
       ``(v) any other property or service specified by the local 
     educational agency.
       ``(3) Qualified zone academy.--The term `qualified zone 
     academy' means any public school (or academic program within 
     a public school) which is established by and operated under 
     the supervision of a local educational agency to provide 
     education or training below the postsecondary level if--
       ``(A) such public school or program (as the case may be) is 
     designed in cooperation with business to enhance the academic 
     curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates, and 
     better prepare students for the rigors of college and the 
     increasingly complex workforce,
       ``(B) students in such public school or program (as the 
     case may be) will be subject to the same academic standards 
     and assessments as other students educated by the local 
     educational agency,
       ``(C) the comprehensive education plan of such public 
     school or program is approved by the local educational 
     agency, and
       ``(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment 
     zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or 
     community designated after the date of enactment of this 
     section), or
       ``(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (as of the date of 
     issuance of the bonds) that at least 35 percent of the 
     students attending such school or participating in such 
     program (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or 
     reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program 
     established under the National School Lunch Act.
       ``(4) Qualified purpose.--The term `qualified purpose' 
     means, with respect to any qualified zone academy--
       ``(A) constructing, rehabilitating, or repairing the public 
     school facility in which the academy is established,
       ``(B) providing equipment for use at such academy,
       ``(C) developing course materials for education to be 
     provided at such academy, and
       ``(D) training teachers and other school personnel in such 
     academy.
       ``(5) Temporary period exception.--A bond shall not be 
     treated as failing to meet the requirement of paragraph 
     (1)(A) solely by reason of the fact that the proceeds of the 
     issue of which such bond is a part are invested for a 
     reasonable temporary period (but not more than 36 months) 
     until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which such 
     issue was issued. Any earnings on such proceeds during such 
     period shall be treated as proceeds of the issue for purposes 
     of applying paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(b) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is a national zone academy bond 
     limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
       ``(A) $400,000,000 for 1999,
       ``(B) $1,400,000,000 for 2000,
       ``(C) $1,400,000,000 for 2001, and
       ``(D) except as provided in paragraph (3), zero after 2001.
       ``(2) Allocation of limitation.--
       ``(A) Allocation among states.--
       ``(i) 1999 limitation.--The national zone academy bond 
     limitation for calendar year 1999 shall be allocated by the 
     Secretary among the States on the basis of their respective 
     populations of individuals below the poverty line (as defined 
     by the Office of Management and Budget).
       ``(ii) Limitation after 1999.--The national zone academy 
     bond limitation for any calendar year after 1999 shall be 
     allocated by the Secretary among the States in the manner 
     prescribed by section 1397G(d); except that, in making the 
     allocation under this clause, the Secretary shall take into 
     account Basic Grants attributable to large local educational 
     agencies (as defined in section 1397G(e)).
       ``(B) Allocation to local educational agencies.--The 
     limitation amount allocated to a State under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be allocated by the State education agency to qualified 
     zone academies within such State.
       ``(C) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The 
     maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any 
     calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed 
     the limitation amount allocated to such academy under 
     subparagraph (B) for such calendar year.
       ``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar 
     year--
       ``(A) the limitation amount under this subsection for any 
     State, exceeds
       ``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are 
     designated under subsection (a) with respect to qualified 
     zone academies within such State,

     the limitation amount under this subsection for such State 
     for the following calendar year shall be increased by the 
     amount of such excess. The preceding sentence shall not apply 
     if such following calendar year is after 2003.

     ``SEC. 1397G. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS.

       ``(a) Qualified School Construction Bond.--For purposes of 
     this part, the term `qualified school construction bond' 
     means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
       ``(1) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are 
     to be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of 
     a public school facility,
       ``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government 
     within the jurisdiction of which such school is located,
       ``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this 
     section, and
       ``(4) the term of each bond which is part of such issue 
     does not exceed 15 years.
     Rules similar to the rules of section 1397F(a)(5) shall apply 
     for purposes of paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The 
     maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any 
     calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) by 
     any issuer shall not exceed the sum of--
       ``(1) the limitation amount allocated under subsection (d) 
     for such calendar year to such issuer, and
       ``(2) if such issuer is a large local educational agency 
     (as defined in subsection (e)) or is issuing on behalf of 
     such an agency, the limitation amount allocated under 
     subsection (e) for such calendar year to such agency.
       ``(c) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is a national qualified school 
     construction bond limitation for each calendar year equal to 
     the dollar amount specified in paragraph (2) for

[[Page S674]]

     such year, reduced, in the case of calendar years 2000 and 
     2001, by 1.5 percent of such amount.
       ``(2) Dollar amount specified.--The dollar amount specified 
     in this paragraph is--
       ``(A) $9,700,000,000 for 2000,
       ``(B) $9,700,000,000 for 2001, and
       ``(C) except as provided in subsection (f), zero after 
     2001.
       ``(d) 65-Percent of Limitation Allocated Among States.--
       ``(1) In general.--Sixty-five percent of the limitation 
     applicable under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall 
     be allocated among the States under paragraph (2) by the 
     Secretary. The limitation amount allocated to a State under 
     the preceding sentence shall be allocated by the State 
     education agency to issuers within such State and such 
     allocations may be made only if there is an approved State 
     application.
       ``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among 
     the States in proportion to the respective amounts each such 
     State received for Basic Grants under subpart 2 of part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for the most recent fiscal year 
     ending before such calendar year. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, Basic Grants attributable to large local 
     educational agencies (as defined in subsection (e)) shall be 
     disregarded.
       ``(3) Minimum allocations to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     allocations under this subsection for any calendar year for 
     each State to the extent necessary to ensure that the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) the amount allocated to such State under this 
     subsection for such year, and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amounts allocated under subsection (e) 
     to large local educational agencies in such State for such 
     year,

     is not less than an amount equal to such State's minimum 
     percentage of 65 percent of the national qualified school 
     construction bond limitation under subsection (c) for the 
     calendar year.
       ``(B) Minimum percentage.--A State's minimum percentage for 
     any calendar year is the minimum percentage described in 
     section 1124(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6334(d)) for such State for the most 
     recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
       ``(4) Allocations to certain possessions.--The amount to be 
     allocated under paragraph (1) to any possession of the United 
     States other than Puerto Rico shall be the amount which would 
     have been allocated if all allocations under paragraph (1) 
     were made on the basis of respective populations of 
     individuals below the poverty line (as defined by the Office 
     of Management and Budget). In making other allocations, the 
     amount to be allocated under paragraph (1) shall be reduced 
     by the aggregate amount allocated under this paragraph to 
     possessions of the United States.
       ``(5) Approved state application.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `approved State application' means an 
     application which is approved by the Secretary of Education 
     and which includes--
       ``(A) the results of a recent publicly-available survey 
     (undertaken by the State with the involvement of local 
     education officials, members of the public, and experts in 
     school construction and management) of such State's needs for 
     public school facilities, including descriptions of--
       ``(i) health and safety problems at such facilities,
       ``(ii) the capacity of public schools in the State to house 
     projected enrollments, and
       ``(iii) the extent to which the public schools in the State 
     offer the physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-
     quality education to all students, and
       ``(B) a description of how the State will allocate to local 
     educational agencies, or otherwise use, its allocation under 
     this subsection to address the needs identified under 
     subparagraph (A), including a description of how it will--
       ``(i) give highest priority to localities with the greatest 
     needs, as demonstrated by inadequate or overcrowded school 
     facilities coupled with a low level of resources to meet 
     those needs,
       ``(ii) use its allocation under this subsection to assist 
     localities that lack the fiscal capacity to issue bonds on 
     their own, including the issuance of bonds by the State on 
     behalf of such localities, and
       ``(iii) ensure that its allocation under this subsection is 
     used only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of 
     school construction, rehabilitation, and repair in the State 
     that would have occurred in the absence of such allocation.

     Any allocation under paragraph (1) by a State education 
     agency shall be binding if such agency reasonably determined 
     that the allocation was in accordance with the plan approved 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(e) 35-Percent of Limitation Allocated Among Largest 
     School Districts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Thirty-five percent of the limitation 
     applicable under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall 
     be allocated under paragraph (2) by the Secretary among local 
     educational agencies which are large local educational 
     agencies for such year. No qualified school construction bond 
     may be issued by reason of an allocation to a large local 
     educational agency under the preceding sentence unless such 
     agency has an approved local application.
       ``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among 
     large local educational agencies in proportion to the 
     respective amounts each such agency received for Basic Grants 
     under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for 
     the most recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
       ``(3) Large local educational agency.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `large local educational agency' means, 
     with respect to a calendar year, any local educational agency 
     if such agency is--
       ``(A) among the 100 local educational agencies with the 
     largest numbers of children aged 5 through 17 from families 
     living below the poverty level, as determined by the 
     Secretary using the most recent data available from the 
     Department of Commerce that are satisfactory to the 
     Secretary, or
       ``(B) 1 of not more than 25 local educational agencies 
     (other than those described in clause (i)) that the Secretary 
     of Education determines (based on the most recent data 
     available satisfactory to the Secretary) are in particular 
     need of assistance, based on a low level of resources for 
     school construction, a high level of enrollment growth, or 
     such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       ``(4) Approved local application.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `approved local application' means an 
     application which is approved by the Secretary of Education 
     and which includes--
       ``(A) the results of a recent publicly-available survey 
     (undertaken by the local educational agency with the 
     involvement of school officials, members of the public, and 
     experts in school construction and management) of such 
     agency's needs for public school facilities, including 
     descriptions of--
       ``(i) the overall condition of the local educational 
     agency's school facilities, including health and safety 
     problems,
       ``(ii) the capacity of the agency's schools to house 
     projected enrollments, and
       ``(iii) the extent to which the agency's schools offer the 
     physical infrastructure needed to provide a high-quality 
     education to all students,
       ``(B) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will use its allocation under this subsection to address the 
     needs identified under subparagraph (A), and
       ``(C) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will ensure that its allocation under this subsection is used 
     only to supplement, and not supplant, the amount of school 
     construction, rehabilitation, or repair in the locality that 
     would have occurred in the absence of such allocation.

     A rule similar to the rule of the last sentence of subsection 
     (d)(5) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(f) Carryover of Unused Limitation.--If for any calendar 
     year--
       ``(1) the amount allocated under subsection (d) to any 
     State, exceeds
       ``(2) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are 
     designated under subsection (a) pursuant to such allocation,
     the limitation amount under such subsection for such State 
     for the following calendar year shall be increased by the 
     amount of such excess. A similar rule shall apply to the 
     amounts allocated under subsection (e). The subsection shall 
     not apply if such following calendar year is after 2003.
       ``(g) Set-Aside Allocated Among Indian Tribes.--
       ``(1) In general.--The 1.5 percent set-aside applicable 
     under subsection (c)(1) for any calendar year shall be 
     allocated under paragraph (2) among Indian tribes for the 
     construction, rehabilitation, or repair of tribal schools. No 
     allocation may be made under the preceding sentence unless 
     the Indian tribe has an approved application.
       ``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under 
     paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among 
     Indian tribes on a competitive basis by the Secretary of 
     Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Education--
       ``(A) through a negotiated rulemaking procedure with the 
     tribes in the same manner as the procedure described in 
     section 106(b)(2) of the Native American Housing Assistance 
     and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4116(b)(2)), 
     and
       ``(B) based on criteria described in paragraphs (1), (3), 
     (4), (5), and (6) of section 12005(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8505(a)).
       ``(3) Approved application.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `approved application' means an application 
     submitted by an Indian tribe which is approved by the 
     Secretary of Education and which includes--
       ``(A) the basis upon which the applicable tribal school 
     meets the criteria described in paragraph (2)(B), and
       ``(B) an assurance by the Indian tribe that such tribal 
     school will not receive funds pursuant to allocations 
     described in subsection (d) or (e).
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 45A(c)(6).
       ``(B) Tribal school.--The term `tribal school' means a 
     school that is operated by an Indian tribe for the education 
     of Indian children with financial assistance under grant 
     under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 
     2501 et seq.) or a contract with

[[Page S675]]

     the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450f et 
     seq.).''
       (b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to returns regarding 
     payments of interest) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Reporting of Credit on Qualified Public School 
     Modernization Bonds.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under 
     section 1397E(f) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on 
     the credit allowance date (as defined in section 
     1397E(d)(2)).
       ``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in regulations, in the case of any interest 
     described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection 
     (b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to 
     subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
       ``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe 
     such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which 
     require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of parts for subchapter U of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the item 
     relating to part IV and inserting the following:

``Part IV. Incentives for qualified public school modernization 
              bonds.''
       (2) Part V of subchapter U of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by redesignating both section 1397F and the item 
     relating thereto in the table of sections for such part as 
     section 1397H.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to obligations 
     issued after December 31, 1998.
       (2) Repeal of restriction on zone academy bond holders.--
     The repeal of the limitation of section 1397E of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of this Act) to eligible taxpayers (as defined 
     in subsection (d)(6) of such section) shall apply to 
     obligations issued after December 31, 1997.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR BIA SCHOOL 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Bureau of Indian Affairs operates 1 of only 2 
     federally-run school systems; and
       (2) there is a clear Federal responsibility to ensure that 
     the more than 50,000 students attending these schools have 
     decent, safe schools.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) sufficient funds should be provided in fiscal year 2000 
     to begin construction of 3 new Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     school facilities and to increase funds available for the 
     improvement and repair of existing facilities; and
       (2) in addition, Congress should consider enacting 
     legislation to establish other funding mechanisms that would 
     leverage Federal investments on behalf of Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs schools in order to address the serious construction 
     backlog which exists at tribal schools.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 223. A bill to help communities moderize public school facilities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                PUBLIC SCHOOL MODERNIZAATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Lautenberg to 
introduce the Public School Modernization Act of 1999.
  I was gratified that so many Members of this body recognized last 
year that the need for school construction and modernization is vital. 
The legislation that Senator Lautenberg and I are introducing is 
designed to help States build new schools and repair and modernize 
outdated ones, so that our children will have a better, more modern and 
safe environment in which to learn.
  A few weeks ago, the Thomas Jefferson Center for Educational Design 
at the University of Virginia issued a devastating report detailing the 
alarming condition of many of Virginia's schools. Over 3,000 trailers 
are being used to hold classes. Two out of 3 school districts have held 
classes in auditoriums, cafeterias, storage areas, and book closets, 
and 53 percent of Virginia school districts had to increase the size of 
their classes in order to accommodate their divisions' growing student 
populations.
  We know that smaller class sizes do, in fact, have a dramatic impact 
on student learning, especially in the first 3 years. So in order to 
give our children the learning environment they deserve, we have to fix 
the leaky roofs, build the additional classrooms, and build more 
schools to accommodate our growing student population, and to reduce 
class size.
  This is a constructive role for the Federal Government to play. In 
fact, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who proposed 
a massive $1.1 billion school construction initiative in 1955.
  Our States need our help, Mr. President. This legislation does not 
usurp local control of education or hinder States and localities from 
developing their own solutions to the problem of improving the academic 
performance of our children. Rather, this bill is intended to 
complement the efforts of the many State legislatures that are now 
wrestling with the questions of how to repair and equip old schools and 
how to build new schools.
  Mr. President, no child should be forced to go to a school without 
heat, or have to wade regularly through standing water to get to class, 
or be expected to learn in a trailer with poor ventilation. Our 
children and their parents need our help.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for his work on this issue, 
and I look forward to working with him on this effort to bring it to a 
successful conclusion. I also thank Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, 
Torricelli, Edwards, and Bingaman for joining us today.
  I urge all of our colleagues in the State to recognize the urgent 
school construction needs of all of our States and to work with us in 
passing this particular legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 224. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct 
the treatment of tax-exempt financing of professional sports 
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.


              the stop tax-exempt arena debt issuance act

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a tax bill 
that would correct a serious misallocation of our limited resources 
under present law: a tax subsidy that inures largely to the benefit of 
wealthy sports franchise owners and their players. This legislation--
the Stop Tax-exempt Arena Debt Issuance Act, or STADIA for short--was 
introduced by the Senator from New York for the first time in 1996. 
Since that time, the bill has attracted the close scrutiny of bond 
counsel and their clients, and has received much attention in the 
press, almost all of which has been favorable.
  Mr. Keith Olbermann, at the time an anchor of ESPN's Sportscenter 
program, even declared that the introduction of the bill was 
``paramount among all other sports stories'' when introduced. Passage 
of the bill, Mr. Olbermann said, would be ``the vaccine that . . . 
could conceivably at least lead towards the cure, if not cure 
immediately, almost all the ills of sports.''
  Mr. Olbermann may just be right about the importance of this bill, 
both to sports fans and to taxpayers. The bill closes a big loophole, a 
loophole that ultimately injures state and local governments and other 
issuers of tax-exempt bonds, that provides an unintended federal 
subsidy that contravenes Congressional intent, that underwrites bidding 
wars among cities battling for professional sports franchises, and that 
enriches persons who need no federal assistance whatsoever.
  A decade ago, I was much involved in the drafting of the Tax Reform 
Act of 1986. A major objective of that legislation was to simplify the 
Tax Code by eliminating a large number of loopholes that had come to be 
viewed as unfair because they primarily benefited small groups of 
taxpayers. One of the loopholes we sought to close in 1986 was one that 
permitted builders of professional sports facilities to use tax-exempt 
bonds. Mind, we had nothing against new stadium construction, but we 
made the judgment that scarce Federal resources could surely be used in 
ways that would better serve the public good. The increasing 
proliferation of tax-exempt bonds had driven up interest costs for 
financing roads, schools, libraries, and other governmental purposes, 
led to mounting revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury, caused an 
inefficient allocation of capital, and allowed wealthy taxpayers to 
shield a growing

[[Page S676]]

amount of their investment income from income tax by purchasing tax-
exempt bonds. Thus, we expressly forbade use of ``private activity'' 
bonds for sports facilities, intending to eliminate tax-exempt 
financing of these facilities altogether.
  Yet team owners, with help from clever tax counsel, soon recognized 
that the change could work to their advantage. As columnist Neal R. 
Pierce wrote, team owners ``were not checkmated for long. They were 
soon exhibiting the gall to ask mayors to finance their stadiums with 
[governmental] purpose bonds.'' Congress did not anticipate this. After 
all, by law, governmental bonds used to build stadiums would be tax-
exempt only if no more than 10 percent of the debt service is derived 
from stadium revenue sources. In other words, non-stadium governmental 
revenues (i.e., tax revenues, lottery proceeds, and the like) must be 
used to repay the bulk of the debt, freeing team owners to pocket 
stadium revenues. Who would have thought that local officials, in order 
to attract or retain a team, would capitulate to team owners--granting 
concessionary stadium leases and committing limited government revenues 
to repay stadium debt, thereby hindering their own ability to provide 
schools, roads and other public investments?
  The result has been a stadium construction boom unlike anything we 
have ever seen, and there is no end in sight.
  What is driving the demand for new stadiums? Mainly, team owners' 
bottom lines and rising player salaries. Although our existing stadiums 
are generally quite serviceable, team owners can generate greater 
income, increase their franchise values dramatically, and compete for 
high-priced free agents with new tax-subsidized, single-purpose 
stadiums equipped with luxury skyboxes, club seats and the like. Thus, 
using their monopoly power, owners threaten to move, forcing bidding 
wars among cities. End result: new, tax-subsidized stadiums with fancy 
amenities and sweetheart lease deals.
  To cite a case in point, Mr. Art Modell recently moved the Cleveland 
Browns professional football team from Cleveland to Baltimore to become 
the Ravens. Prior to relocating, Mr. Modell had said, ``I am not about 
to rape the City [of Cleveland] as others in my league have done. You 
will never hear me say `if I don't get this I'm moving.' You can go to 
press on that one. I couldn't live with myself if I did that.'' 
Obviously, Mr. Modell changed his mind. And why? An extraordinary 
stadium deal with the State of Maryland.
  The State of Maryland (and the local sports authority) provided the 
land on which the stadium is located, issued $87 million in tax-exempt 
bonds (yielding interest savings of approximately $60 million over a 
30-year period as compared to taxable bonds), and contributed $30 
million in cash and $64 million in state lottery revenues towards 
construction of the stadium. Mr. Modell agreed to contribute $24 
million toward the project and, in return, receives rent-free use of 
the stadium (the franchise pays only for the operating and maintenance 
costs), $65 million in sales of rights to purchase season tickets (so-
called ``personal seat licenses''), all revenues from selling the right 
to name the stadium, luxury suites, premium seats, in-part advertising, 
and concessions, and 50 percent of all revenues from stadium events 
other than Ravens' games (with the right to control the booking of 
those events).
  Financial World reported that the value of the Baltimore Ravens' 
franchise increased from $165 million in 1992 (i.e., before the move 
from Cleveland) to an estimated $250 million after its first season in 
the new stadium. It's little wonder that Mr. Modell stated: ``The pride 
and presence of a professional football team is far more important than 
30 libraries, and I say that with all due respect to the learning 
process.''
  Meanwhile, the city of Cleveland has been building a new, $225 
million stadium to house an expansion football team. When Mr. Modell 
decided to move his team to Baltimore, the NFL agreed to grant 
Cleveland a new football team with the same name: the Cleveland Browns. 
Most cities are not as fortunate when a team leaves.
  We are even reaching a point at which stadiums are being abandoned 
before they have been used for 10 to 15 years. An article in Barron's 
reported that a perception of ``economic obsolescence'' on the part of 
some owners has doomed even recently-built venues:

       The eight-year-old Miami Arena is facing a future without 
     its two major tenants, the Florida Panthers hockey team and 
     the Miami Heat basketball franchise, because of inadequate 
     seating capacity and a paucity of luxury suites. The Panthers 
     have already cut a deal to move to a new facility that nearby 
     Broward County is building for them at a cost of around $200 
     million. Plans call for Dade County to build a new $210 
     million arena before the end of the decade, despite the fact 
     that the move will leave local taxpayers stuck with servicing 
     the debt on two Miami arenas rather than just one.

  How do taxpayers benefit from all this? They don't. Ticket prices go 
way up--and stay up--after a new stadium opens. So while fans are asked 
to foot the bills through tax subsidies, many no longer can afford the 
price of admission. A study by Newsday found that ticket prices rose by 
32 percent in five new baseball stadiums, as compared to a major league 
average of 8 percent. Not to mention the refreshments and other 
concessions, which also cost more in the new venues.
  According to Barron's, the projects:

       . . . cater largely to well-heeled fans, meaning the folks 
     who can afford to pay for seats in glassed-in luxury boxes. 
     While the suit-and-cell-phone crowd get all the best seats, 
     the average taxpayer is cosigned to ``cheap seats'' in 
     nosebleed land or, more often, to following his favorite team 
     on television.

  Nor do these new stadiums provide much, if any, economic benefit to 
their local communities. Professors Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist 
recently published Sports, Jobs & Taxes with the Brookings Institution 
Press, in which they presented studies of the economic impact of 
professional sports facilities. The conclusion:

       [I]n every case, the authors find that the local economic 
     impact of sports teams and facilities is far smaller than 
     proponents allege; in some cases it is negative. These 
     findings are valid regardless of whether the benefits are 
     measured for the local neighborhood, for the city, or for the 
     entire metropolitan area in which a facility is located.

  Or, as concluded by Ronald D. Utt in his Heritage Foundation 
``Backgrounder'' Cities in Denial: The False Promise of Subsidized 
Tourist and Entertainment Complexes:

       As the record from around the country indicates, the 
     economic boost from public investment in entertainment 
     complexes is exceptionally modest at best, and 
     counterproductive at worst. It diverts scarce resources and 
     public attention from the less glamorous activities that make 
     more meaningful contributions to the public's well-being.

And what of the economic consequences to the communities abandoned by 
teams that relocate?
  Any job growth that does result is extremely expensive. The 
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that the new $177 million 
football stadium for the Baltimore Ravens is expected to cost $127,000 
per job created. By contrast, the cost per job generated by Maryland's 
economic development program is just $6,250.
  Finally, Federal taxpayers receive absolutely no economic benefit for 
providing this subsidy. As CRS pointed out, ``Almost all stadium 
spending is spending that would have been made on other activities 
within the United States, which means that benefits to the nation as a 
whole are near zero.'' After all, these terms will invariably locate 
somewhere in the United States, it is just a matter of where. And 
should the federal taxpayers in the team's current home town be forced 
to pay for the team's new stadium in a new city? The answer is 
unmistakably no.
  Nevertheless, it seems that every day another professional sports 
team is demanding a new stadium, threatening a relocation if the demand 
is not met. This is a growing phenomenon. Professors Noll and Zimbalist 
wrote that:

       Between 1989 and 1997, thirty-one new stadiums and arenas 
     were built. At least thirty-nine additional teams are seeking 
     new facilities, are in the process of finalizing the deal to 
     build one, or are waiting to move into one.

When I first introduced legislation to address this issue in 1996, 
stadium bond issuance had already exceeded $1 billion per year. 
Issuance reached $1.8 billion in 1997, a 30 percent increase from 1996. 
The bonds issued during 1997 alone represent a federal taxpayer subsidy 
of approximately $300 million over 10 years. It seems safe to predict 
that stadium bond issuance continued to increase in 1998.

[[Page S677]]

  In closing, one note about implementation of this legislation, should 
it be enacted. It might be considered unfair that some teams have new 
taxpayer-subsidized sports facilities, while other teams do not, all 
due to the arbitrary effective date of a change in the tax law. After 
all, why should some team owners be rewarded with a stadium subsidy 
while those owners who were reluctant to threaten relocation or to 
exploit unwarranted tax benefits do without? Congress could certainly 
provide appropriate transition rules--as it did in the 1986 Act when it 
first shut down tax-exempt stadium financing--to allow these latter 
teams stadium subsidies.
  What is clear is that we have got to do something about the explosion 
in tax-subsidized stadium construction, if not through this 
legislation, then through some other similar means. Perhaps Congress 
should consider some form of excise tax, or some limitation on use of 
bonds to situations that do not involve a relocating team. We could 
also consider requiring that stadium bonds be repaid by stadium 
revenues--or at the very least we could re-examine current law, which 
effectively prohibits such a use of stadium revenues. Or, we could 
consider tightening the prohibition on the use of tax-exempt bonds to 
finance luxury skyboxes so that it cannot be so easily circumvented.
  The STADIA bill would save about $50 million a year now spent to 
subsidize professional sports stadiums. The question for Congress is 
should we subsidize the commercial pursuits of wealthy team owners, 
encourage escalating player salaries, and underwrite bidding wars among 
cities seeking or fighting to keep professional sports teams, or would 
our scarce resources be put to better use? To my mind, this is not a 
difficult choice.
  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. 224

       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 ``Stop Tax-Exempt Arena Debt 
     Issuance Act''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF PROFESSIONAL 
                   SPORTS FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining private activity bond and qualified bond) 
     is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) 
     and by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Certain Issues Used for Professional Sports 
     Facilities Treated as Private Activity Bonds.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     `private activity bond' includes any bond issued as part of 
     an issue if the amount of the proceeds of the issue which are 
     to be used (directly or indirectly) to provide professional 
     sports facilities exceeds the lesser of--
       ``(A) 5 percent of such proceeds, or
       ``(B) $5,000,000.
       ``(2) Bond not treated as a qualified bond.--For purposes 
     of this title, any bond described in paragraph (1) shall not 
     be a qualified bond.
       ``(3) Professional sports facilities.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `professional sports 
     facilities' means real property or related improvements used 
     for professional sports exhibitions, games, or training, 
     regardless if the admission of the public or press is allowed 
     or paid.
       ``(B) Use for professional sports.--Any use of facilities 
     which generates a direct or indirect monetary benefit (other 
     than reimbursement for out-of pocket expenses) for a person 
     who uses such facilities for professional sports exhibitions, 
     games, or training shall be treated as a use described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Anti-abuse regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this subsection, including such regulations 
     as may be appropriate to prevent avoidance of such purposes 
     through related persons, use of related facilities or 
     multiuse complexes, or otherwise.''
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (5), the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     bonds issued on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception for construction, binding agreements, or 
     approved projects.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not apply to bonds--
       (A) the proceeds of which are used for--
       (i) the construction or rehabilitation of a facility--

       (I) if such construction or rehabilitation began before 
     June 14, 1996, and was completed on or after such date, or
       (II) if a State or political subdivision thereof has 
     entered into a binding contract before June 14, 1996, that 
     requires the incurrence of significant expenditures for such 
     construction or rehabilitation, and some of such expenditures 
     are incurred on or after such date; or

       (ii) the acquisition of a facility pursuant to a binding 
     contract entered into by a State or political subdivision 
     thereof before June 14, 1996, and
       (B) which are the subject of an official action taken by 
     relevant government officials before June 14, 1996--
       (i) approving the issuance of such bonds, or
       (ii) approving the submission of the approval of such 
     issuance to a voter referendum.
       (3) Exception for final bond resolutions.--The amendments 
     made by this section shall not apply to bonds the proceeds of 
     which are used for the construction or rehabilitation of a 
     facility if a State or political subdivision thereof has 
     completed all necessary governmental approvals for the 
     issuance of such bonds before June 14, 1996.
       (4) Significant expenditures.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i)(II), the term ``significant expenditures'' means 
     expenditures equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the 
     reasonably anticipated cost of the construction or 
     rehabilitation of the facility involved.
       (5) Exception for certain current refundings.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not apply to any bond the proceeds of which are used 
     exclusively to refund a qualified bond (or a bond which is a 
     part of a series of refundings of a qualified bond) if--
       (i) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the 
     outstanding principal amount of the refunded bond,
       (ii) the average maturity date of the issue of which the 
     refunding bond is a part is not later than the average 
     maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue, and
       (iii) the net proceeds of the refunding bond are used to 
     redeem the refunded bond not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the issuance of the refunding bond.

     For purposes of clause (ii), average maturity shall be 
     determined in accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (B) Qualified bond.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term ``qualified bond'' means any tax-exempt bond to finance 
     a professional sports facility (as defined in section 
     141(e)(3) of such Code, as added by subsection (a)) issued 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 225. A bill to provide housing assistance to Native Hawaiians; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.


   THE NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT 
                               AMENDMENTS

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure which 
passed in the Senate toward the close of the 105th session of the 
Congress to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act to provide Federal housing assistance to address the 
serious unmet housing needs of Native Hawaiians.
  Mr. President, the primary objective of this measure is to enable 
Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands 
to have access to federal housing assistance that is currently provided 
to other eligible low-income American families based upon documented 
need.
  In 1920, with the enactment of Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the 
United States set aside approximately 200,000 acres of public land that 
had been ceded to the United States in what was then the Territory of 
Hawaii to establish a permanent homeland for the native people of 
Hawaii, based upon findings of the Congress that Native Hawaiians were 
a landless people and a ``dying'' people. The Secretary of the 
Interior, Franklin Lane, likened the relationship between the United 
States and Native Hawaiians to the guardian-ward relationship that then 
existed between the United States and American Indians.
  As a condition of its admission into the Union of States in 1959, the 
United States transferred title to the 200,000 acres of land to the 
State of Hawaii with the requirement that the lands be held ``in public 
trust'' for ``the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, as 
defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920''. The Hawaii 
Admissions Act also required that the Hawaii State Constitution provide 
for the assumption by the new State of a trust responsibility for the 
lands. The lands are now administered by a State agency, the Department 
of Hawaiian Home Lands.

[[Page S678]]

  However, similar to the responsibility with which the Secretary of 
the Interior is charged in the administration of Indian lands, the 
United States retained and continues to retain the exclusive authority 
to enforce the trust and to institute legal action against the State of 
Hawaii for any breach of the trust, as well as the exclusive right to 
consent to any actions affecting the lands which comprise the corpus of 
the trust and any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act 
enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii affecting the rights 
of the beneficiaries under the Act.
  Within the last several years, three recent studies have documented 
the housing conditions that confront Native Hawaiians who either reside 
on the Hawaiian home lands or who are eligible to reside on the home 
lands.
  In 1992, the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, 
and Native Hawaiian Housing issued its final report to the Congress, 
``Building the Future: A Blueprint for Change''. The Commission's Study 
compared housing data for Native Hawaiians with housing information for 
other citizens in the State of Hawaii. The Commission found that Native 
Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, lacked access to 
conventional financing because of the trust status of the Hawaiian home 
lands, and that Native Hawaiians had the worst housing conditions in 
the State of Hawaii and the highest percentage of homelessness, 
representing over 30 percent of the State's homeless population.
  The Commission concluded that the unique circumstances of Native 
Hawaiians require the enactment of new legislation to alleviate and 
address the severe housing needs of Native Hawaiians, and recommended 
that the Congress extend to Native Hawaiians the same federal housing 
assistance programs that are provided to American Indians and Alaska 
Natives under the Low-Income Rental, Mutual Help, Loan Guarantee 
Program and Community Development Block Grant programs. Subsequently, 
the Community Development Block Grant program authority was amended to 
address the housing needs of Native Hawaiians.
  In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
issued a report entitled, ``Housing Problems and Needs of Native 
Hawaiians''. The HUD report was particularly helpful because it 
compared the data on Native Hawaiian housing conditions with housing 
conditions nationally and with the housing conditions of American 
Indians and Alaska Natives.
  The most alarming finding of the HUD report was that Native Hawaiians 
experience the highest percentage of housing problems in the nation--49 
percent--higher than even that of American Indians and Alaska Natives 
residing on reservations (44 percent) and substantially higher than 
that of all U.S. households (27 percent). Additionally, the HUD study 
found that the percentage of overcrowding in the Native Hawaiian 
population is 36 percent as compared to 3 percent for all other 
households in the United States.
  Applying the HUD guidelines, 70.8 percent of Native Hawaiians who 
either reside or who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian home lands 
have incomes which fall below the median family income in the United 
States, and 50 percent of those Native Hawaiians have incomes below 30 
percent of the median family income in the United States.
  Also in 1995, the Hawaii State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
published a Beneficiary Needs Study as a result of research conducted 
by an independent research group. This study found that among the 
Native Hawaiian population, the needs of Native Hawaiians eligible to 
reside on the Hawaiian home lands are the most severe--with 95 percent 
of home lands applicants (16,000) in need of housing, and with one-half 
of those applicant households facing overcrowding and one-third paying 
more than 30 percent of their income for shelter.
  Eligibility for an assignment of Hawaiian home lands for purposes of 
housing, agricultural development or pasture land is a function of 
federal law--the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. There are 
approximately 60,000 Native Hawaiians who would be eligible to reside 
on the home lands, but applying for an assignment of a parcel of home 
lands is voluntary. Because of the lack of resources to develop 
infrastructure (roads, access to water and sewer and electricity) on 
the home lands as required by State and county laws before housing can 
be constructed, hundreds of Native Hawaiians on the waiting list have 
died before receiving an assignment of home lands.
  Once an eligible Native Hawaiian reaches the top of the waiting list, 
he or she must be able to qualify for a private home loan mortgage, 
because the limited Federal and State funds available to the Department 
of Hawaiian Home Lands have been used to develop infrastructure rather 
than the construction of housing. An assignment of home lands property 
is in the form of a 99-year lease. Unless the heirs of the eligible 
Native Hawaiian qualify in their own right for an assignment of home 
lands under the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, upon 
the death of the eligible Native Hawaiian, the heirs must move off the 
land.
  Currently, Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the home 
lands but who do not qualify for private mortgage loans do not have 
access to federal housing assistance programs that provide assistance 
to low-income families. This is due to the fact that for many years, 
the federal government took the legal position that because the 
government that represented the Native Hawaiian people had been 
overthrown in 1893 and thus there was no government-to-government 
relationship with the United States, extending federal housing program 
assistance to lands set aside exclusively for Native Hawaiians would be 
discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity.
  The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act not only provides authority for the 
assignment of home lands property to Native Hawaiians. The Act also 
authorizes general leases to non-Hawaiians. At the time the Act was 
passed by the Congress, it was anticipated that revenues derived from 
general leases would be sufficient to develop the necessary 
infrastructure and housing on the home lands. However, general lease 
revenue has not proven sufficient to address infrastructure and housing 
needs.
  In recent years, as a result of litigation involving third-party 
leases of Hawaiian home lands, the United States revisited its legal 
position and found that the authority contained in the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act for general leases to non-Hawaiians meant that the land 
was not set aside exclusively for Native Hawaiians. The non-exclusive 
nature of the land set aside was thus found not to violate 
Constitutional prohibitions on racial discrimination.
  The change in the United States' legal position may be further 
informed by the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Rice v. 
Cayetano, No. 97-16095, 146 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 1998) in which the 
Appeals Court compared the special treatment of Native Hawaiians to the 
special treatment of Indians that the Supreme Court approved in Morton 
v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974) and cited its reference to Mancari in 
Alaska Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors v. Pierce, 694 F.2d 1162 
(9th Cir. 1981), in which the Circuit Court expressed its finding that 
preferential treatment that is grounded in the government's unique 
obligation toward Indians is a political rather than a racial 
classification, even though racial criteria may be used in defining 
eligibility.
  However, the result of the United States' earlier legal position was 
that Native Hawaiians who were eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home 
Lands and would have otherwise been eligible by virtue of their low-
income status to apply for Federal housing assistance were foreclosed 
from participating in Federal housing assistance programs that were 
available to all other eligible families in the United States.
  Mr. President, if enacted into law, the measure which I introduce 
today will finally provide some relief and support to those who are in 
the greatest need for a simple roof over their heads and a place to 
raise their families.
  Mr. President, I respectfully request that the text of this measure 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

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

[[Page S679]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has undertaken a responsibility to 
     promote the general welfare of the United States by--
       (A) employing its resources to remedy the unsafe and 
     unsanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of 
     decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower 
     income; and
       (B) developing effective partnerships with governmental and 
     private entities to accomplish the objectives referred to in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (2) pursuant to the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), the United 
     States set aside 200,000 acres of land in the Federal 
     territory that later became the State of Hawaii in order to 
     establish a homeland for the native people of Hawaii--Native 
     Hawaiians;
       (3) despite the intent of Congress in 1920 to address the 
     housing needs of Native Hawaiians through the enactment of 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et 
     seq.), some agencies of the Federal Government have taken the 
     legal position that subsequently enacted Federal housing laws 
     designed to address the housing needs of all eligible 
     families in the United States could not be extended to 
     address the needs for housing and infrastructure development 
     on Hawaiian home lands (as that term is defined in section 
     801 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of this Act) 
     with the result that otherwise eligible Native Hawaiians 
     residing on the Hawaiian home lands have been foreclosed from 
     participating in Federal housing assistance programs 
     available to all other eligible families in the United 
     States;
       (4) although Federal housing assistance programs have been 
     administered on a racially neutral basis in the State of 
     Hawaii, Native Hawaiians continue to have the greatest unmet 
     need for housing and the highest rates of overcrowding in the 
     United States;
       (5) among the Native American population of the United 
     States, Native Hawaiians experience the highest percentage of 
     housing problems in the United States, as the percentage--
       (A) of housing problems in the Native Hawaiian population 
     is 49 percent, as compared to--
       (i) 44 percent for American Indian and Alaska Native 
     households in Indian country; and
       (ii) 27 percent for all other households in the United 
     States; and
       (B) overcrowding in the Native Hawaiian population is 36 
     percent as compared to 3 percent for all other households in 
     the United States;
       (6) among the Native Hawaiian population, the needs of 
     Native Hawaiians, as that term is defined in section 801 of 
     the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
     Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of this Act, eligible to 
     reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands are the most severe, as--
       (A) the percentage of overcrowding in Native Hawaiian 
     households on the Hawaiian Home Lands is 36 percent; and
       (B) approximately 13,000 Native Hawaiians, which constitute 
     95 percent of the Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside 
     on the Hawaiian Home Lands, are in need of housing;
       (7) applying the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development guidelines--
       (A) 70.8 percent of Native Hawaiians who either reside or 
     who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands have 
     incomes that fall below the median family income; and
       (B) 50 percent of Native Hawaiians who either reside or who 
     are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands have 
     incomes below 30 percent of the median family income; and
       (8) \1/3\ of those Native Hawaiians who are eligible to 
     reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands pay more than 30 percent of 
     their income for shelter, and \1/2\ of those Native Hawaiians 
     face overcrowding;
       (9) the extraordinarily severe housing needs of Native 
     Hawaiians demonstrate that Native Hawaiians who either reside 
     on, or are eligible to reside on, Hawaiian Home Lands have 
     been denied equal access to Federal low-income housing 
     assistance programs available to other qualified residents of 
     the United States, and that a more effective means of 
     addressing their housing needs must be authorized;
       (10) consistent with the recommendations of the National 
     Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 
     Hawaiian Housing, and in order to address the continuing 
     prevalence of extraordinarily severe housing needs among 
     Native Hawaiians who either reside or are eligible to reside 
     on the Hawaiian Home Lands, Congress finds it necessary to 
     extend the Federal low-income housing assistance available to 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives under the Native American 
     Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 
     U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) to those Native Hawaiians;
       (11) under the treatymaking power of the United States, 
     Congress had the authority to confirm a treaty between the 
     United States and the government that represented the 
     Hawaiian people under clause 3 of section 8 of article I of 
     the Constitution, the authority of Congress to address 
     matters affecting the indigenous peoples of the United States 
     includes the authority to address matters affecting Native 
     Hawaiians;
       (12) through treaties, Federal statutes, and rulings of the 
     Federal courts, the United States has recognized and 
     reaffirmed that--
       (A) the political status of Native Hawaiians is comparable 
     to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
       (B) the aboriginal, indigenous people of the United States 
     have--
       (i) a continuing right to autonomy in their internal 
     affairs; and
       (ii) an ongoing right of self-determination and self-
     governance that has never been extinguished;
       (13) the political relationship between the United States 
     and the Native Hawaiian people has been recognized and 
     reaffirmed by the United States as evidenced by the inclusion 
     of Native Hawaiians in--
       (A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     2291 et seq.);
       (B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1996 et seq.);
       (C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20 
     U.S.C. 80q et seq.);
       (D) the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       (E) the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 
     et seq.);
       (F) the Native American Languages Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
     3434);
       (G) the American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 
     Culture and Arts Development Act (20 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.);
       (H) the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et 
     seq.); and
       (I) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et 
     seq.); and
       (14) in the area of housing, the United States has 
     recognized and reaffirmed the political relationship with the 
     Native Hawaiian people through--
       (A) the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 
     1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.), which set aside approximately 
     200,000 acres of public lands that became known as Hawaiian 
     Home Lands in the Territory of Hawaii that had been ceded to 
     the United States for homesteading by Native Hawaiians in 
     order to rehabilitate a landless and dying people;
       (B) the enactment of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', 
     approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4)--
       (i) by ceding to the State of Hawaii title to the public 
     lands formerly held by the United States, and mandating that 
     those lands be held in public trust, for the betterment of 
     the conditions of Native Hawaiians, as that term is defined 
     in section 801(15) of the Native American Housing Assistance 
     and Self-Determination Act of 1996, as added by section 3 of 
     this Act; and
       (ii) by transferring what the United States considered to 
     be a trust responsibility for the administration of Hawaiian 
     Home Lands to the State of Hawaii, but retaining the 
     authority to enforce the trust, including the exclusive right 
     of the United States to consent to any actions affecting the 
     lands which comprise the corpus of the trust and any 
     amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 
     Stat. 108 et seq.), enacted by the legislature of the State 
     of Hawaii affecting the rights of beneficiaries under the 
     Act;
       (C) the authorization of mortgage loans insured by the 
     Federal Housing Administration for the purchase, 
     construction, or refinancing of homes on Hawaiian Home Lands 
     under the Act of June 27, 1934 (commonly referred to as the 
     ``National Housing Act'' (42 Stat. 1246 et seq., chapter 847; 
     12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.));
       (D) authorizing Native Hawaiian representation on the 
     National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native, and 
     Native Hawaiian Housing under Public Law 101-235;
       (E) the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in the definition 
     under section 3764 of title 38, United States Code, 
     applicable to subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38, United 
     States Code (relating to a housing loan program for Native 
     American veterans); and
       (F) the enactment of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act 
     (109 Stat. 357; 48 U.S.C. 491, note prec.) which establishes 
     a process for the conveyance of Federal lands to the 
     Department of Hawaiian Homes Lands that are equivalent in 
     value to lands acquired by the United States from the 
     Hawaiian Home Lands inventory.

     SEC. 3. HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
         ``TITLE VIII--HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR NATIVE HAWAIIANS

     ``SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Department of hawaiian home lands; department.--The 
     term `Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' or `Department' 
     means the agency or department of the government of the State 
     of Hawaii that is responsible for the administration of the 
     Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.).
       ``(2) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(3) Elderly families; near-elderly families.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `elderly family' or `near-
     elderly family' means a family whose head (or his or her 
     spouse), or whose sole member, is--
       ``(i) for an elderly family, an elderly person; or

[[Page S680]]

       ``(ii) for a near-elderly family, a near-elderly person.
       ``(B) Certain families included.--The term `elderly family' 
     or `near-elderly family' includes--
       ``(i) 2 or more elderly persons or near-elderly persons, as 
     the case may be, living together; and
       ``(ii) 1 or more persons described in clause (i) living 
     with 1 or more persons determined under the housing plan to 
     be essential to their care or well-being.
       ``(4) Hawaiian home lands.--The term `Hawaiian Home Lands' 
     means lands that--
       ``(A) have the status as Hawaiian home lands under section 
     204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 110); or
       ``(B) are acquired pursuant to that Act.
       ``(5) Housing area.--The term `housing area' means an area 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands with respect to which the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands is authorized to provide assistance 
     for affordable housing under this Act.
       ``(6) Housing entity.--The term `housing entity' means the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(7) Housing plan.--The term `housing plan' means a plan 
     developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(8) Median income.--The term `median income' means, with 
     respect to an area that is a Hawaiian housing area, the 
     greater of--
       ``(A) the median income for the Hawaiian housing area, 
     which shall be determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(B) the median income for the State of Hawaii.
       ``(9) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the 
     meaning given the term `Native Hawaiian' in section 201 of 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et 
     seq.).

     ``SEC. 802. BLOCK GRANTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Grant Authority.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall (to the extent amounts are made available to carry out 
     this title) make a grant under this title to the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands to carry out affordable housing 
     activities for Native Hawaiian families on or near Hawaiian 
     Home Lands.
       ``(b) Plan Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant under 
     this title to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for a 
     fiscal year only if--
       ``(A) the Director has submitted to the Secretary a housing 
     plan for that fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the Secretary has determined under section 804 that 
     the housing plan complies with the requirements of section 
     803.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the applicability of 
     the requirements under paragraph (1), in part, if the 
     Secretary finds that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
     has not complied or cannot comply with those requirements due 
     to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(c) Use of Affordable Housing Activities Under Plan.--
     Except as provided in subsection (e), amounts provided under 
     a grant under this section may be used only for affordable 
     housing activities under this title that are consistent with 
     a housing plan approved under section 804.
       ``(d) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     authorize the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to use a 
     percentage of any grant amounts received under this title for 
     any reasonable administrative and planning expenses of the 
     Department relating to carrying out this title and activities 
     assisted with those amounts.
       ``(2) Administrative and planning expenses.--The 
     administrative and planning expenses referred to in paragraph 
     (1) include--
       ``(A) costs for salaries of individuals engaged in 
     administering and managing affordable housing activities 
     assisted with grant amounts provided under this title; and
       ``(B) expenses incurred in preparing a housing plan under 
     section 803.
       ``(e) Public-Private Partnerships.--The Director shall make 
     all reasonable efforts, consistent with the purposes of this 
     title, to maximize participation by the private sector, 
     including nonprofit organizations and for-profit entities, in 
     implementing a housing plan that has been approved by the 
     Secretary under section 803.
       ``(f) Applicability of Other Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall be guided by the 
     relevant program requirements of titles I, II, and IV in the 
     implementation of housing assistance programs for Native 
     Hawaiians under this title.
       ``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may make exceptions to, or 
     modifications of, program requirements for Native American 
     housing assistance set forth in titles I, II, and IV as 
     necessary and appropriate to meet the unique situation and 
     housing needs of Native Hawaiians.

     ``SEC. 803. HOUSING PLAN.

       ``(a) Plan Submission.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) require the Director to submit a housing plan under 
     this section for each fiscal year; and
       ``(2) provide for the review of each plan submitted under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(b) 5-Year Plan.--Each housing plan under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) be in a form prescribed by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) contain, with respect to the 5-year period beginning 
     with the fiscal year for which the plan is submitted, the 
     following information:
       ``(A) Mission statement.--A general statement of the 
     mission of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to serve the 
     needs of the low-income families to be served by the 
     Department.
       ``(B) Goal and objectives.--A statement of the goals and 
     objectives of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to enable 
     the Department to serve the needs identified in subparagraph 
     (A) during the period.
       ``(C) Activities plans.--An overview of the activities 
     planned during the period including an analysis of the manner 
     in which the activities will enable the Department to meet 
     its mission, goals, and objectives.
       ``(c) 1-Year Plan.--A housing plan under this section 
     shall--
       ``(1) be in a form prescribed by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) contain the following information relating to the 
     fiscal year for which the assistance under this title is to 
     be made available:
       ``(A) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and 
     objectives to be accomplished during the period covered by 
     the plan.
       ``(B) Statement of needs.--A statement of the housing needs 
     of the low-income families served by the Department and the 
     means by which those needs will be addressed during the 
     period covered by the plan, including--
       ``(i) a description of the estimated housing needs and the 
     need for assistance for the low-income families to be served 
     by the Department, including a description of the manner in 
     which the geographical distribution of assistance is 
     consistent with--

       ``(I) the geographical needs of those families; and
       ``(II) needs for various categories of housing assistance; 
     and

       ``(ii) a description of the estimated housing needs for all 
     families to be served by the Department.
       ``(C) Financial resources.--An operating budget for the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, in a form prescribed by 
     the Secretary, that includes--
       ``(i) an identification and a description of the financial 
     resources reasonably available to the Department to carry out 
     the purposes of this title, including an explanation of the 
     manner in which amounts made available will be used to 
     leverage additional resources; and
       ``(ii) the uses to which the resources described in clause 
     (i) will be committed, including--

       ``(I) eligible and required affordable housing activities; 
     and
       ``(II) administrative expenses.

       ``(D) Affordable housing resources.--A statement of the 
     affordable housing resources currently available at the time 
     of the submittal of the plan and to be made available during 
     the period covered by the plan, including--
       ``(i) a description of the significant characteristics of 
     the housing market in the State of Hawaii, including the 
     availability of housing from other public sources, private 
     market housing; and
       ``(ii) the manner in which the characteristics referred to 
     in clause (i) influence the decision of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands to use grant amounts to be provided under 
     this title for--

       ``(I) rental assistance;
       ``(II) the production of new units;
       ``(III) the acquisition of existing units; or
       ``(IV) the rehabilitation of units;

       ``(iii) a description of the structure, coordination, and 
     means of cooperation between the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands and any other governmental entities in the development, 
     submission, or implementation of housing plans, including a 
     description of--

       ``(I) the involvement of private, public, and nonprofit 
     organizations and institutions;
       ``(II) the use of loan guarantees under section 184A of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992; and
       ``(III) other housing assistance provided by the United 
     States, including loans, grants, and mortgage insurance;

       ``(iv) a description of the manner in which the plan will 
     address the needs identified pursuant to subparagraph (C);
       ``(v) a description of--

       ``(I) any existing or anticipated homeownership programs 
     and rental programs to be carried out during the period 
     covered by the plan; and
       ``(II) the requirements and assistance available under the 
     programs referred to in subclause (I);

       ``(vi) a description of--

       ``(I) any existing or anticipated housing rehabilitation 
     programs necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the 
     housing to be carried out during the period covered by the 
     plan; and
       ``(II) the requirements and assistance available under the 
     programs referred to in subclause (I);

       ``(vii) a description of--

       ``(I) all other existing or anticipated housing assistance 
     provided by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands during the 
     period covered by the plan, including--

       ``(aa) transitional housing;
       ``(bb) homeless housing;
       ``(cc) college housing; and
       ``(dd) supportive services housing; and

       ``(II) the requirements and assistance available under such 
     programs;

       ``(viii)(I) a description of any housing to be demolished 
     or disposed of;

[[Page S681]]

       ``(II) a timetable for that demolition or disposition; and
       ``(III) any other information required by the Secretary 
     with respect to that demolition or disposition;
       ``(ix) a description of the manner in which the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands will coordinate with welfare agencies 
     in the State of Hawaii to ensure that residents of the 
     affordable housing will be provided with access to resources 
     to assist in obtaining employment and achieving self-
     sufficiency;
       ``(x) a description of the requirements established by the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to--

       ``(I) promote the safety of residents of the affordable 
     housing;
       ``(II) facilitate the undertaking of crime prevention 
     measures;
       ``(III) allow resident input and involvement, including the 
     establishment of resident organizations; and
       ``(IV) allow for the coordination of crime prevention 
     activities between the Department and local law enforcement 
     officials; and

       ``(xi) a description of the entities that will carry out 
     the activities under the plan, including the organizational 
     capacity and key personnel of the entities.
       ``(E) Certification of compliance.--Evidence of compliance 
     that shall include, as appropriate--
       ``(i) a certification that the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands will comply with--

       ``(I) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.) or with title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) in carrying out this title, to 
     the extent that such title is applicable; and
       ``(II) other applicable Federal statutes;

       ``(ii) a certification that the Department will require 
     adequate insurance coverage for housing units that are owned 
     and operated or assisted with grant amounts provided under 
     this title, in compliance with such requirements as may be 
     established by the Secretary;
       ``(iii) a certification that policies are in effect and are 
     available for review by the Secretary and the public 
     governing the eligibility, admission, and occupancy of 
     families for housing assisted with grant amounts provided 
     under this title;
       ``(iv) a certification that policies are in effect and are 
     available for review by the Secretary and the public 
     governing rents charged, including the methods by which such 
     rents or homebuyer payments are determined, for housing 
     assisted with grant amounts provided under this title; and
       ``(v) a certification that policies are in effect and are 
     available for review by the Secretary and the public 
     governing the management and maintenance of housing assisted 
     with grant amounts provided under this title.
       ``(d) Applicability of Civil Rights Statutes.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that the requirements of 
     title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et 
     seq.) or of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) apply to assistance provided under this 
     title, nothing in the requirements concerning discrimination 
     on the basis of race shall be construed to prevent the 
     provision of assistance under this title--
       ``(A) to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on the basis 
     that the Department served Native Hawaiians; or
       ``(B) to an eligible family on the basis that the family is 
     a Native Hawaiian family.
       ``(2) Civil rights.--Program eligibility under this title 
     may be restricted to Native Hawaiians. Subject to the 
     preceding sentence, no person may be discriminated against on 
     the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 
     familial status, or disability.
       ``(e) Use of Nonprofit Organizations.--As a condition of 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands shall, to the extent practicable, provide 
     for private nonprofit organizations experienced in the 
     planning and development of affordable housing for Native 
     Hawaiians to carry out affordable housing activities with 
     those grant amounts.

     ``SEC. 804. REVIEW OF PLANS.

       ``(a) Review and Notice.--
       ``(1) Review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a review of 
     a housing plan submitted to the Secretary under section 803 
     to ensure that the plan complies with the requirements of 
     that section.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Secretary shall have the discretion 
     to review a plan referred to in subparagraph (A) only to the 
     extent that the Secretary considers that the review is 
     necessary.
       ``(2) Notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receiving a 
     plan under section 803, the Secretary shall notify the 
     Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands whether the 
     plan complies with the requirements under that section.
       ``(B) Effect of failure of secretary to take action.--For 
     purposes of this title, if the Secretary does not notify the 
     Director, as required under this subsection and subsection 
     (b), upon the expiration of the 60-day period described in 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) the plan shall be considered to have been determined 
     to comply with the requirements under section 803; and
       ``(ii) the Director shall be considered to have been 
     notified of compliance.
       ``(b) Notice of Reasons for Determination of 
     Noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that a plan 
     submitted under section 803 does not comply with the 
     requirements of that section, the Secretary shall specify in 
     the notice under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) the reasons for noncompliance; and
       ``(2) any modifications necessary for the plan to meet the 
     requirements of section 803.
       ``(c) Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--After the Director of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands submits a housing plan under section 803, 
     or any amendment or modification to the plan to the 
     Secretary, to the extent that the Secretary considers such 
     action to be necessary to make a determination under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall review the plan (including 
     any amendments or modifications thereto) to determine whether 
     the contents of the plan--
       ``(A) set forth the information required by section 803 to 
     be contained in the housing plan;
       ``(B) are consistent with information and data available to 
     the Secretary; and
       ``(C) are not prohibited by or inconsistent with any 
     provision of this Act or any other applicable law.
       ``(2) Incomplete plans.--If the Secretary determines under 
     this subsection that any of the appropriate certifications 
     required under section 803(c)(2)(E) are not included in a 
     plan, the plan shall be considered to be incomplete.
       ``(d) Updates to Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), after a plan 
     under section 803 has been submitted for a fiscal year, the 
     head of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands may comply with 
     the provisions of that section for any succeeding fiscal year 
     (with respect to information included for the 5-year period 
     under section 803(b) or for the 1-year period under section 
     803(c)) by submitting only such information regarding such 
     changes as may be necessary to update the plan previously 
     submitted.
       ``(2) Complete plans.--The Director shall submit a complete 
     plan under section 803 not later than 4 years after 
     submitting an initial plan under that section, and not less 
     frequently than every 4 years thereafter.
       ``(e) Effective Date.--This section and section 803 shall 
     take effect on the date provided by the Secretary pursuant to 
     section 807(a) to provide for timely submission and review of 
     the housing plan as necessary for the provision of assistance 
     under this title for fiscal year 2000.

     ``SEC. 805. TREATMENT OF PROGRAM INCOME AND LABOR STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Program Income.--
       ``(1) Authority to retain.--The Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands may retain any program income that is realized from any 
     grant amounts received by the Department under this title 
     if--
       ``(A) that income was realized after the initial 
     disbursement of the grant amounts received by the Department; 
     and
       ``(B) the Director agrees to use the program income for 
     affordable housing activities in accordance with the 
     provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Prohibition of reduction of grant.--The Secretary may 
     not reduce the grant amount for the Department of Hawaiian 
     Home Lands based solely on--
       ``(A) whether the Department retains program income under 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) the amount of any such program income retained.
       ``(3) Exclusion of amounts.--The Secretary may, by 
     regulation, exclude from consideration as program income any 
     amounts determined to be so small that compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection would create an unreasonable 
     administrative burden on the Department.
       ``(b) Labor Standards.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any contract or agreement for 
     assistance, sale, or lease pursuant to this title shall 
     contain--
       ``(A) a provision requiring that an amount not less than 
     the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined or 
     adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State 
     or local law) by the Secretary, shall be paid to all 
     architects, technical engineers, draftsmen, technicians 
     employed in the development and all maintenance, and laborers 
     and mechanics employed in the operation, of the affordable 
     housing project involved; and
       ``(B) a provision that an amount not less than the wages 
     prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary 
     of Labor pursuant to the Act commonly known as the `Davis-
     Bacon Act' (46 Stat. 1494, chapter 411; 40 U.S.C. 276a et 
     seq.) shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed in 
     the development of the affordable housing involved.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) and provisions relating to 
     wages required under paragraph (1) in any contract or 
     agreement for assistance, sale, or lease under this title, 
     shall not apply to any individual who performs the services 
     for which the individual volunteered and who is not otherwise 
     employed at any time in the construction work and received no 
     compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a 
     nominal fee for those services.

     ``SEC. 806. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Release of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out the 
     alternative environmental protection procedures described in 
     subparagraph (B) in order to ensure--
       ``(i) that the policies of the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321

[[Page S682]]

     et seq.) and other provisions of law that further the 
     purposes of such Act (as specified in regulations issued by 
     the Secretary) are most effectively implemented in connection 
     with the expenditure of grant amounts provided under this 
     title; and
       ``(ii) to the public undiminished protection of the 
     environment.
       ``(B) Alternative environmental protection procedure.--In 
     lieu of applying environmental protection procedures 
     otherwise applicable, the Secretary may by regulation provide 
     for the release of funds for specific projects to the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands if the Director of the 
     Department assumes all of the responsibilities for 
     environmental review, decisionmaking, and action under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.), and such other provisions of law as the regulations of 
     the Secretary specify, that would apply to the Secretary were 
     the Secretary to undertake those projects as Federal 
     projects.
       ``(2) Regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall issue regulations to 
     carry out this section only after consultation with the 
     Council on Environmental Quality.
       ``(B) Contents.--The regulations issued under this 
     paragraph shall--
       ``(i) provide for the monitoring of the environmental 
     reviews performed under this section;
       ``(ii) in the discretion of the Secretary, facilitate 
     training for the performance of such reviews; and
       ``(iii) provide for the suspension or termination of the 
     assumption of responsibilities under this section.
       ``(3) Effect on assumed responsibility.--The duty of the 
     Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) shall not be construed to 
     limit or reduce any responsibility assumed by the Department 
     of Hawaiian Home Lands for grant amounts with respect to any 
     specific release of funds.
       ``(b) Procedure.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall authorize the 
     release of funds subject to the procedures under this section 
     only if, not less than 15 days before that approval and 
     before any commitment of funds to such projects, the Director 
     of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands submits to the 
     Secretary a request for such release accompanied by a 
     certification that meets the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(2) Effect of approval.--The approval of the Secretary of 
     a certification described in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to 
     satisfy the responsibilities of the Secretary under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and such other provisions of law as the regulations of 
     the Secretary specify to the extent that those 
     responsibilities relate to the releases of funds for projects 
     that are covered by that certification.
       ``(c) Certification.--A certification under the procedures 
     under this section shall--
       ``(1) be in a form acceptable to the Secretary;
       ``(2) be executed by the Director of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands;
       ``(3) specify that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
     has fully carried out its responsibilities as described under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(4) specify that the Director--
       ``(A) consents to assume the status of a responsible 
     Federal official under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and each provision of law 
     specified in regulations issued by the Secretary to the 
     extent that those laws apply by reason of subsection (a); and
       ``(B) is authorized and consents on behalf of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Director to accept 
     the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the purpose of 
     enforcement of the responsibilities of the Director of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands as such an official.

     ``SEC. 807. REGULATIONS.

       ``The Secretary shall issue final regulations necessary to 
     carry out this title not later than October 1, 1999.

     ``SEC. 808. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``Except as otherwise expressly provided in this title, 
     this title shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     ``SEC. 809. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) National Objectives and Eligible Families.--
       ``(1) Primary objective.--The national objectives of this 
     title are--
       ``(A) to assist and promote affordable housing activities 
     to develop, maintain, and operate affordable housing in safe 
     and healthy environments for occupancy by low-income Native 
     Hawaiian families;
       ``(B) to ensure better access to private mortgage markets 
     and to promote self-sufficiency of low-income Native Hawaiian 
     families;
       ``(C) to coordinate activities to provide housing for low-
     income Native Hawaiian families with Federal, State and local 
     activities to further economic and community development;
       ``(D) to plan for and integrate infrastructure resources on 
     the Hawaiian Home Lands with housing development; and
       ``(E) to--
       ``(i) promote the development of private capital markets; 
     and
       ``(ii) allow the markets referred to in clause (i) to 
     operate and grow, thereby benefiting Native Hawaiian 
     communities.
       ``(2) Eligible families.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph 
     (B), assistance for eligible housing activities under this 
     title shall be limited to low-income Native Hawaiian 
     families.
       ``(B) Exception to low-income requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Director may provide assistance for 
     homeownership activities under--

       ``(I) section 810(b);
       ``(II) model activities under section 810(f); or
       ``(III) loan guarantee activities under section 184A of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to Native 
     Hawaiian families who are not low-income families, to the 
     extent that the Secretary approves the activities under that 
     section to address a need for housing for those families that 
     cannot be reasonably met without that assistance.

       ``(ii) Limitations.--The Secretary shall establish 
     limitations on the amount of assistance that may be provided 
     under this title for activities for families that are not 
     low-income families.
       ``(C) Other families.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Director may provide housing or housing assistance provided 
     through affordable housing activities assisted with grant 
     amounts under this title to a family that is not composed of 
     Native Hawaiians if--
       ``(i) the Department determines that the presence of the 
     family in the housing involved is essential to the well-being 
     of Native Hawaiian families; and
       ``(ii) the need for housing for the family cannot be 
     reasonably met without the assistance.
       ``(D) Preference.--
       ``(i) In general.--A housing plan submitted under section 
     803 may authorize a preference, for housing or housing 
     assistance provided through affordable housing activities 
     assisted with grant amounts provided under this title to be 
     provided, to the extent practicable, to families that are 
     eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(ii) Application.--In any case in which a housing plan 
     provides for preference described in clause (i), the Director 
     shall ensure that housing activities that are assisted with 
     grant amounts under this title are subject to that 
     preference.
       ``(E) Use of nonprofit organizations.--As a condition of 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands, shall to the extent practicable, provide 
     for private nonprofit organizations experienced in the 
     planning and development of affordable housing for Native 
     Hawaiians to carry out affordable housing activities with 
     those grant amounts.

     ``SEC. 810. ELIGIBLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Affordable housing activities under this 
     section are activities conducted in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 811 to--
       ``(1) develop or to support affordable housing for rental 
     or homeownership; or
       ``(2) provide housing services with respect to affordable 
     housing, through the activities described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Activities.--The activities described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       ``(1) Development.--The acquisition, new construction, 
     reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of 
     affordable housing, which may include--
       ``(A) real property acquisition;
       ``(B) site improvement;
       ``(C) the development of utilities and utility services;
       ``(D) conversion;
       ``(E) demolition;
       ``(F) financing;
       ``(G) administration and planning; and
       ``(H) other related activities.
       ``(2) Housing services.--The provision of housing-related 
     services for affordable housing, including--
       ``(A) housing counseling in connection with rental or 
     homeownership assistance;
       ``(B) the establishment and support of resident 
     organizations and resident management corporations;
       ``(C) energy auditing;
       ``(D) activities related to the provisions of self-
     sufficiency and other services; and
       ``(E) other services related to assisting owners, tenants, 
     contractors, and other entities participating or seeking to 
     participate in other housing activities assisted pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(3) Housing management services.--The provision of 
     management services for affordable housing, including--
       ``(A) the preparation of work specifications;
       ``(B) loan processing;
       ``(C) inspections;
       ``(D) tenant selection;
       ``(E) management of tenant-based rental assistance; and
       ``(F) management of affordable housing projects.
       ``(4) Crime prevention and safety activities.--The 
     provision of safety, security, and law enforcement measures 
     and activities appropriate to protect residents of affordable 
     housing from crime.
       ``(5) Model activities.--Housing activities under model 
     programs that are--
       ``(A) designed to carry out the purposes of this title; and
       ``(B) specifically approved by the Secretary as appropriate 
     for the purpose referred to in subparagraph (A).

     ``SEC. 811. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Rents.--

[[Page S683]]

       ``(1) Establishment.--Subject to paragraph (2), as a 
     condition to receiving grant amounts under this title, the 
     Director shall develop written policies governing rents and 
     homebuyer payments charged for dwelling units assisted under 
     this title, including methods by which such rents and 
     homebuyer payments are determined.
       ``(2) Maximum rent.--In the case of any low-income family 
     residing in a dwelling unit assisted with grant amounts under 
     this title, the monthly rent or homebuyer payment (as 
     applicable) for that dwelling unit may not exceed 30 percent 
     of the monthly adjusted income of that family.
       ``(b) Maintenance and Efficient Operation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall, using amounts of any 
     grants received under this title, reserve and use for 
     operating under section 810 such amounts as may be necessary 
     to provide for the continued maintenance and efficient 
     operation of such housing.
       ``(2) Disposal of certain housing.--This subsection may not 
     be construed to prevent the Director, or any entity funded by 
     the Department, from demolishing or disposing of housing, 
     pursuant to regulations established by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Insurance Coverage.--As a condition to receiving 
     grant amounts under this title, the Director shall require 
     adequate insurance coverage for housing units that are owned 
     or operated or assisted with grant amounts provided under 
     this title.
       ``(d) Eligibility for Admission.--As a condition to 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall 
     develop written policies governing the eligibility, 
     admission, and occupancy of families for housing assisted 
     with grant amounts provided under this title.
       ``(e) Management and Maintenance.--As a condition to 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall 
     develop policies governing the management and maintenance of 
     housing assisted with grant amounts under this title.

     ``SEC. 812. TYPES OF INVESTMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to section 811 and an applicable 
     housing plan approved under section 803, the Director shall 
     have--
       ``(1) the discretion to use grant amounts for affordable 
     housing activities through the use of--
       ``(A) equity investments;
       ``(B) interest-bearing loans or advances;
       ``(C) noninterest-bearing loans or advances;
       ``(D) interest subsidies;
       ``(E) the leveraging of private investments; or
       ``(F) any other form of assistance that the Secretary 
     determines to be consistent with the purposes of this title; 
     and
       ``(2) the right to establish the terms of assistance 
     provided with funds referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Investments.--The Director may invest grant amounts 
     for the purposes of carrying out affordable housing 
     activities in investment securities and other obligations, as 
     approved by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 813. LOW-INCOME REQUIREMENT AND INCOME TARGETING.

       ``(a) In General.--Housing shall qualify for affordable 
     housing for purposes of this title only if--
       ``(1) each dwelling unit in the housing--
       ``(A) in the case of rental housing, is made available for 
     occupancy only by a family that is a low-income family at the 
     time of the initial occupancy of that family of that unit; 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of housing for homeownership, is made 
     available for purchase only by a family that is a low-income 
     family at the time of purchase; and
       ``(2) each dwelling unit in the housing will remain 
     affordable, according to binding commitments satisfactory to 
     the Secretary, for--
       ``(A) the remaining useful life of the property (as 
     determined by the Secretary) without regard to the term of 
     the mortgage or to transfer of ownership; or
       ``(B) such other period as the Secretary determines is the 
     longest feasible period of time consistent with sound 
     economics and the purposes of this title, except upon a 
     foreclosure by a lender (or upon other transfer in lieu of 
     foreclosure) if that action--
       ``(i) recognizes any contractual or legal rights of any 
     public agency, nonprofit sponsor, or other person or entity 
     to take an action that would--

       ``(I) avoid termination of low-income affordability, in the 
     case of foreclosure; or
       ``(II) transfer ownership in lieu of foreclosure; and

       ``(ii) is not for the purpose of avoiding low-income 
     affordability restrictions, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), housing 
     assisted pursuant to section 809(a)(2)(B) shall be considered 
     affordable housing for purposes of this title.

      ``SEC. 814. LEASE REQUIREMENTS AND TENANT SELECTION.

       ``(a) Leases.--Except to the extent otherwise provided by 
     or inconsistent with the laws of the State of Hawaii, in 
     renting dwelling units in affordable housing assisted with 
     grant amounts provided under this title, the Director, owner, 
     or manager shall use leases that--
       ``(1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
       ``(2) require the Director, owner, or manager to maintain 
     the housing in compliance with applicable housing codes and 
     quality standards;
       ``(3) require the Director, owner, or manager to give 
     adequate written notice of termination of the lease, which 
     shall be the period of time required under applicable State 
     or local law;
       ``(4) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction 
     or termination, notwithstanding any State or local law, a 
     resident shall be informed of the opportunity, before any 
     hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, record, 
     or regulations directly related to the eviction or 
     termination;
       ``(5) require that the Director, owner, or manager may not 
     terminate the tenancy, during the term of the lease, except 
     for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions 
     of the lease, violation of applicable Federal, State, or 
     local law, or for other good cause; and
       ``(6) provide that the Director, owner, and manager may 
     terminate the tenancy of a resident for any activity, engaged 
     in by the resident, any member of the household of the 
     resident, or any guest or other person under the control of 
     the resident, that--
       ``(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other residents or 
     employees of the Department, owner, or manager;
       ``(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in 
     the immediate vicinity of the premises; or
       ``(C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal 
     activity) on or off the premises.
       ``(b) Tenant or Homebuyer Selection.--As a condition to 
     receiving grant amounts under this title, the Director shall 
     adopt and use written tenant and homebuyer selection policies 
     and criteria that--
       ``(1) are consistent with the purpose of providing housing 
     for low-income families;
       ``(2) are reasonably related to program eligibility and the 
     ability of the applicant to perform the obligations of the 
     lease; and
       ``(3) provide for--
       ``(A) the selection of tenants and homebuyers from a 
     written waiting list in accordance with the policies and 
     goals set forth in an applicable housing plan approved under 
     section 803; and
       ``(B) the prompt notification in writing of any rejected 
     applicant of the grounds for that rejection.

     ``SEC. 815. REPAYMENT.

       ``If the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands uses grant 
     amounts to provide affordable housing under activities under 
     this title and, at any time during the useful life of the 
     housing, the housing does not comply with the requirement 
     under section 813(a)(2), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) reduce future grant payments on behalf of the 
     Department by an amount equal to the grant amounts used for 
     that housing (under the authority of section 819(a)(2)); or
       ``(2) require repayment to the Secretary of any amount 
     equal to those grant amounts.

     ``SEC. 816. ANNUAL ALLOCATION.

       ``For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate any 
     amounts made available for assistance under this title for 
     the fiscal year, in accordance with the formula established 
     pursuant to section 817 to the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands if the Department complies with the requirements under 
     this title for a grant under this title.

     ``SEC. 817. ALLOCATION FORMULA.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall, by regulation 
     issued not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of the Native American 
     Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999, 
     in the manner provided under section 807, establish a formula 
     to provide for the allocation of amounts available for a 
     fiscal year for block grants under this title in accordance 
     with the requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Factors for Determination of Need.--The formula under 
     subsection (a) shall be based on factors that reflect the 
     needs for assistance for affordable housing activities, 
     including--
       ``(1) the number of low-income dwelling units owned or 
     operated at the time pursuant to a contract between the 
     Director and the Secretary;
       ``(2) the extent of poverty and economic distress and the 
     number of Native Hawaiian families eligible to reside on the 
     Hawaiian Home Lands; and
       ``(3) any other objectively measurable conditions that the 
     Secretary and the Director may specify.
       ``(c) Other Factors for Consideration.--In establishing the 
     formula under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 
     the relative administrative capacities of the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands and other challenges faced by the 
     Department, including--
       ``(1) geographic distribution within Hawaiian Home Lands; 
     and
       ``(2) technical capacity.
       ``(d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     the date of enactment of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999.

     ``SEC. 818. REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) Actions by Secretary Affecting Grant Amounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if 
     the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has 
     failed to comply substantially with any provision of this 
     title, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) terminate payments under this title to the 
     Department;

[[Page S684]]

       ``(B) reduce payments under this title to the Department by 
     an amount equal to the amount of such payments that were not 
     expended in accordance with this title; or
       ``(C) limit the availability of payments under this title 
     to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such 
     failure to comply.
       ``(2) Actions.--If the Secretary takes an action under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall continue that action until the Secretary determines 
     that the failure by the Department to comply with the 
     provision has been remedied by the Department and the 
     Department is in compliance with that provision.
       ``(b) Noncompliance Because of a Technical Incapacity.--The 
     Secretary may provide technical assistance for the 
     Department, either directly or indirectly, that is designed 
     to increase the capability and capacity of the Director of 
     the Department to administer assistance provided under this 
     title in compliance with the requirements under this title if 
     the Secretary makes a finding under subsection (a), but 
     determines that the failure of the Department to comply 
     substantially with the provisions of this title--
       ``(1) is not a pattern or practice of activities 
     constituting willful noncompliance; and
       ``(2) is a result of the limited capability or capacity of 
     the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(c) Referral for Civil Action.--
       ``(1) Authority.--In lieu of, or in addition to, any action 
     that the Secretary may take under subsection (a), if the 
     Secretary has reason to believe that the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands has failed to comply substantially with 
     any provision of this title, the Secretary may refer the 
     matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a 
     recommendation that an appropriate civil action be 
     instituted.
       ``(2) Civil action.--Upon receiving a referral under 
     paragraph (1), the Attorney General may bring a civil action 
     in any United States district court of appropriate 
     jurisdiction for such relief as may be appropriate, including 
     an action--
       ``(A) to recover the amount of the assistance furnished 
     under this title that was not expended in accordance with 
     this title; or
       ``(B) for mandatory or injunctive relief.
       ``(d) Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Director receives notice under 
     subsection (a) of the termination, reduction, or limitation 
     of payments under this Act, the Director--
       ``(A) may, not later than 60 days after receiving such 
     notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Ninth Circuit, or in the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the action 
     of the Secretary; and
       ``(B) upon the filing of any petition under subparagraph 
     (A), shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who 
     shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall file in the court a 
     record of the proceeding on which the Secretary based the 
     action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       ``(B) Objections.--No objection to the action of the 
     Secretary shall be considered by the court unless the 
     Department has registered the objection before the Secretary.
       ``(3) Disposition.--
       ``(A) Court proceedings.--
       ``(i) Jurisdiction of court.--The court shall have 
     jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary 
     or to set the action aside in whole or in part.
       ``(ii) Findings of fact.--If supported by substantial 
     evidence on the record considered as a whole, the findings of 
     fact by the Secretary shall be conclusive.
       ``(iii) Addition.--The court may order evidence, in 
     addition to the evidence submitted for review under this 
     subsection, to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part 
     of the record.
       ``(B) Secretary.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, by reason of the 
     additional evidence referred to in subparagraph (A) and filed 
     with the court--

       ``(I) may--

       ``(aa) modify the findings of fact of the Secretary; or
       ``(bb) make new findings; and

       ``(II) shall file--

       ``(aa) such modified or new findings; and
       ``(bb) the recommendation of the Secretary, if any, for the 
     modification or setting aside of the original action of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(ii) Findings.--The findings referred to in clause 
     (i)(II)(bb) shall, with respect to a question of fact, be 
     considered to be conclusive if those findings are--

       ``(I) supported by substantial evidence on the record; and
       ``(II) considered as a whole.

       ``(4) Finality.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     upon the filing of the record under this subsection with the 
     court--
       ``(i) the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive; and
       ``(ii) the judgment of the court shall be final.
       ``(B) Review by supreme court.--A judgment under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to review by the Supreme 
     Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or 
     certification, as provided in section 1254 of title 28, 
     United States Code.

     ``SEC. 819. MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) Enforceable Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director, through binding 
     contractual agreements with owners or other authorized 
     entities, shall ensure long-term compliance with the 
     provisions of this title.
       ``(2) Measures.--The measures referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall provide for--
       ``(A) to the extent allowable by Federal and State law, the 
     enforcement of the provisions of this title by the Department 
     and the Secretary; and
       ``(B) remedies for breach of the provisions referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Periodic Monitoring.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the 
     Director shall review the activities conducted and housing 
     assisted under this title to assess compliance with the 
     requirements of this title.
       ``(2) Review.--Each review under paragraph (1) shall 
     include onsite inspection of housing to determine compliance 
     with applicable requirements.
       ``(3) Results.--The results of each review under paragraph 
     (1) shall be--
       ``(A) included in a performance report of the Director 
     submitted to the Secretary under section 820; and
       ``(B) made available to the public.
       ``(c) Performance Measures.--The Secretary shall establish 
     such performance measures as may be necessary to assess 
     compliance with the requirements of this title.

     ``SEC. 820. PERFORMANCE REPORTS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--For each fiscal year, the Director 
     shall--
       ``(1) review the progress the Department has made during 
     that fiscal year in carrying out the housing plan submitted 
     by the Department under section 803; and
       ``(2) submit a report to the Secretary (in a form 
     acceptable to the Secretary) describing the conclusions of 
     the review.
       ``(b) Content.--Each report submitted under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall--
       ``(1) describe the use of grant amounts provided to the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands for that fiscal year;
       ``(2) assess the relationship of the use referred to in 
     paragraph (1) to the goals identified in the housing plan;
       ``(3) indicate the programmatic accomplishments of the 
     Department; and
       ``(4) describe the manner in which the Department would 
     change its housing plan submitted under section 803 as a 
     result of its experiences.
       ``(c) Submissions.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish a date for submission of each report under 
     this section;
       ``(2) review each such report; and
       ``(3) with respect to each such report, make 
     recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate to 
     carry out the purposes of this title.
       ``(d) Public Availability.--
       ``(1) Comments by beneficiaries.--In preparing a report 
     under this section, the Director shall make the report 
     publicly available to the beneficiaries of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.) and give a 
     sufficient amount of time to permit those beneficiaries to 
     comment on that report before it is submitted to the 
     Secretary (in such manner and at such time as the Director 
     may determine).
       ``(2) Summary of comments.--The report shall include a 
     summary of any comments received by the Director from 
     beneficiaries under paragraph (1) regarding the program to 
     carry out the housing plan.

     ``SEC. 821. REVIEW AND AUDIT BY SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Annual Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, not less frequently 
     than on an annual basis, make such reviews and audits as may 
     be necessary or appropriate to determine whether--
       ``(A) the Director has--
       ``(i) carried out eligible activities under this title in a 
     timely manner;
       ``(ii) carried out and made certifications in accordance 
     with the requirements and the primary objectives of this 
     title and with other applicable laws; and
       ``(iii) a continuing capacity to carry out the eligible 
     activities in a timely manner;
       ``(B) the Director has complied with the housing plan 
     submitted by the Director under section 803; and
       ``(C) the performance reports of the Department under 
     section 821 are accurate.
       ``(2) Onsite visits.--Each review conducted under this 
     section shall, to the extent practicable, include onsite 
     visits by employees of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       ``(b) Report by Secretary.--The Secretary shall give the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands not less than 30 days to 
     review and comment on a report under this subsection. After 
     taking into consideration the comments of the Department, the 
     Secretary may revise the report and shall make the comments 
     of the Department and the report with any revisions, readily 
     available to the public not later than 30 days after receipt 
     of the comments of the Department.
       ``(c) Effect of Reviews.--The Secretary may make 
     appropriate adjustments in the amount of annual grants under 
     this title in accordance with the findings of the Secretary 
     pursuant to reviews and audits under this section. The 
     Secretary may adjust, reduce, or withdraw grant amounts, or 
     take other action as appropriate in accordance with the 
     reviews and audits of the Secretary under this section, 
     except that grant amounts already expended on affordable 
     housing activities may not be recaptured or

[[Page S685]]

     deducted from future assistance provided to the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.

     ``SEC. 822. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUDITS.

       ``To the extent that the financial transactions of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands involving grant amounts 
     under this title relate to amounts provided under this title, 
     those transactions may be audited by the Comptroller General 
     of the United States under such regulations as may be 
     prescribed by the Comptroller General. The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall have access to all books, 
     accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers, things, 
     or property belonging to or in use by the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands pertaining to such financial transactions 
     and necessary to facilitate the audit.

     ``SEC. 823. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     conclusion of each fiscal year in which assistance under this 
     title is made available, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress a report that contains--
       ``(1) a description of the progress made in accomplishing 
     the objectives of this title;
       ``(2) a summary of the use of funds available under this 
     title during the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(3) a description of the aggregate outstanding loan 
     guarantees under section 184A of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992.
       ``(b) Related Reports.--The Secretary may require the 
     Director to submit to the Secretary such reports and other 
     information as may be necessary in order for the Secretary to 
     prepare the report required under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 824. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development for grants under this title 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2000, 
     2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.''.

     SEC. 4. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

       Subtitle E of title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after section 
     184 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a) the following:

     ``SEC. 184A. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Department of hawaiian home lands.--The term 
     `Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' means the agency or 
     department of the government of the State of Hawaii that is 
     responsible for the administration of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 set seq.).
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     Native Hawaiian family, the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, private nonprofit or 
     for profit organizations experienced in the planning and 
     development of affordable housing for Native Hawaiians.
       ``(3) Family.--The term `family' means 1 or more persons 
     maintaining a household, as the Secretary shall by regulation 
     provide.
       ``(4) Guarantee fund.--The term `Guarantee Fund' means the 
     Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under 
     subsection (i).
       ``(5) Hawaiian home lands.--The term `Hawaiian Home Lands' 
     means lands that--
       ``(A) have the status of Hawaiian Home Lands under section 
     204 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 110); or
       ``(B) are acquired pursuant to that Act.
       ``(6) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' has the 
     meaning given the term `native Hawaiian' in section 201 of 
     the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et 
     seq.).
       ``(7) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of 
     Hawaiian Affairs' means the entity of that name established 
     under the constitution of the State of Hawaii.
       ``(b) Authority.--To provide access to sources of private 
     financing to Native Hawaiian families who otherwise could not 
     acquire housing financing because of the unique legal status 
     of the Hawaiian home lands or as a result of a lack of access 
     to private financial markets, the Secretary may guarantee an 
     amount not to exceed 100 percent of the unpaid principal and 
     interest that is due on an eligible loan under subsection 
     (b).
       ``(c) Eligible Loans.--Under this section, a loan is an 
     eligible loan if that loan meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) Eligible borrowers.--The loans is made only to a 
     borrower who--
       ``(A) is a Native Hawaiian family;
       ``(B) the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands;
       ``(C) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; or
       ``(D) a private nonprofit organization experienced in the 
     planning and development of affordable housing for Native 
     Hawaiians.
       ``(2) Eligible housing.--
       ``(A) In general.--The loan will be used to construct, 
     acquire, or rehabilitate not more than 4-family dwellings 
     that are standard housing and are located on Hawaiian Home 
     Lands for which a housing plan described in subparagraph (B) 
     applies.
       ``(B) Housing plan.--A housing plan described in this 
     subparagraph is a housing plan that--
       ``(i) has been submitted and approved by the Secretary 
     under section 803 of the Native American Housing Assistance 
     and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999; and
       ``(ii) provides for the use of loan guarantees under this 
     section to provide affordable homeownership housing on 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(3) Security.--The loan may be secured by any collateral 
     authorized under applicable Federal law or State law.
       ``(4) Lenders.--
       ``(A) In general.--The loan shall be made only by a lender 
     approved by, and meeting qualifications established by, the 
     Secretary, including any lender described in subparagraph 
     (B), except that a loan otherwise insured or guaranteed by an 
     agency of the Federal Government or made by the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands from amounts borrowed from the United 
     Sates shall not be eligible for a guarantee under this 
     section.
       ``(B) Approval.--The following lenders shall be considered 
     to be lenders that have been approved by the Secretary:
       ``(i) Any mortgagee approved by the Secretary for 
     participation in the single family mortgage insurance program 
     under title II of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1707 
     et seq.).
       ``(ii) Any lender that makes housing loans under chapter 37 
     of title 38, United States Code, that are automatically 
     guaranteed under section 3702(d) of title 38, United States 
     Code.
       ``(iii) Any lender approved by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to make guaranteed loans for single family housing under the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.A. 1441 et seq.).
       ``(iv) Any other lender that is supervised, approved, 
     regulated, or insured by any agency of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(5) Terms.--The loan shall--
       ``(A) be made for a term not exceeding 30 years;
       ``(B) bear interest (exclusive of the guarantee fee under 
     subsection (d) and service charges, if any) at a rate agreed 
     upon by the borrower and the lender and determined by the 
     Secretary to be reasonable, but not to exceed the rate 
     generally charged in the area (as determined by the 
     Secretary) for home mortgage loans not guaranteed or insured 
     by any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government;
       ``(C) involve a principal obligation not exceeding--
       ``(i) 97.75 percent of the appraised value of the property 
     as of the date the loan is accepted for guarantee (or 98.75 
     percent if the value of the property is $50,000 or less); or
       ``(ii) the amount approved by the Secretary under this 
     section; and
       ``(D) involve a payment on account of the property--
       ``(i) in cash or its equivalent; or
       ``(ii) through the value of any improvements to the 
     property made through the skilled or unskilled labor of the 
     borrower, as the Secretary shall provide.
       ``(d) Certificate of Guarantee.--
       ``(1) Approval process.--
       ``(A) In general.--Before the Secretary approves any loan 
     for guarantee under this section, the lender shall submit the 
     application for the loan to the Secretary for examination.
       ``(B) Approval.--If the Secretary approves the application 
     submitted under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall issue a 
     certificate under this subsection as evidence of the loan 
     guarantee approved.
       ``(2) Standard for approval.--The Secretary may approve a 
     loan for guarantee under this section and issue a certificate 
     under this subsection only if the Secretary determines that 
     there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the loan.
       ``(3) Effect.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certificate of guarantee issued under 
     this subsection by the Secretary shall be conclusive evidence 
     of the eligibility of the loan for guarantee under this 
     section and the amount of that guarantee.
       ``(B) Evidence.--The evidence referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be incontestable in the hands of the bearer.
       ``(C) Full faith and credit.--The full faith and credit of 
     the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts 
     agreed to be paid by the Secretary as security for the 
     obligations made by the Secretary under this section.
       ``(4) Fraud and misrepresentation.--This subsection may not 
     be construed--
       ``(A) to preclude the Secretary from establishing defenses 
     against the original lender based on fraud or material 
     misrepresentation; or
       ``(B) to bar the Secretary from establishing by regulations 
     that are on the date of issuance or disbursement, whichever 
     is earlier, partial defenses to the amount payable on the 
     guarantee.
       ``(e) Guarantee Fee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall fix and collect a 
     guarantee fee for the guarantee of a loan under this section, 
     which may not exceed the amount equal to 1 percent of the 
     principal obligation of the loan.
       ``(2) Payment.--The fee under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) be paid by the lender at time of issuance of the 
     guarantee; and
       ``(B) be adequate, in the determination of the Secretary, 
     to cover expenses and probable losses.
       ``(3) Deposit.--The Secretary shall deposit any fees 
     collected under this subsection in the Native Hawaiian 
     Housing Loan Guarantee Fund established under subsection (j).
       ``(f) Liability Under Guarantee.--The liability under a 
     guarantee provided under this section shall decrease or 
     increase on a pro rata basis according to any decrease or 
     increase in the amount of the unpaid obligation under the 
     provisions of the loan agreement involved.
       ``(g) Transfer and Assumption.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any

[[Page S686]]

     loan guaranteed under this section, including the security 
     given for the loan, may be sold or assigned by the lender to 
     any financial institution subject to examination and 
     supervision by an agency of the Federal Government or of any 
     State or the District of Columbia.
       ``(h) Disqualification of Lenders and Civil Money 
     Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Grounds for action.--The Secretary may take action 
     under subparagraph (B) if the Secretary determines that any 
     lender or holder of a guarantee certificate under subsection 
     (c)--
       ``(i) has failed--

       ``(I) to maintain adequate accounting records;
       ``(II) to service adequately loans guaranteed under this 
     section; or
       ``(III) to exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment; 
     or

       ``(ii) has engaged in practices otherwise detrimental to 
     the interest of a borrower or the United States.
       ``(B) Actions.--Upon a determination by the Secretary that 
     a holder of a guarantee certificate under subsection (c) has 
     failed to carry out an activity described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i) or has engaged in practices described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the Secretary may--
       ``(i) refuse, either temporarily or permanently, to 
     guarantee any further loans made by such lender or holder;
       ``(ii) bar such lender or holder from acquiring additional 
     loans guaranteed under this section; and
       ``(iii) require that such lender or holder assume not less 
     than 10 percent of any loss on further loans made or held by 
     the lender or holder that are guaranteed under this section.
       ``(2) Civil money penalties for intentional violations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may impose a civil 
     monetary penalty on a lender or holder of a guarantee 
     certificate under subsection (d) if the Secretary determines 
     that the holder or lender has intentionally failed--
       ``(i) to maintain adequate accounting records;
       ``(ii) to adequately service loans guaranteed under this 
     section; or
       ``(iii) to exercise proper credit or underwriting judgment.
       ``(B) Penalties.--A civil monetary penalty imposed under 
     this paragraph shall be imposed in the manner and be in an 
     amount provided under section 536 of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-1) with respect to mortgagees and lenders 
     under that Act.
       ``(3) Payment on loans made in good faith.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), if a loan was made in good faith, the 
     Secretary may not refuse to pay a lender or holder of a valid 
     guarantee on that loan, without regard to whether the lender 
     or holder is barred under this subsection.
       ``(i) Payment Under Guarantee.--
       ``(1) Lender options.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Notification.--If borrower on a loan guaranteed under 
     this section defaults on the loan, the holder of the 
     guarantee certificate shall provide written notice of the 
     default to the Secretary.
       ``(ii) Payment.--Upon providing the notice required under 
     clause (i), the holder of the guarantee certificate shall be 
     entitled to payment under the guarantee (subject to the 
     provisions of this section) and may proceed to obtain payment 
     in 1 of the following manners:

       ``(I) Foreclosure.--

       ``(aa) In general.--The holder of the certificate may 
     initiate foreclosure proceedings (after providing written 
     notice of that action to the Secretary).
       ``(bb) Payment.--Upon a final order by the court 
     authorizing foreclosure and submission to the Secretary of a 
     claim for payment under the guarantee, the Secretary shall 
     pay to the holder of the certificate the pro rata portion of 
     the amount guaranteed (as determined pursuant to subsection 
     (f)) plus reasonable fees and expenses as approved by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(cc) Subrogation.--The rights of the Secretary shall be 
     subrogated to the rights of the holder of the guarantee. The 
     holder shall assign the obligation and security to the 
     Secretary.

       ``(II) No foreclosure.--

       ``(aa) In general.--Without seeking foreclosure (or in any 
     case in which a foreclosure proceeding initiated under clause 
     (i) continues for a period in excess of 1 year), the holder 
     of the guarantee may submit to the Secretary a request to 
     assign the obligation and security interest to the Secretary 
     in return for payment of the claim under the guarantee. The 
     Secretary may accept assignment of the loan if the Secretary 
     determines that the assignment is in the best interest of the 
     United States.
       ``(bb) Payment.--Upon assignment, the Secretary shall pay 
     to the holder of the guarantee the pro rata portion of the 
     amount guaranteed (as determined under subsection (f)).
       ``(cc) Subrogation.--The rights of the Secretary shall be 
     subrogated to the rights of the holder of the guarantee. The 
     holder shall assign the obligation and security to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Before any payment under a guarantee 
     is made under subparagraph (A), the holder of the guarantee 
     shall exhaust all reasonable possibilities of collection. 
     Upon payment, in whole or in part, to the holder, the note or 
     judgment evidencing the debt shall be assigned to the United 
     States and the holder shall have no further claim against the 
     borrower or the United States. The Secretary shall then take 
     such action to collect as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Limitations on liquidation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a borrower defaults on a loan 
     guaranteed under this section that involves a security 
     interest in restricted Hawaiian Home Land property, the 
     mortgagee or the Secretary shall only pursue liquidation 
     after offering to transfer the account to another eligible 
     Hawaiian family or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(B) Limitation.--If, after action is taken under 
     subparagraph (A), the mortgagee or the Secretary subsequently 
     proceeds to liquidate the account, the mortgagee or the 
     Secretary shall not sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of 
     or alienate the property described in subparagraph (A) except 
     to another eligible Hawaiian family or to the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.
       ``(j) Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States the Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund 
     for the purpose of providing loan guarantees under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Credits.--The Guarantee Fund shall be credited with--
       ``(A) any amount, claims, notes, mortgages, contracts, and 
     property acquired by the Secretary under this section, and 
     any collections and proceeds therefrom;
       ``(B) any amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (7);
       ``(C) any guarantee fees collected under subsection (d); 
     and
       ``(D) any interest or earnings on amounts invested under 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Use.--Amounts in the Guarantee Fund shall be 
     available, to the extent provided in appropriations Acts, 
     for--
       ``(A) fulfilling any obligations of the Secretary with 
     respect to loans guaranteed under this section, including the 
     costs (as that term is defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of such loans;
       ``(B) paying taxes, insurance, prior liens, expenses 
     necessary to make fiscal adjustment in connection with the 
     application and transmittal of collections, and other 
     expenses and advances to protect the Secretary for loans 
     which are guaranteed under this section or held by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(C) acquiring such security property at foreclosure sales 
     or otherwise;
       ``(D) paying administrative expenses in connection with 
     this section; and
       ``(E) reasonable and necessary costs of rehabilitation and 
     repair to properties that the Secretary holds or owns 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(4) Investment.--Any amounts in the Guarantee Fund 
     determined by the Secretary to be in excess of amounts 
     currently required at the time of the determination to carry 
     out this section may be invested in obligations of the United 
     States.
       ``(5) Limitation on commitments to guarantee loans and 
     mortgages.--
       ``(A) Requirement of appropriations.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to enter into commitments to guarantee loans under 
     this section shall be effective for any fiscal year to the 
     extent, or in such amounts as, are or have been provided in 
     appropriations Acts, without regard to the fiscal year for 
     which such amounts were appropriated.
       ``(B) Limitations on costs of guarantees.--The authority of 
     the Secretary to enter into commitments to guarantee loans 
     under this section shall be effective for any fiscal year 
     only to the extent that amounts in the Guarantee Fund are or 
     have been made available in appropriations Acts to cover the 
     costs (as that term is defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of such loan 
     guarantees for such fiscal year. Any amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to this subparagraph shall remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(C) Limitation on outstanding aggregate principal 
     amount.--Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), the Secretary may enter into commitments to guarantee 
     loans under this section for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 
     2002, 2003, and 2004 with an aggregate outstanding principal 
     amount not exceeding $100,000,000 for each such fiscal year.
       ``(6) Liabilities.--All liabilities and obligations of the 
     assets credited to the Guarantee Fund under paragraph (2)(A) 
     shall be liabilities and obligations of the Guarantee Fund.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Guarantee Fund to carry 
     out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
       ``(k) Requirements for Standard Housing.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     establish housing safety and quality standards to be applied 
     for use under this section.
       ``(2) Standards.--The standards referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       ``(A) provide sufficient flexibility to permit the use of 
     various designs and materials in housing acquired with loans 
     guaranteed under this section; and
       ``(B) require each dwelling unit in any housing acquired in 
     the manner described in subparagraph (A) to--
       ``(i) be decent, safe, sanitary, and modest in size and 
     design;

[[Page S687]]

       ``(ii) conform with applicable general construction 
     standards for the region in which the housing is located;
       ``(iii) contain a plumbing system that--

       ``(I) uses a properly installed system of piping;
       ``(II) includes a kitchen sink and a partitional bathroom 
     with lavatory, toilet, and bath or shower; and
       ``(III) uses water supply, plumbing, and sewage disposal 
     systems that conform to any minimum standards established by 
     the applicable county or State;

       ``(iv) contain an electrical system using wiring and 
     equipment properly installed to safely supply electrical 
     energy for adequate lighting and for operation of appliances 
     that conforms to any appropriate county, State, or national 
     code;
       ``(v) be not less than the size provided under the 
     applicable locally adopted standards for size of dwelling 
     units, except that the Secretary, upon request of the 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands may waive the size 
     requirements under this paragraph; and
       ``(vi) conform with the energy performance requirements for 
     new construction established by the Secretary under section 
     526(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.A. 1735f-4), 
     unless the Secretary determines that the requirements are not 
     applicable.
       ``(l) Applicability of Civil Rights Statutes.--To the 
     extent that the requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) or of title VIII of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) apply to a 
     guarantee provided under this subsection, nothing in the 
     requirements concerning discrimination on the basis of race 
     shall be construed to prevent the provision of the guarantee 
     to an eligible entity on the basis that the entity serves 
     Native Hawaiian families or is a Native Hawaiian family.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 226. A bill to promote democracy and good governance in Nigeria, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


    the nigeria democracy and civil society empowerment act of 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation 
regarding Nigeria, a country that stands today astride the border 
between a repressive history and a potentially productive future.
  As the Ranking Democrat of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, I have 
long been concerned about the collapsing economic and political 
situation in Nigeria. Nigeria, with its rich history, abundant natural 
resources and wonderful cultural diversity, has the potential to be an 
important regional leader in West Africa, and the entire African 
continent. But, sadly, too many of Nigeria's leaders have squandered 
that potential and the good will of the world with repressive policies, 
human rights abuses and corruption.
  The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment Act of 1999 that 
I offer today provides a clear framework for U.S. policy toward that 
troubled West African nation. The Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society 
Empowerment Act declares that the United States should encourage the 
political, economic and legal reforms necessary to ensure the rule of 
law and respect for human rights in Nigeria and should aggressively 
support a timely and effective transition to democratic, civilian 
government for the people of Nigeria.
  This bill draws heavily from legislation introduced during the last 
two Congresses with the leadership of several other distinguished 
members of Congress. In the 104th Congress, I joined the former chair 
of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, Senator Kassebaum, and 20 other 
Senators in introducing sanctions legislation. In the 105th Congress, I 
introduced an updated version of that bill, a companion measure of 
which was introduced in the House by the distinguished chair of the 
House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman of New York, and a 
distinguished member of that Committee and of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, Mr. Payne of New Jersey. I commend the help and assistance of 
all of my colleagues on this important issue and I appreciate the 
opportunity to work with them toward the broader goal of a freer 
Nigeria.
  Mr. President, the Nigeria Democracy and Civil Society Empowerment 
Act provides by law for many of the sanctions that the United States 
has had in place against Nigeria for a number of years. It includes a 
ban on most foreign direct assistance and a ban on the sale of military 
goods and military assistance to Nigeria, and suggests the reimposition 
of restriction on visas for top Nigerian officials. But none of these 
sanctions will be imposed if the President can certify to the Congress 
that specific conditions, which I will call ``benchmarks,'' regarding 
the transition to democracy have taken place in Nigeria. These 
benchmarks include free and fair democratic elections, the release of 
political prisoners, freedom of the press, continued access for 
international human rights monitors and the repeal of the many 
repressive decrees pressed upon the Nigerian people by successive 
military regimes.
  This legislation also provides for $37 million in development 
assistance over three years to support democracy and governance 
programs and the activities of the U.S. Information Agency, and 
mandates a larger presence for the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. I want to emphasize that this bill authorizes no new 
money. All of these funds would come out of existing USAID and USIA 
appropriations.
  Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of State to submit a report 
on corruption in Nigeria including the evidence of corruption by 
government officials in Nigeria and the impact of corruption on the 
delivery of government services in Nigeria, on U.S. business interests 
in Nigeria, and on Nigeria's foreign policy. It would also require that 
the Secretary's report include information on the impact on U.S. 
citizens of advance fee fraud and other fraudulent business schemes 
originating in Nigeria.
  The intent of this legislation is two-fold. First, it will continue 
to send an unequivocal message to whomever is ruling Nigeria that 
disregard for democracy, human rights and the institutions of civil 
society in Nigeria is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill provides 
some direction to the Clinton Administration which had considerable 
difficulty articulating a coherent policy on Nigeria throughout the 
Abacha regime, and which, I fear, has too quickly embraced the Abubakar 
regime despite several important outstanding problems.
  Nigeria has suffered under military rule for most of its nearly 40 
years as an independent nation. By virtue of its size, geographic 
location, and resource base, it is economically and strategically 
important both in regional and international terms. Nigeria is critical 
to American interests. But Nigeria's future was nearly destroyed by the 
military government of General Sani Abacha. Abacha presided over a 
Nigeria stunted by rampant corruption, economic mismanagement and the 
brutal subjugation of its people.
  Gen. Abacha was by any definition an authoritarian leader of the 
worst sort. He routinely imprisoned individuals for expressing their 
political opinions and skimmed Nigeria's precious resources for his own 
gains and that of his supporters and cronies. He pretended to set a 
timetable for a democratic transition, but each of the five officially 
sanctioned parties under his plan ended up endorsing Gen. Abacha as 
their candidate in what would have been nothing more than a circus 
referendum on Abacha himself.
  During the dark days of the Abacha regime, any criticism of the so-
called transition process was punishable by five years in a Nigerian 
prison. Nigerian human rights activists and government critics were 
commonly whisked away to secret trials before military courts and 
imprisoned; independent media outlets were silenced; workers' rights to 
organize were restricted; and the infamous State Security [Detention of 
Persons] Decree No. 2, giving the military sweeping powers of arrest 
and detention, remained in force.
  Perhaps the most horrific example of repression by the Abacha 
government was the execution of human rights and environmental activist 
Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others in November 1995 on trumped-up charges. 
Between the time of that barbaric spectacle and his death, Abacha 
appeared to be working even harder to tighten its grip on the country, 
wasting no opportunity to subjugate the people of Nigeria.
  But with the replacement of Abacha by the current military ruler, 
Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, there has been reason to be optimistic about 
Nigeria's future. Although he has not yet moved to repeal the 
repressive decrees that place severe restrictions on the basic freedoms 
of Nigerians, including aforementioned Decree No. 2, Gen. Abubakar has 
made significant progress in enacting political reforms,

[[Page S688]]

including the establishment of a realistic time line for the transition 
to civilian rule and guidelines for political participation. According 
to his transition plan, power will be handed over to a civilian 
government of May 29, 1999, after a series of elections scheduled for 
December 5, 1998 (local government), January 9, 1999 (state assembly 
and governors), February 20 1999 (national assembly) and February 27, 
1999 (presidential). Abubakar also agreed to release political 
prisoners, and some have indeed been released including several 
prominent individuals.
  Most Nigerians appear to have embraced this transition program, and 
many in the international community have welcomed Gen. Abubakar's bold 
statements. Nevertheless, observers remain apprehensive about the role 
of the security forces and of the military, perceived weaknesses in the 
electoral system, the lack of a clear constitutional order, and the 
possibility of violence during the electoral period. Nigerians also 
remain concerned about the important questions of federalism and 
decentralization--including the control and distribution of national 
wealth--which have yet to be satisfactorily worked out. These concerns, 
which remain a backdrop to the current transition, tend to dampen what 
is otherwise a largely optimistic and enthusiastic attitude throughout 
the country.

  Thus, as pleased as I am to see the progress being made, I remain 
cautious about embracing the new dispensation until we can actually see 
it in place. Adding to my concerns is the disturbing behavior of the 
military over New Year's weekend in Bayelsa state. According to 
unconfirmed reports, as many as 100 people may have been killed in the 
area around Yenagoa, and the military reinforcements have brought in a 
force of 10,000 to 15,000 troops to the area. The military government 
also declared as state of emergency for several days. While the 
circumstances surrounding the crackdown are unclear, it is troubling 
that--even during this sensitive time of political transition--the 
Abubakar regime would rely so heavily on hold habits. Minor 
disturbance? Send in thousands of troops to take care of it! I fear 
these troops do not know how to ``maintain public order''; rather, they 
know only how to implement repression. How seriously can we take 
Abubakar's encouraging statements about political reform, when he 
continues to use the instruments of repression learned under the Abacha 
regime?
  Nigeria's political transition is taking place in the context of 
economic and political collapse. Nigeria has the potential to be the 
economic powerhouse on the African continent, a key regional political 
leader, and an important American trading partner, but it is none of 
these things. Despite its wealth, economic activity in Nigeria 
continues to stagnate, Even oil revenues are not what they might be, 
but they remain the only reliable source of economic growth, with the 
United States purchasing an estimated 41 percent of the output.
  Corruption and criminal activity in this military-controlled economic 
and political system have become common, including reports of drug 
trafficking and consumer fraud schemes that have originated in Nigeria 
and reached into the United States, including my home state of 
Wisconsin.
  The last time Nigeria appeared posied finally to make a democratic 
transition, during the 1993 presidential election, the military quickly 
annulled the results, and promptly put into prision the presumed winner 
of that eclection Chief Moshood Abiola.
  Despite numerous domestic and international pleas for his release, he 
remained in prison until his tragic death in July. Years of neglect and 
months of solitary confinement took its toll on Chief Abiola, and 
barely one month after the death of General Abacha, Abiola died of an 
apparent heart attack during a meeting with senior American officials.
  It is unfortunate, but Nigeria suffers greatly from the weight of its 
tortured history. I truly hope the transition currently underway will 
have better results than previous ones, but we must not let hope and 
expectation cloud our standards for what is best for Nigeria. I am 
afraid that the international community, and particularly the Clinton 
administration, are so quick to reward counties for good behavior, that 
they then trend to ignore continuing bad behavior. I have noticed this 
problem in U.S. relations with Indonesia, China, and elsewhere, and it 
certainly is a concern with Nigeria now.
  It is in that light that I have decided to reintroduce my bill. This 
may sound odd, but I actually hope I don't need to pursue this 
legislation in its current form. I sincerely hope that the transition 
in Nigeria goes according to all our best wishes, and that there will 
be no need to impose these sanctions. But if it does not, the spoilers 
should be aware the U.S. Congress is watching, and will act. This bill 
provides the means for that action. We cannot let Nigeria spiral down 
into the quagmire that has overtaken so much of the continent.
  I have long urged the Administration to take the toughest stance 
possible in support of democracy in Nigeria. The regime in Nigeria must 
know that anything less than a transparent transition to civilian rule 
will be met with severe consequences, including new sanctions as 
mandated in this bill.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today represents and 
effort to encourage the best that Nigeria has to offer, to support 
those Nigerians who have worked tirelessly and fearlessly for democracy 
and civilian rule and to move our own government toward a Nigeria 
policy that vigorously reflects the best American values.
  The provisions of my bill include benchmarks defining what would 
constitute an open political process in Nigeria. Despite all the 
tumultuous events that have taken place in these few months. I still 
believe these benchmarks are important, and I continue to call on Gen. 
Abubaker to implement as soon as possible these important changes, such 
as the repeal of the repressive decrees enacted under Abacha's rule, so 
that genuine reform may flourish in Nigeria.
  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. 226

       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 ``Nigerian Democracy and Civil 
     Society Empowerment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The rule by successive military regimes in Nigeria has 
     harmed the lives of the people of Nigeria, undermined 
     confidence in the Nigerian economy, damaged relations between 
     Nigeria and the United States, and threatened the political 
     and economic stability of West Africa.
       (2) The current military regime, under the leadership of 
     Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar, has made significant progress in 
     liberalizing the political environment in Nigeria, including 
     the release of many political prisoners, increased respect 
     for freedom of assembly, expression and association, and the 
     establishment of a timeframe for a transition to civilian 
     rule.
       (3) Previous military regimes allowed Nigeria to become a 
     haven for international drug trafficking rings and other 
     criminal organizations, although the current government has 
     taken some steps to cooperate with the United States 
     Government in halting such trafficking.
       (4) Since 1993, the United States and other members of the 
     international community have imposed limited sanctions 
     against Nigeria in response to human rights violations and 
     political repression, although some of these sanctions have 
     been lifted in response to recent political liberalization.
       (5) Despite the progress made in protecting certain 
     freedoms, numerous decrees are still in force that suspend 
     the constitutional protection of fundamental human rights, 
     allow indefinite detention without charge, and revoke the 
     jurisdiction of civilian courts over executive actions.
       (6) As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and 
     Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and 
     Peoples' Rights, and a signatory to the Harare Commonwealth 
     Declaration, Nigeria is obligated to fairly conduct elections 
     that guarantee the free expression of the will of the 
     electors.
       (7) As the leading military force within the Economic 
     Community of West African States (ECOWAS) peacekeeping force, 
     Nigeria has played a major role in attempting to secure peace 
     in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
       (8) Despite the optimism expressed by many observers about 
     the progress that has been made in Nigeria, the country's 
     recent history raises serious questions about the potential 
     success of the transition process. In particular, events in 
     the Niger Delta over the New Year underscore the critical 
     need

[[Page S689]]

     for ongoing monitoring of the situation and indicate that a 
     return by the military to repressive methods is still a 
     possibility.
       (b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that the 
     United States should encourage political, economic, and legal 
     reforms necessary to ensure rule of law and respect for human 
     rights in Nigeria and support a timely, effective, and 
     sustainable transition to democratic, civilian government in 
     Nigeria.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) International Cooperation.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the President should actively seek to coordinate with 
     other countries to further--
       (1) the United States policy of promoting the rule of law 
     and respect for human rights; and
       (2) the transition to democratic civilian government.
       (b) United Nations Human Rights Commission.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that, in light of the importance of Nigeria 
     to the region and the severity of successive military 
     regimes, the President should instruct the United States 
     Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human 
     Rights (UNCHR) to use the voice and vote of the United States 
     at the annual meeting of the Commission--
       (1) to condemn human rights abuses in Nigeria, as 
     appropriate, while recognizing the progress that has been 
     made; and
       (2) to press for the continued renewal of the mandate of, 
     and continued access to Nigeria for, the special rapporteur 
     on Nigeria.

     SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN 
                   NIGERIA.

       (a) Development Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for fiscal 
     years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out chapter 1 of part I 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et 
     seq.), not less than $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, not 
     less than $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and not less than 
     $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 should be available for 
     assistance described in paragraph (2) for Nigeria.
       (2) Assistance described.--
       (A) In general.--The assistance described in this paragraph 
     is assistance provided to nongovernmental organizations for 
     the purpose of promoting democracy, good governance, and the 
     rule of law in Nigeria.
       (B) Additional requirement.--In providing assistance under 
     this subsection, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall ensure that 
     nongovernmental organizations receiving such assistance 
     represent a broad cross-section of society in Nigeria and 
     seek to promote democracy, human rights, and accountable 
     government.
       (3) Grants for promotion of human rights.--Of the amounts 
     made available for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 under 
     paragraph (1), not less than $500,000 for each such fiscal 
     year should be available to the United States Agency for 
     International Development for the purpose of providing grants 
     of not more than $25,000 each to support individuals or 
     nongovernmental organizations that seek to promote, directly 
     or indirectly, the advancement of human rights in Nigeria.
       (b) USIA Information Assistance.--Of the amounts made 
     available for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 under 
     subsection (a)(1), not less than $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000, $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $2,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 should be made available to the United 
     States Information Agency for the purpose of supporting its 
     activities in Nigeria, including the promotion of greater 
     awareness among Nigerians of constitutional democracy, the 
     rule of law, and respect for human rights.
       (c) Staff Levels and Assignments of United States Personnel 
     in Nigeria.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that staff levels at the 
     office of the United States Agency for International 
     Development in Lagos, Nigeria, are inadequate.
       (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Administrator of the United States Agency for 
     International Development should--
       (A) increase the number of United States personnel at such 
     Agency's office in Lagos, Nigeria, from within the current, 
     overall staff resources of such Agency in order for such 
     office to be sufficiently staffed to carry out subsection 
     (a); and
       (B) consider placement of personnel elsewhere in Nigeria.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT 
                   OF NIGERIA; PROHIBITION ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE 
                   FOR NIGERIA; REQUIREMENT TO OPPOSE MULTILATERAL 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR NIGERIA.

       (a) Prohibition on Economic Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Economic assistance (including funds 
     previously appropriated for economic assistance) shall not be 
     provided to the Government of Nigeria.
       (2) Economic assistance defined.--As used in this 
     subsection, the term ``economic assistance''--
       (A) means--
       (i) any assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) and any assistance under 
     chapter 4 of part II of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.) 
     (relating to economic support fund); and
       (ii) any financing by the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States, financing and assistance by the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation, and assistance by the Trade and 
     Development Agency; and
       (B) does not include disaster relief assistance, refugee 
     assistance, or narcotics control assistance under chapter 8 
     of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2291 et seq.).
       (b) Prohibition on Military Assistance or Arms Transfers.--
       (1) In general.--Military assistance (including funds 
     previously appropriated for military assistance) or arms 
     transfers shall not be provided to Nigeria.
       (2) Military assistance or arms transfers.--The term 
     ``military assistance or arms transfers'' means--
       (A) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) (relating to 
     military assistance), including the transfer of excess 
     defense articles under section 516 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2321j);
       (B) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) (relating to 
     international military education and training);
       (C) assistance under the ``Foreign Military Financing 
     Program'' under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2763); or
       (D) the transfer of defense articles, defense services, or 
     design and construction services under the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), including defense 
     articles and defense services licensed or approved for export 
     under section 38 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
       (c) Requirement To Oppose Multilateral Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States executive director to each of the 
     international financial institutions described in paragraph 
     (2) to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose 
     any assistance to the Government of Nigeria.
       (2) International financial institutions described.--The 
     international financial institutions described in this 
     paragraph are the African Development Bank, the International 
     Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International 
     Development Association, the International Finance 
     Corporation, the Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency, and 
     the International Monetary Fund.

     SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED 
                   STATES OF CERTAIN NIGERIAN NATIONALS.

       It is the sense of Congress that unless the President 
     determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees by July 1, 1999, that a democratic transition to 
     civilian rule has taken place in Nigeria, the Secretary of 
     State should deny a visa to any alien who is a senior member 
     of the Nigerian government or a military officer currently in 
     the armed forces of Nigeria.

     SEC. 7. WAIVER OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST NIGERIA IF CERTAIN 
                   REQUIREMENTS MET.

       (a) In General.--The President may waive any of the 
     prohibitions contained in section 5 or 6 for any fiscal year 
     if the President makes a determination under subsection (b) 
     for that fiscal year and transmits a notification to Congress 
     of that determination under subsection (c).
       (b) Presidential Determination Required.--A determination 
     under this subsection is a determination that--
       (1) the Government of Nigeria--
       (A) is not harassing or imprisoning human rights and 
     democracy advocates and individuals for expressing their 
     political views;
       (B) has implemented the transition program announced in 
     July 1998;
       (C) is respecting freedom of speech, assembly, and the 
     media, including cessation of harassment of journalists;
       (D) has released the remaining individuals who have been 
     imprisoned without due process or for political reasons;
       (E) is continuing to provide access for independent 
     international human rights monitors;
       (F) has repealed all decrees and laws that--
       (i) grant undue powers to the military;
       (ii) suspend the constitutional protection of fundamental 
     human rights;
       (iii) allow indefinite detention without charge, including 
     the State of Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No. 2 of 
     1984; or
       (iv) create special tribunals that do not respect 
     international standards of due process; and
       (G) has ensured that the policing of the oil producing 
     communities is carried out without excessive use of force or 
     systematic and widespread human rights violations against the 
     civilian population of the area; or
       (2) it is in the national interests of the United States to 
     waive the prohibition in section 5 or 6, as the case may be.
       (c) Congressional Notification.--Notification under this 
     subsection is written notification of the determination of 
     the President under subsection (b) provided to the 
     appropriate congressional committees not less than 15 days in 
     advance of any waiver of any prohibition in section 5 or 6, 
     subject to the procedures applicable to reprogramming 
     notifications under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-1).

     SEC. 8. REPORT ON CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA.

       Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and annually for the next 5 years thereafter, the 
     Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, and make available to 
     the public, a report on corruption in Nigeria. This report 
     shall include--
       (1) evidence of corruption by government officials in 
     Nigeria;
       (2) the impact of corruption on the delivery of government 
     services in Nigeria;

[[Page S690]]

       (3) the impact of corruption on United States business 
     interests in Nigeria;
       (4) the impact of advance fee fraud, and other fraudulent 
     business schemes originating in Nigeria, on United States 
     citizens; and
       (5) the impact of corruption on Nigeria's foreign policy.

     SEC. 9. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

       Except as provided in section 6, in this Act, the term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on International Relations of the House 
     of Representatives;
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (3) the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.

     SEC. 10. TERMINATION DATE.

       The provisions of this Act shall terminate on September 30, 
     2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 230. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to 
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs.


            clinical social workers' recognition act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Clinical 
Social Workers' Recognition Act of 1999 to correct an outstanding 
problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also 
provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as 
independent providers of quality mental health care services.
  Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and 
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance 
plans across the Nation. However, Title V, United States Code, does not 
permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical 
social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation 
claims brought by Federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects 
this problem.
  It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social 
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, 
but may not go to this professional for workers' compensation 
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations 
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal 
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation 
mental health evaluation and may well impose an undue burden on Federal 
employees where clinical social workers are the only available 
providers of mental health care.
  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. 230

       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 ``Clinical Social Workers' 
     Recognition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL 
                   WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

       Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 232. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services 
under the medicare program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                 the clinical social worker act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies 
in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through 
Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this 
legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social 
workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession 
that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through 
the Medicare program.
  First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker 
services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. 
Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a 
clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these 
services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. 
Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for 
services provided to a client who is hospitalized.
  Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care 
provider team. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation 
and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care 
throughout the health care system. I believe it is time to correct the 
disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 232

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

     SECTION 1. IMPROVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 
                   SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``(ii) the amount determined by a fee 
     schedule established by the Secretary,''.
       (b) Definition of Clinical Social Worker Services 
     Expanded.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``services 
     performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))'' and inserting ``such services and such 
     services and supplies furnished as an incident to such 
     services performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))''.
       (c) Clinical Social Worker Services Not To Be Included in 
     Inpatient Hospital Services.--Section 1861(b)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical social 
     worker services, and services''.
       (d) Treatment of Services Furnished in Inpatient Setting.--
     Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended by striking ``and 
     services'' and inserting ``clinical social worker services, 
     and services''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made for clinical social worker 
     services furnished on or after January 1, 2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 233. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
ensure that social work students of social work schools are eligible 
for support under the certain programs to assist individuals in 
pursuing health careers and programs of grants for training projects in 
geriatrics, and to establish a social work training program; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


        amendment to title VII of the public health service act

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of our nation's clinical social 
workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health 
Service Act. This legislation would (1) establish a new social work 
training program; (2) ensure that social work students are eligible for 
support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program; (3) provide 
social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority 
Centers of Excellence programs; (4) permit schools offering degrees in 
social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics; and 
(5) ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the 
Public Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act.
  Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to 
people of this nation, particularly our elderly, disadvantaged and 
minority populations, few federal programs exist to provide 
opportunities for social work training in health and mental health 
care. This legislation builds on the health professional legislation 
enacted by the 102d Congress enabling schools of social work to apply 
for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) training funding and 
resources to establish collaborative relationships with rural health 
care providers and schools of osteopathic medicine. This bill would 
provide funding for traineeships and fellowships for individuals who 
plan to specialize in, practice, or teach social work, or for operating 
approved social work training programs; it would help disadvantaged 
students earn graduate degrees in social work with a concentration in 
health or mental health; it would provide new resources and 
opportunities in

[[Page S691]]

social work training for minorities; and it would encourage schools of 
social work to expand program in geriatrics. Finally, the recognition 
of social work as a profession merely codifies current social work 
practice and reflects modifications made by the Medicare HMO 
legislation.
  I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise and 
skill social workers possess continue to be available to the citizens 
of this nation. This legislation, by providing financial assistance to 
schools of social work and social work students, recognizes the long 
history and critical importance of the services provided by social work 
professionals. In addition, since social workers have provided quality 
mental health services to our citizens for a long time and continue to 
be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to service our 
disadvantaged populations, I believe it is time to provide them with 
the recognition they clearly earned and deserve.
  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. 233

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

     SECTION 1. SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS.

       (a) Health Professions School.--Section 736(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, 
     is amended by striking ``graduate program in behavioral or 
     mental health'' and inserting ``graduate program in 
     behavioral or mental health including a school offering 
     graduate programs in clinical social work, or programs in 
     social work''.
       (b) Scholarships, Generally.--Section 737(d)(1) of the 
     Public Health Service Act, as amended by Public Lae 105-392, 
     is amended by striking ``mental health practice'' and 
     inserting ``mental health practice including graduate 
     programs in clinical psychology, graduate programs in 
     clinical social work, or programs in social work''.
       (c) Faculty Positions.--Section 738(a)(3) of the Public 
     Health Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, is 
     amended by striking ``offering graduate programs in 
     behavioral and mental health'' and inserting ``offering 
     graduate programs in behavioral and mental health including 
     graduate programs in clinical psychology, graduate programs 
     in clinical social work, or programs in social work''.

     SEC. 2. GERIATRICS TRAINING PROJECTS.

       Section 753(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended by Public Law 105-392, is amended by inserting 
     ``schools offering degrees in social work,'' after ``teaching 
     hospitals,''.

     SEC. 3. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Subpart 2 of part E of title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended by Public Law 105-392, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 770 as section 770A;
       (2) by inserting after section 769, the following:

     ``SEC. 770. SOCIAL WORK TRAINING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Training Generally.--The Secretary may make grants 
     to, or enter into contracts with, any public or nonprofit 
     private hospital, school offering programs in social work, or 
     to or with a public or private nonprofit entity (which the 
     Secretary has determined is capable of carrying out such 
     grant or contract)--
       ``(1) to plan, develop, and operate, or participate in, an 
     approved social work training program (including an approved 
     residency or internship program) for students, interns, 
     residents, or practicing physicians;
       ``(2) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to students, interns, 
     residents, practicing physicians, or other individuals, who 
     are in need thereof, who are participants in any such 
     program, and who plan to specialize or work in the practice 
     of social work;
       ``(3) to plan, develop, and operate a program for the 
     training of individuals who plan to teach in social work 
     training programs; and
       ``(4) to provide financial assistance (in the form of 
     traineeships and fellowships) to individuals who are 
     participants in any such program and who plan to teach in a 
     social work training program.
       ``(b) Academic Administrative Units.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make grants to or 
     enter into contracts with schools offering programs in social 
     work to meet the costs of projects to establish, maintain, or 
     improve academic administrative units (which may be 
     departments, divisions, or other units) to provide clinical 
     instruction in social work.
       ``(2) Preference in making awards.--In making awards of 
     grants and contracts under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     give preference to any qualified applicant for such an award 
     that agrees to expend the award for the purpose of--
       ``(A) establishing an academic administrative unit for 
     programs in social work; or
       ``(B) substantially expanding the programs of such a unit.
       ``(c) Duration of Award.--The period during which payments 
     are made to an entity from an award of a grant or contract 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed 5 years. The provision of 
     such payments shall be subject to annual approval by the 
     Secretary of the payments and subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for the fiscal year involved to make the 
     payments.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2002.
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     available not less than 20 percent for awards of grants and 
     contracts under subsection (b).''; and
       (3) in section 770A (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``other than section 770,'' after ``carrying out this 
     subpart,''.

     SEC. 4. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES.

       Section 1302 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300e-1) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting ``clinical 
     social worker,'' after ``psychologist,'' each place it 
     appears;
       (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``and psychologists'' 
     and inserting ``psychologists, and clinical social workers''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``clinical social 
     work,'' after ``psychology,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 234. A bill to recognize the organization known as the National 
Academies of Practice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF PRACTICE RECOGNITION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would provide a federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. 
This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have 
made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, 
medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, podiatry, social work, and 
veterinary medicine. When fully established, each of the nine academies 
will possess 100 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. 
This umbrella organization will be able to provide the Congress of the 
United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy 
expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are 
in the forefront of actually providing health care.
  As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding 
the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best 
interest to ensure that the Congress has systematic access to the 
recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care 
practitioners.
  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. 234

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

     SECTION 1. CHARTER.

       The National Academies of Practice organized and 
     incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, is 
     hereby recognized as such and is granted a Federal charter.

     SEC. 2. CORPORATE POWERS.

       The National Academies of Practice (referred to in this Act 
     as the ``corporation'') shall have only those powers granted 
     to it through its bylaws and articles of incorporation filed 
     in the State in which it is incorporated and subject to the 
     laws of such State.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES OF CORPORATION.

       The purposes of the corporation shall be to honor persons 
     who have made significant contributions to the practice of 
     applied psychology, dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry, 
     osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, and 
     other health care professions, and to improve the practices 
     in such professions by disseminating information about new 
     techniques and procedures.

     SEC. 4. SERVICE OF PROCESS.

       With respect to service of process, the corporation shall 
     comply with the laws of the State in which it is incorporated 
     and those States in which it carries on its activities in 
     furtherance of its corporate purposes.

     SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.

       Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the 
     rights and privileges of members shall be as provided in the 
     bylaws of the corporation.

     SEC. 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS; COMPOSITION; RESPONSIBILITIES.

       The composition and the responsibilities of the board of 
     directors of the corporation shall be as provided in the 
     articles of incorporation of the corporation and in 
     conformity with the laws of the State in which it is 
     incorporated.

[[Page S692]]

     SEC. 7. OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.

       The officers of the corporation and the election of such 
     officers shall be as provided in the articles of 
     incorporation of the corporation and in conformity with the 
     laws of the State in which it is incorporated.

     SEC. 8. RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Use of Income and Assets.--No part of the income or 
     assets of the corporation shall inure to any member, officer, 
     or director of the corporation or be distributed to any such 
     person during the life of this charter. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to prevent the payment of 
     reasonable compensation to the officers of the corporation or 
     reimbursement for actual necessary expenses in amounts 
     approved by the board of directors.
       (b) Loans.--The corporation shall not make any loan to any 
     officer, director, or employee of the corporation.
       (c) Political Activity.--The corporation, any officer, or 
     any director of the corporation, acting as such officer or 
     director, shall not contribute to, support, or otherwise 
     participate in any political activity or in any manner 
     attempt to influence legislation.
       (d) Issuance of Stock and Payment of Dividends.--The 
     corporation shall have no power to issue any shares of stock 
     nor to declare or pay any dividends.
       (e) Claims of Federal Approval.--The corporation shall not 
     claim congressional approval or Federal Government authority 
     for any of its activities.

     SEC. 9. LIABILITY.

       The corporation shall be liable for the acts of its 
     officers and agents when acting within the scope of their 
     authority.

     SEC. 10. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS.

       (a) Books and Records of Account.--The corporation shall 
     keep correct and complete books and records of account and 
     shall keep minutes of any proceeding of the corporation 
     involving any of its members, the board of directors, or any 
     committee having authority under the board of directors.
       (b) Names and Addresses of Members.--The corporation shall 
     keep at its principal office a record of the names and 
     addresses of all members having the right to vote in any 
     proceeding of the corporation.
       (c) Right To Inspect Books and Records.--All books and 
     records of the corporation may be inspected by any member 
     having the right to vote, or by any agent or attorney of such 
     member, for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.
       (d) Application of State Law.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law.

     SEC. 11. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The corporation shall report annually to the Congress 
     concerning the activities of the corporation during the 
     preceding fiscal year. Such annual report shall be submitted 
     at the same time as is the report of the audit for such 
     fiscal year required by section 3 of the Act referred to in 
     section 11 of this Act. The report shall not be printed as a 
     public document.

     SEC. 12. RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO AMEND OR REPEAL CHARTER.

       The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly 
     reserved to the Congress.

     SEC. 13. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``State'' includes the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 
     territories and possessions of the United States.

     SEC. 14. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.

       The corporation shall maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation as provided in the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 or any corresponding similar provision.

     SEC. 15. TERMINATION.

       If the corporation fails to comply with any of the 
     restrictions or provisions of this Act the charter granted by 
     this Act shall terminate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 235. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to 
participate in various health professions loan programs; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


        The U.S. Public Health Service Act Amendment Act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to 
modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to 
provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the 
opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs
  Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with 
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan 
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much needed infusion of 
behavioral science expertise into our public health community of 
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution 
that is being made by our nation's psychologists toward solving some of 
our nation's most distressing problems.
  The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical 
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title 
VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for 
the recruitment of minorities, women and individuals from economically 
disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the 
provision of critical services to minority populations because often 
they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural 
framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community 
settings, where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged 
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued 
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health 
care services to underserved communities.
  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. 235

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

     SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or 
     nonprofit school that offers a graduate program in 
     professional psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that 
     offer graduate programs in professional psychology'' after 
     ``veterinary medicine''.
       (b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, or to a graduate 
     degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of 
     veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'';
       (2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, or at a school that offers a graduate 
     program in professional psychology'' after ``veterinary 
     medicine''; and
       (3) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or professional 
     psychology''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric medicine'' 
     and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or professional 
     psychology''.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
     Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (as redesignated by section 106(a)(2)(E) of the 
     Health Professions Education Partnerships Act of 1998) is 
     amended by striking ``clinical'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``professional''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 227. A bill to prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds to 
provide or support programs to provide individuals with hypodermic 
needles or syringes for the use of illegal drugs; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  This bill would effectively continue and make permanent the one year 
ban imposed through the appropriations process. Rather than revisit 
this issue each year, this bill would establish a firm federal policy 
against providing free needles to drug addicts. Health and Human 
Services Secretary Donna Shalala is on record strongly endorsing needle 
exchange programs and encouraging local communities to use their own 
dollars to fund needle exchange programs. This legislation is therefore 
needed to foreclose any temptation the Administration may feel to 
federally fund needle exchanges in the future.
  General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, has laid out the strong case against needle exchange 
programs. Handing out needles to drug users sends a message that the 
government is condoning drug use. It undermines our anti-drug message 
and undercuts all of our drug prevention efforts.
  A report by General McCaffrey's office reviewed the world's largest 
needle exchange program in Vancouver, British Colombia, in operation 
since 1988. It found the program to be a failure. HIV infections were 
higher among users of free needles than those without access

[[Page S693]]

to them. The death rate from drugs jumped from 18 a year in 1988 to 150 
in 1992. In addition, higher drug use followed implementation of the 
program.
  Dr. James L. Curtis of New York, who has studied needle exchange 
programs, was quoted in the Washington Times stating that the programs 
``should be recognized as reckless experimentation on human beings, the 
unproven hypothesis being that it prevents AIDS.''
  According to recent scientific studies, eight persons a day are 
infected with the HIV virus by using borrowed needles, while 352 people 
start using heroin each day and 4,000 die every year from heroin-
related causes other than HIV. Far more addicts die of drug overdoses 
and related violence than from AIDS. It is wrong to aid and abet those 
deaths by handing out free needles to drug addicts. We should not be 
encouraging higher rates of heroin use.
  Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in making permanent the 
prohibition on federal funding and support of needle giveaway programs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 236. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
establish a psychology post-doctoral fellowship program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 the public health service act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
psychology post-doctoral program.
  Psychologists have made a unique contribution in serving the nation's 
medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is 
useful in addressing many of our most distressing concerns such as 
violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral 
disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-
doctoral program could be most effective in finding solutions to these 
pressing societal issues.
  Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in 
traditionally underserved settings or with underserved populations have 
been demonstrated to be successful in providing services to those same 
underserved during the years following the training experience. For 
example, mental health professional who have participated in these 
specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet 
their pay back obligations, but have continued to work in the public 
sector or with the underserved populations with whom they have been 
trained to work.
  While the doctorate in psychology provides broad based knowledge and 
mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, the specialized post-
doctoral fellowship programs develop particular diagnostic and 
treatment skills required to effectively respond to these underserved 
populations. For example, what looks like severe depression in an 
elderly person might actually be withdrawal related to hearing loss, or 
what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently 
relocated from Southeast Asia might be reflective of a cultural value 
of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Each of 
these situations requires very different interventions, of course, and 
specialized assessment skills.
  Domestic violence is not just a problem for the criminal justice 
system, it is a significant public health problem. A single aspect of 
this issue, domestic violence against women, results in almost 100,000 
days of hospitalization, 30,000 emergency room visits and 40,000 visits 
to physicians each year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas 
are particularly high as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression 
in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in psychology of the 
rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing the 
problems.
  Given the changing demographics of the nation--the increasing life 
span and numbers of the elderly, the rising percentage of minority 
populations within the country, as well as an increased recognition of 
the long-term sequelae of violence and abuse--and given the 
demonstrated success and effectiveness of these kinds of specialized 
training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation 
in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's 
underserved.
  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. 236

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

     SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

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

     ``SEC. 779. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     psychology post-doctoral fellowship program to make grants to 
     and enter into contracts with eligible entities to encourage 
     the provision of psychological training and services in 
     underserved treatment areas.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) Individuals.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary shall require, including a 
     certification that such individual--
       ``(A) has received a doctoral degree through a graduate 
     program in psychology provided by an accredited institution 
     at the time such grant is awarded;
       ``(B) will provide services in a medically underserved 
     population during the period of such grant;
       ``(C) will comply with the provisions of subsection (c); 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Institutions.--In order to receive a grant or 
     contract under this section, an institution shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall require, 
     including a certification that such institution--
       ``(A) is an entity, approved by the State, that provides 
     psychological services in medically underserved areas or to 
     medically underserved populations (including entities that 
     care for the mentally retarded, mental health institutions, 
     and prisons);
       ``(B) will use amounts provided to such institution under 
     this section to provide financial assistance in the form of 
     fellowships to qualified individuals who meet the 
     requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(C) will not use in excess of 10 percent of amounts 
     provided under this section to pay for the administrative 
     costs of any fellowship programs established with such funds; 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurance as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(c) Continued Provision of Services.--Any individual who 
     receives a grant or fellowship under this section shall 
     certify to the Secretary that such individual will continue 
     to provide the type of services for which such grant or 
     fellowship is awarded for at least 1 year after the term of 
     the grant or fellowship has expired.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section, including 
     regulations that define the terms `medically underserved 
     areas' or `medically unserved populations'.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2002.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 237. A bill to allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations 
required under chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
offenders with mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical 
social worker; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


       the psychiatric and psychological examinations act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend 
Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our nation's clinical 
social workers to provide their mental health expertise to the federal 
judiciary.
  I feel that the time has come to allow our nation's judicial system 
to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health 
expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would 
be very much in our nation's best interest.
  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. 237

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

     SECTION 1. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

       Section 4247(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended, in the first sentence, by

[[Page S694]]

     striking ``psychiatrist or psychologist'' and inserting 
     ``psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 238. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
grade provided for the heads of the nurse corps of the Armed Forces; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


         U.S. Military Chief Nurse Corps Amendment Act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce an amendment that would 
change the existing law regarding the designated position and grade for 
the Chief Nurses of the United States Army, the United States Navy, and 
the United States Air Force. Currently, the Chief Nurses of the three 
branches of the military are one-star general officer grades; this law 
would change the current grade to Major General in the Army and Air 
Force and Rear Admiral (upper half) in the Navy.
  Our military Chief Nurses have an awesome responsibility--their scope 
of duties include peacetime and wartime health care doctrine, standards 
and policy for all nursing personnel within their respective branches. 
They are responsible for 80,000 Army, 5,200 Navy, and 20,000 Air Force 
officer and enlisted nursing personnel in the active, reserve and guard 
components of the military. This level of responsibility certainly 
supports the need to change the grade for the Chief Nurses which would 
ensure that they have an appropriate voice in Defense Health Program 
executive management.
  Organizations are best served when the leadership is composed of a 
mix of specialties--of equal rank--who bring their unique talents to 
the policy setting and decision-making process. I believe it is time to 
ensure that military health care organizations utilize the expertise 
and unique contributions of the military Chief Nurses.
  Mr. President, I request 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. 238

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASED GRADE FOR HEADS OF NURSE CORPS.

       (a) Army.--Section 3069(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking out ``brigadier general'' in the 
     second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``major 
     general''.
       (b) Navy.--The first sentence of section 5150(c) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``rear admiral (upper half) in the case of 
     an officer in the Nurse Corps or'' after ``for promotion to 
     the grade of''; and
       (2) by inserting ``in the case of an officer in the Medical 
     Service Corps'' after ``rear admiral (lower half)''.
       (c) Air Force.--Section 8069(b) of such title is amended by 
     striking out ``brigadier general'' in the second sentence and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``major general''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise 
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional 
psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


           the perkins county rural water system act of 1999

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation 
to authorize a critically important rural water system in South Dakota, 
the ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999.'' I am pleased to 
have my good friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, 
as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, which we 
introduced during the 105th. This legislation is also strongly 
supported by the State of South Dakota and local project sponsors, who 
have demonstrated that support by agreeing to substantial financial 
contributions from the local level.
  During the 105th Congress the Perkins County Rural Water System Act 
was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as 
well as the full Senate. Unfortunately, this legislation was caught up 
in part of a larger legislative package, but I am hopeful the Senate 
will again support this important drinking water project and pass this 
legislation early this year.
  Like many parts of South Dakota, Perkins County has insufficient 
water supplies of reasonable quality available, and the water supplies 
that are available do not meet the minimum health and safety standards, 
thereby posing a threat to public health and safety.
  In addition to improving the health of residents in the region, I 
strongly believe that this rural drinking water delivery project will 
help to stabilize the rural economy as well. Water is a basic commodity 
and is essential if we are to foster rural development in many parts of 
rural South Dakota, including the Perkins County area.
  The ``Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999'' authorizes the 
Bureau of Reclamation to construct a Perkins County Rural Water System 
providing service to approximately 2,500 people, including the 
communities of Lemmon and Bison, as well as rural residents. The 
Perkins County Rural Water System is located in northwestern South 
Dakota along the South Dakota/North Dakota border and it will be an 
extension of an existing rural water system in North Dakota, the 
Southwest Pipeline Project. The State of South Dakota has worked 
closely with the State of North Dakota over the years on the Perkins 
County connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project. A feasibility 
study completed in 1994 looked at several alternatives for a dependable 
water supply, and the connection to the Southwest Pipeline Project is 
clearly the most feasible for the Perkins County area.
  Mr. President, South Dakota is plagued by water of exceeding poor 
quality, and the Perkins County rural water project is an effort to 
help provide clean water--a commodity most of us take for granted--to 
the people of Perkins County, South Dakota. I am a strong believer in 
the federal government's role in rural water delivery, and I hope to 
continue to advance that agenda both in South Dakota and around the 
country. I urge my colleagues to support this important rural water 
legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move forward on 
enactment as quickly as possible.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 239

       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 ``Perkins County Rural Water 
     System Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) there are insufficient water supplies of reasonable 
     quality available to the members of the Perkins County Rural 
     Water System located in Perkins County, South Dakota, and the 
     water supplies that are available do not meet minimum health 
     and safety standards, thereby posing a threat to public 
     health and safety;
       (2) in 1977, the North Dakota State Legislature authorized 
     and directed the State Water Commission to conduct the 
     Southwest Area Water Supply Study, which included water 
     service to a portion of Perkins County, South Dakota;
       (3) amendments made by the Garrison Diversion Unit 
     Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 101-294) authorized the 
     Southwest Pipeline project as an eligible project for Federal 
     cost share participation;
       (4) the Perkins County Rural Water System has continued to 
     be recognized by the State of North Dakota, the Southwest 
     Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Commission, the 
     Department of the Interior, and Congress as a component of 
     the Southwest Pipeline Project; and
       (5) the best available, reliable, and safe rural and 
     municipal water supply to serve the needs of the Perkins 
     County Rural Water System, Inc., members is the waters of the 
     Missouri River as delivered by the Southwest Pipeline Project 
     in North Dakota.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and 
     industrial water supply for the members of the Perkins County 
     Rural Water Supply System, Inc., in Perkins County, South 
     Dakota;
       (2) to assist the members of the Perkins County Rural Water 
     Supply System, Inc., in developing safe and adequate 
     municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies; and
       (3) to promote the implementation of water conservation 
     programs by the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
     means the study entitled ``Feasibility Study for Rural Water 
     System for Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.'', as 
     amended in March 1995.

[[Page S695]]

       (2) Project construction budget.--The term ``project 
     construction budget'' means the description of the total 
     amount of funds that are needed for the construction of the 
     water supply system, as described in the feasibility study.
       (3) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The 
     term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' 
     means all power requirements that are incidental to the 
     operation of intake facilities, pumping stations, water 
     treatment facilities, cooling facilities, reservoirs, and 
     pipelines to the point of delivery of water by the Perkins 
     County Rural Water System to each entity that distributes 
     water at retail to individual users.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation.
       (5) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
     means the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc., a 
     nonprofit corporation, established and operated substantially 
     in accordance with the feasibility study.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     water supply system for the Federal share of the costs of--
       (1) the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system; and
       (2) repairs to existing public water distribution systems 
     to ensure conservation of the resources and to make the 
     systems functional under the new water supply system.
       (b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide 
     for safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     supplies, mitigation of wetlands areas, repairs to existing 
     public water distribution systems, and water conservation in 
     Perkins County, South Dakota.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under 
     subsection (a) to the water supply system shall not exceed 
     the Federal share under section 10.
       (d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of 
     the water supply system until--
       (1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met with respect to 
     the water supply system; and
       (2) a final engineering report and a plan for a water 
     conservation program have been prepared and submitted to 
     Congress for a period of not less than 90 days before the 
     commencement of construction of the system.

     SEC. 5. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result 
     of the construction and operation of the water supply system 
     shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological 
     equivalency, concurrent with project construction, as 
     provided in the feasibility study.

     SEC. 6. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

       (a) In General.--From power designated for future 
     irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
     River Basin Program, the Western Area Power Administration 
     shall make available the capacity and energy required to meet 
     the pumping and incidental operational requirements of the 
     water supply system during the period beginning May 1 and 
     ending October 31 of each year.
       (b) Conditions.--The capacity and energy described in 
     subsection (a) shall be made available on the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The water supply system shall be operated on a not-for-
     profit basis.
       (2) The water supply system shall contract to purchase its 
     entire electric service requirements, including the capacity 
     and energy made available under subsection (a), from a 
     qualified preference power supplier that itself purchases 
     power from the Western Area Power Administration.
       (3) The rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy 
     made available under subsection (a) shall be the firm power 
     rate schedule of the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division of the 
     Western Area Power Administration in effect when the power is 
     delivered by the Administration.
       (4) It shall be agreed by contract among--
       (A) the Western Area Power Administration;
       (B) the power supplier with which the water supply system 
     contracts under paragraph (2);
       (C) the power supplier of the entity described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (D) the Perkins County Rural Water System, Inc.;

     that in the case of the capacity and energy made available 
     under subsection (a), the benefit of the rate schedule 
     described in paragraph (3) shall be passed through to the 
     water supply system, except that the power supplier of the 
     water supply system shall not be precluded from including, in 
     the charges of the supplier to the water system for the 
     electric service, the other usual and customary charges of 
     the supplier.

     SEC. 7. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

       This Act does not limit the authorization for water 
     projects in South Dakota and North Dakota under law in effect 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8. WATER RIGHTS.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an 
     interstate compact governing water;
       (2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated 
     share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, 
     whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or 
     by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
       (3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or 
     interstate compact, dealing with water quality or disposal; 
     or
       (4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.

     SEC. 9. FEDERAL SHARE.

       The Federal share under section 4 shall be 75 percent of--
       (1) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

     SEC. 10. NON-FEDERAL SHARE.

       The non-Federal share under section 4 shall be 25 percent 
     of--
       (1) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for the planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.

     SEC. 11. CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary may provide construction 
     oversight to the water supply system for areas of the water 
     supply system.
       (b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds 
     used by the Secretary for planning and construction of the 
     water supply system may not exceed an amount equal to 3 
     percent of the amount provided in the total project 
     construction budget for the portion of the project to be 
     constructed in Perkins County, South Dakota.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $15,000,000 for the planning and construction of the 
     water system under section 4; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after March 1, 1995.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 239. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise 
certain provisions relating to the appointment of professional 
psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


            the veterans' health administration act of 1999

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to amend 
Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain 
provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional 
psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
  The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best 
health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who 
have served our country in the Armed Forces.
  Recently, a quite distressing situation regarding the care of our 
veterans has come to my attention. In particular, the recruiting and 
retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs has become a significant problem.
  The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the 
behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a 
significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, 
substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have 
received funding from the Congress in recent years.
  Certainly, psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are 
essential to the successful implementation of these programs. However, 
the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA (more 
than 5% and 8% respectively as reported in one recent survey) might 
seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall 
patient care in the VHA.
  Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of 
factors including a pay scale not commensurate with private sector 
rates and the low number of clinical and professional psychologists 
appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 
Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience and are hired 
immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes 
up to six months or more.
  Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more 
significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40% of VHA 
psychologists

[[Page S696]]

have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. Psychologists 
leave the VHA system after five years because they have almost reached 
peak levels for salary and professional advancement. Furthermore, under 
the present system psychologists cannot be recognized nor appropriately 
compensated for excellence or for taking on additional responsibilities 
such as running treatment programs.
  In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA 
supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with 
behavioral and mental health disorders are deserving of better 
psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are 
currently receiving.

  Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care 
providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without 
question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention 
difficulties which I have addressed. Title 38 appointment authority for 
psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention 
problems. The length of time to recruit psychologists could be 
abbreviated by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated 
by the Office of Personnel Management. This would also encourage the 
recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns by reducing 
the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being 
able to offer that applicant a position.
  It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated 
with the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial 
incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. 
Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities 
as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, 
implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the 
effectiveness and/or efficiency of patient care, making significant 
contributions to the science of psychology, earning the ABPP displomate 
state, and becoming a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.
  The conversion of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this 
amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment 
issues and enhance the quality of care for our Nation' veterans and 
their families.
  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. 239

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

     SECTION 1. REVISION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF 
                   PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE VETERANS 
                   HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 7401(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking out ``who hold diplomas as 
     diplomates in psychology from an accrediting authority 
     approved by the Secretary''.
       (b) Certain Other Appointments.--Section 7405(a) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking out ``Certified or'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Professional psychologists, 
     certified or''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking out ``Certified or'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Professional psychologists, 
     certified or''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Appointment Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     begin to make appointments of professional psychologists in 
     the Veterans Health Administration under section 7401(3) of 
     title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), 
     not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 

By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Grams, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
                       Grassley, and Mr. Harkin):

  S. 244. A bill to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark 
Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and 
construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           THE LEWIS AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President. Today, I am proud to be introducing 
legislation, along with my colleagues, the Minority Leader Senator 
Daschle of South Dakota, Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley of Iowa, 
and Senator Wellstone and Senator Grams of Minnesota, to authorize the 
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System. We introduced similar legislation 
last Congress, and I am pleased with the progress we made in the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Committee held a hearing 
and passed the legislation during the 105th Congress, and I look 
forward to again working closely with my colleagues for timely 
consideration of this important measure.
  The Lewis and Clark Rural Water system is made up of 22 rural water 
systems and communities in southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa 
and southwestern Minnesota who have joined together in an effort to 
cooperatively address the dual problems facing the delivery of drinking 
water in this region--inadequate quantities of water and poor quality 
water.
  The region has seen substantial growth and development in recent 
years, and studies have shown that future water needs will be 
significantly greater than the current available supply. Most of the 
people who are served by ten of the water utilities in the proposed 
Lewis and Clark project area currently enforce water restrictions on a 
seasonal basis. Almost half of the membership has water of such poor 
quality it does not meet present or proposed standards for drinking 
water. More than two-thirds rely on shallow aquifers as their primary 
source of drinking water, aquifers which are very vulnerable to 
contamination by surface activities.
  The Lewis and Clark system will be a supplemental supply of drinking 
water for its 22 members, acting as a treated, bulk delivery system. 
The distribution to deliver water to individual users will continue 
through the existing systems used by each member utility. This 
``regionalization approach'' to solving these water supply and quality 
problems enables the Missouri River to provide a source of clean, safe 
drinking water to more than 180,000 individuals. A source of water 
which none of the members of Lewis and Clark could afford on their own.
  The proposed system would help to stabilize the regional rural 
economy by providing water to Sioux Falls, the hub city in the region, 
as well as numerous small communities and individual farms in South 
Dakota and portions of Iowa and Minnesota.
  The States of South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota have all authorized 
the project and local sponsors have demonstrated a financial commitment 
to this project through state grants, local water development district 
grants and membership dues. The State of South Dakota has already 
contributed more than $400,000.
  Mr. President, I do not believe our needs get any more basic than 
good quality, reliable drinking water, and I appreciate the fact that 
Congress has shown support for efforts to improve drinking water 
supplies in South Dakota. I look forward to continue working with my 
colleagues to have that support extended to the Lewis and Clark Rural 
Water System
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 244

       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 ``Lewis and Clark Rural Water 
     System Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Environmental enhancement.--The term ``environmental 
     enhancement'' means the wetland and wildlife enhancement 
     activities that are carried out substantially in accordance 
     with the environmental enhancement component of the 
     feasibility study.
       (2) Environmental enhancement component.--The term 
     ``environmental enhancement component'' means the component 
     described in the report entitled ``Wetlands and Wildlife 
     Enhancement for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System'', 
     dated April 1991, that is included in the feasibility study.
       (3) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
     means the study entitled ``Feasibility Level Evaluation of a 
     Missouri River Regional Water Supply for South Dakota,

[[Page S697]]

     Iowa and Minnesota'', dated September 1993, that includes a 
     water conservation plan, environmental report, and 
     environmental enhancement component.
       (4) Member entity.--The term ``member entity'' means a 
     rural water system or municipality that signed a Letter of 
     Commitment to participate in the water supply system.
       (5) Project construction budget.--The term ``project 
     construction budget'' means the description of the total 
     amount of funds needed for the construction of the water 
     supply system, as contained in the feasibility study.
       (6) Pumping and incidental operational requirements.--The 
     term ``pumping and incidental operational requirements'' 
     means all power requirements that are incidental to the 
     operation of intake facilities, pumping stations, water 
     treatment facilities, reservoirs, and pipelines up to the 
     point of delivery of water by the water supply system to each 
     member entity that distributes water at retail to individual 
     users.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
     means the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a 
     nonprofit corporation established and operated substantially 
     in accordance with the feasibility study.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall make grants to the 
     water supply system for the planning and construction of the 
     water supply system.
       (b) Service Area.--The water supply system shall provide 
     for safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     supplies, environmental enhancement, mitigation of wetland 
     areas, and water conservation in--
       (1) Lake County, McCook County, Minnehaha County, Turner 
     County, Lincoln County, Clay County, and Union County, in 
     southeastern South Dakota;
       (2) Rock County and Nobles County, in southwestern 
     Minnesota; and
       (3) Lyon County, Sioux County, Osceola County, O'Brien 
     County, Dickinson County, and Clay County, in northwestern 
     Iowa.
       (c) Amount of Grants.--Grants made available under 
     subsection (a) to the water supply system shall not exceed 
     the amount of funds authorized under section 10.
       (d) Limitation on Availability of Construction Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall not obligate funds for the construction of 
     the water supply system until--
       (1) the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) are met;
       (2) a final engineering report is prepared and submitted to 
     Congress not less than 90 days before the commencement of 
     construction of the water supply system; and
       (3) a water conservation program is developed and 
     implemented.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT 
                   COMPONENT.

       (a) Initial Development.--The Secretary shall make grants 
     and other funds available to the water supply system and 
     other private, State, and Federal entities, for the initial 
     development of the environmental enhancement component.
       (b) Nonreimbursement.--Funds provided under subsection (a) 
     shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.

     SEC. 5. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The water supply system shall establish a 
     water conservation program that ensures that users of water 
     from the water supply system use the best practicable 
     technology and management techniques to conserve water use.
       (b) Requirements.--The water conservation programs shall 
     include--
       (1) low consumption performance standards for all newly 
     installed plumbing fixtures;
       (2) leak detection and repair programs;
       (3) rate schedules that do not include declining block rate 
     schedules for municipal households and special water users 
     (as defined in the feasibility study);
       (4) public education programs and technical assistance to 
     member entities; and
       (5) coordinated operation among each rural water system, 
     and each water supply facility in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in the service area of the system.
       (c) Review and Revision.--The programs described in 
     subsection (b) shall contain provisions for periodic review 
     and revision, in cooperation with the Secretary.

     SEC. 6. MITIGATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a 
     result of the construction and operation of the water supply 
     system shall be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on 
     ecological equivalency, concurrent with project construction, 
     as provided in the feasibility study.

     SEC. 7. USE OF PICK-SLOAN POWER.

       (a) In General.--From power designated for future 
     irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
     Basin program, the Western Area Power Administration shall 
     make available the capacity and energy required to meet the 
     pumping and incidental operational requirements of the water 
     supply system during the period beginning on May 1 and ending 
     on October 31 of each year.
       (b) Conditions.--The capacity and energy described in 
     subsection (a) shall be made available on the following 
     conditions:
       (1) The water supply system shall be operated on a not-for-
     profit basis.
       (2) The water supply system shall contract to purchase the 
     entire electric service requirements of the system, including 
     the capacity and energy made available under subsection (a), 
     from a qualified preference power supplier that itself 
     purchases power from the Western Area Power Administration.
       (3) The rate schedule applicable to the capacity and energy 
     made available under subsection (a) shall be the firm power 
     rate schedule of the Pick-Sloan Eastern Division of the 
     Western Area Power Administration in effect when the power is 
     delivered by the Administration.
       (4) It is agreed by contract among--
       (A) the Western Area Power Administration;
       (B) the power supplier with which the water supply system 
     contracts under paragraph (2);
       (C) the power supplier of the entity described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (D) the water supply system;

     that in the case of the capacity and energy made available 
     under subsection (a), the benefit of the rate schedule 
     described in paragraph (3) shall be passed through to the 
     water supply system, except that the power supplier of the 
     water supply system shall not be precluded from including, in 
     the charges of the supplier to the water system for the 
     electric service, the other usual and customary charges of 
     the supplier.

     SEC. 8. NO LIMITATION ON WATER PROJECTS IN STATES.

       This Act does not limit the authorization for water 
     projects in the States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota 
     under law in effect on or after the ate of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 9. WATER RIGHTS.

       Nothing in this Act--
       (1) invalidates or preempts State water law or an 
     interstate compact governing water;
       (2) alters the rights of any State to any appropriated 
     share of the waters of any body of surface or ground water, 
     whether determined by past or future interstate compacts or 
     by past or future legislative or final judicial allocations;
       (3) preempts or modifies any Federal or State law, or 
     interstate compact, governing water quality or disposal; or
       (4) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to 
     exercise any Federal right to the waters of any stream or to 
     any ground water resource.

     SEC. 10. COST SHARING.

       (a) Federal Cost Share.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall provide funds equal to 80 percent of--
       (A) the amount allocated in the total project construction 
     budget for planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 3;
       (B) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases in 
     the budget for planning and construction of the water supply 
     system under section 3; and
       (C) such amounts as are necessary to defray increases in 
     development costs reflected in appropriate engineering cost 
     indices after September 1, 1993.
       (2) Sioux falls.--The Secretary shall provide funds for the 
     city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in an amount equal to 50 
     percent of the incremental cost to the city of participation 
     in the project.
       (b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     non-Federal share of the costs allocated to the water supply 
     system shall be 20 percent of the amounts described in 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Sioux falls.--The non-Federal cost-share for the city 
     of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall be 50 percent of the 
     incremental cost to the city of participation in the project.

     SEC. 11. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary may allow the Director of 
     the Bureau of Reclamation to provide project construction 
     oversight to the water supply system and environmental 
     enhancement component for the service area of the water 
     supply system described in section 3(b).
       (b) Project Oversight Administration.--The amount of funds 
     used by the Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for 
     planning and construction of the water supply system shall 
     not exceed the amount that is equal to 1 percent of the 
     amount provided in the total project construction budget for 
     the entire project construction period.

     SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act $226,320,000, of which not less than $8,487,000 shall be 
     used for the initial development of the environmental 
     enhancement component under section 4, to remain available 
     until expended.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues for the 
introduction of the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1999. I 
would like to thank Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle for their hard 
work and dedication to this project over the past two Congresses.
  Mr. President, the Southwestern corner of Minnesota, along with 
adjoining areas in South Dakota and Iowa, is now served by a wholly 
inadequate water system which is highly susceptible to

[[Page S698]]

drought, leading most of the communities in this region to impose 
severe water restrictions.
  The situation has forced communities throughout the region to explore 
aggressively alternative water supplies. Communities such as Luverne 
and Worthington, both in southwestern Minnesota, have spent tens of 
thousands of dollars yearly in an unsuccessful search for another water 
source, always with the same disappointing results. Eventually, 
however, it was determined that by working together with communities 
throughout the region and in all three states, a workable solution 
might be found.
  That solution is the bill we are introducing today. Under this 
legislation, local communities will come together with the affected 
states and the federal government to form a strong, financial 
partnership, thereby ensuring an adequate, safe water supply while 
reducing the cost to the American taxpayers.
  The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is a fiscally responsible 
project that invests in the future economic health of the tri-state 
region by strengthening its critical utilities infrastructure. With 
increasing population growth, economic development, new federal 
drinking water regulations, water demands, and shallow wells and 
aquifers which are subject to contamination, it is critical that the 
area encompassed by the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System establish a 
clean, reliable water source to meet the demand for future water use 
that cannot be met by present resources.
  Mr. President, this legislation has been before the Senate for the 
last two Congresses. Last year, we were successful in passing the 
legislation through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This 
year, we must see this bill passed by the Senate and the House and sent 
to the President for his signature.
  Providing safe and available drinking water to our communities is one 
of the most basic functions of government. It is not a partisan issue, 
and therefore I am proud to join with a bipartisan group of my 
colleagues and the governors of Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa in 
supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 245. A bill to reauthorize the Federal programs to prevent 
violence against women, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                   VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill titled 
``Violence Against Women Act of 1999.'' I expect that this will be one 
of several bills introduced this week in both the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, reflecting an array of ideas and views on the 
reauthorization of existing programs and the creation of new ones.
  Let me say at the outset, that one of my proudest accomplishments in 
this body was my work with Senator Joe Biden earlier this decade 
culminating in the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. I 
have great hopes that Senator Biden and I can duplicate that strong 
bipartisan effort in the 106th Congress.
  Five years after the passage of VAWA I, I think it is fair to say 
that this Act has significantly enhanced the efforts of law enforcement 
in combating violence against women and improved the services available 
to victims of domestic violence in my home state of Utah and across the 
nation.
  But five years later, it is time to advance the process in three 
major respects: (1) it is time to review and evaluate the effectiveness 
of programs created by the 1994 Act and to reexamine the adequacy of 
the funding levels for these programs; (2) it is time to review law 
enforcement's efforts and successes as a result of the 1994 Act; and 
(3) it is time to survey and consider the need for new programs and 
further changes in the law.
  Thus, while I am today introducing a bill that reauthorizes the 
majority of current programs, many at increased funding levels, I think 
that these programs need first to be evaluated as to whether available 
funds are being used in the most effective way possible. Further, I 
know that Senator Biden has a number of ideas for new programs and 
changes in the law, and I look forward to working with him on some of 
those ideas.
  Finally, let me just note that my bill also contains some new 
proposals regarding campus violence, battered immigrant women, and the 
victims of domestic violence on military bases around the country. Like 
many Americans, I watched with some horror on Sunday night as ``60 
Minutes'' detailed the degree of domestic violence on and around our 
military bases and the apparent lack of serious responsiveness by 
persons in charge. This situation, if accurately portrayed, is not 
acceptable, and this Administration needs to act swiftly and 
effectively to change what is reportedly happening. To that end, my 
bill includes a provision requiring a prompt review and report by the 
Secretary of Defense on the incidence of and response to domestic 
violence on our military bases.
  In sum, Mr. President, I hope that enacting effective legislation to 
combat violence against women will be a priority in the 106th Congress. 
I intend to do my best, working in a bipartisan fashion, to ensure that 
it is.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. McCain, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Kohl, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 247. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to reform the 
copyright law with respect to satellite retransmissions of broadcast 
signals, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           the satellite home viewer improvements act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will help provide for greater consumer choice and competition in 
television services, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act of 
1999.'' Joining me in introducing this bill are the Majority Leader, 
Senator Lott, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Senator McCain, and my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee, Senators DeWine and Kohl.
  The options consumers have for viewing television entertainment have 
vastly increased since that fateful day in September 1927 when 
television inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, together with 
his wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission in 
the Farnsworth's home workshop: a single black line rotated from 
vertical to horizontal. Both the forms of entertainment and the 
technologies for delivering that entertainment have proliferated over 
the 70 years since that day. In the 1940's and 1950's, televisions 
began arriving in an increasing number of homes to pick up 
entertainment being broadcast into a growing number of cities and 
towns.
  In the late 1960's and early 1970's, cable television began offering 
communities more television choices by initially providing community 
antenna systems for receiving broadcast television signals, and later 
by offering new created-for-cable entertainment. The development of 
cable television made dramatic strides with the enactment of the cable 
compulsory license in 1976, providing an efficient way of clearing 
copyright rights for the retransmission of broadcast signals over cable 
systems.
  In the 1980's, television viewers began to be able to receive 
television entertainment with their own home satellite equipment, and 
the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988 helped develop a 
system of providing options for television service to Americans who 
lived in areas too remote to receive television signals over the air or 
via cable.
  Much has changed since the original Satellite Home Viewer Act was 
adopted in 1988. The Satellite Home Viewer Act was originally intended 
to ensure that households that could not get television in any other 
way, traditionally provided through broadcast or cable, would be able 
to get television signals via satellite. The market and satellite 
industry has changed substantially since 1988. Many of the difficulties 
and controversies associated with the satellite license have been at 
least partly a product of the satellite business attempting to move 
from a predominately need-based rural niche service to a full service 
video delivery competitor in all markets, urban and rural.

[[Page S699]]

  Now, many market advocates both in and out of Congress are looking to 
satellite carriers to compete directly with cable companies for 
viewership, because we believe that an  increasingly competitive market 
is better for consumers both in terms of cost and the diversity of 
programming available. The bill I introduce today will move us toward 
that kind of robust competition.

  In short, this bill is focused on changes that we can make this year 
to move the satellite television industry to the next level, making it 
a full competitor in the multi-channel video delivery market. It has 
been said time and again that a major, and perhaps the biggest, 
impediment to satellite's ability to be a strong competitor to cable is 
its current inability to provide local broadcast signals. (See, e.g., 
Business week (22 Dec. 1997) p. 84.) This problem has been partly 
technological and partly legal.
  Even as we speak, the technological hurdles to local retransmission 
of broadcast signals are being lowered substantially. Emerging 
technology is now enabling the satellite industry to begin to offer 
television viewers their own local programming of news, weather, 
sports, and entertainment, with digital quality picture and sound. This 
will mean that viewers in the remoter areas of my large home state of 
Utah will be able to watch television programming originating in Salt 
Lake City, rather than New York or California. Utahns in remote areas 
will have access to local weather and other locally and regionally 
relevant information. In fact, one satellite carrier is already 
providing such a service in Utah.
  Today, with this bill, we hope to begin removing the legal 
impediments to use of this emerging technology to make local 
retransmission of broadcast signals a reality for all subscribers. The 
most important result will be that the constituents of all my 
colleagues will finally have a choice for full service multi-channel 
video programming. They will be able to choose cable or one of a number 
of satellite carriers. This should foster an environment of 
proliferating choice and lowered prices, all to the benefit of 
consumers, our constituents.
  To that end, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act'' makes the 
following changes in the copyright governing satellite television 
transmissions:
  It creates a new copyright license which allows satellite carriers to 
retransmit a local television station to households and businesses 
throughout that station's local market, just like cable does, and sets 
a zero copyright rate for providing this service.
  It extends the satellite compulsory licenses for both local and 
distant signals, which are now set to expire at the end of the year, 
until 2004.
  It cuts the copyright rates paid for distant signals by 30 or 45 
percent, depending on the type of signal.
  It allows consumers to switch from cable to satellite service for 
network signals without waiting a 90-day period now required in the 
law.
  It allows for a national Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed.
  Many of my colleagues in this chamber will recognize this legislation 
as substantively identical to a bill reported unanimously by the 
Judiciary Committee last year. I am pleased with the degree of 
cooperation and consensus we were able to forge with respect to this 
legislation last year, and I hope that we can pick up where we left off 
to bring this bill before the Senate for swift consideration and 
approval.
  As I indicated late in the last Congress, the bill I am introducing 
is intended to be a piece of a larger joint work product to be crafted 
in conjunction with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee. Once 
again in the 106th Congress, it is our intention that the Judiciary 
Committee will move forward with consideration of the copyright 
legislation I am introducing today, which, as I indicated, is 
cosponsored by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee. The Commerce 
Committee will proceed simultaneously to consider separate legislation 
to be introduced by Chairman McCain to address related communications 
amendments regarding such important areas as the must-carry and 
retransmission consent requirements for satellite carriers upon which 
the copyright licenses will be conditioned, and the FCC's distant 
signal eligibility process. It is our joint intention to combine our 
respective work product as two titles of the same bill in a way that 
will clearly delineate the work product of each committee, but combine 
them into the seamless whole necessary to make the licenses work for 
consumers and the affected industries.
  We need to act quickly on this legislation. The Satellite Home Viewer 
Act sunsets at the end of this year, placing at risk the service of 
many of the 11 million satellite subscribers nationwide. Many of our 
constituents are confused about the status of satellite service because 
of a court order requiring the cessation of distant-signal satellite 
service in February and April to as many as 2.5 million subscribers 
nationally who have been adjudged ineligible for distant signal service 
under current law. The granting of the local license, together with 
some resolution of the eligibility rules for distant signals and a more 
consumer-friendly process can help bring clarity to these consumers.
  Let me again thank the Majority Leader for his interest in and 
leadership with respect to these issues, and the Chairman of the 
Commerce Committee for his collegiality and cooperation in this 
process. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
who have worked on this legislation. This bill is a product of a 
bipartisan effort with Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl. I look forward 
to continued collaboration with them and with our other colleagues to 
help hasten more vigorous competition in the television delivery market 
and the ever-widening consumer choice that will follow it.
  I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory section-by-section 
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Section-by-Section Description of S. 247

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The title of the bill is the ``Satellite Home Viewer 
     Improvements Act''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS; SECONDARY 
                   TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS WITHIN 
                   LOCAL MARKETS.

       Section 2 of the bill creates a new copyright compulsory 
     license, found at section 122 of title 17 of the United 
     States Code, for the retransmission of television broadcast 
     stations by satellite carriers to subscribers located within 
     the local markets of those stations. In order to be eligible 
     for this compulsory license, a satellite carrier must be in 
     full compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of 
     the Federal Communications Commission, including any must-
     carry obligations imposed upon the satellite carrier by the 
     Commission or by law.
       Because the copyrighted programming contained on local 
     broadcast programming is already licensed with the 
     expectation that all viewers in the local market will be able 
     to view the programming, the new section 122 license is a 
     royalty-free license. Satellite carriers must, however, 
     provide local broadcasters with lists of their subscribers 
     receiving local stations so that broadcasters may verify that 
     satellite carriers are making proper use of the license. The 
     subscriber information supplied to broadcasters is for 
     verification purposes only, and may not be used by 
     broadcasters for other reasons.
       Satellite carriers are liable for copyright infringement, 
     and subject to the full remedies of the Copyright Act, if 
     they violate one or more of the following requirements of the 
     section 122 license. First, satellite carriers may not in any 
     way willfully alter the programming contained on a local 
     broadcast station.
       Second, satellite carriers may not use the section 122 
     license to retransmit a television station to a subscriber 
     located outside the local market of the station. If a carrier 
     willfully or repeatedly violates this limitation on a 
     nationwide basis, then the carrier may be enjoined from 
     retransmitting that signal. If the broadcast station involved 
     is a network station, then the carrier could lose the right 
     to retransmit any network stations affiliated with that same 
     network. If the willful or repeated violation of the 
     restriction is performed on a local or regional basis, then 
     the right to retransmit the station (or, if a network 
     station, then all other stations affiliated with that 
     network) can be enjoined on a local or regional basis, 
     depending upon the circumstances. In addition to termination 
     of service on a nationwide or local or regional basis, 
     statutory damages are available up to $250,000 for each 6-
     month period during which the pattern or practice of 
     violations was carrier out. Satellite carriers have the 
     burden of proving that they are not improperly making use of 
     the section 122 license to serve subscribers outside the 
     local markets of the television broadcast stations they are 
     providing.
       The section 122 license is not limited to private home 
     viewing, as is the section 119 compulsory license, so that 
     satellite carriers

[[Page S700]]

     may make use of it to serve commercial establishments as well 
     as homes. The local market of a television broadcast station 
     for purposes of the section 122 license will be defined by 
     the Federal Communications Commission as part of its 
     broadcast carriage rules for satellite carriers.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 119 OF 
                   TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Section 3 of the bill extends the expiration date of the 
     current section 119 satellite compulsory license from 
     December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2004.

     SEC. 4. COMPUTATION OF ROYALTY FEES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS.

       Section 4 of the bill reduces the 27 cent royalty fee 
     adopted last year by the Librarian of Congress for the 
     retransmission of network and superstation signals by 
     satellite carriers under the section 119 license. The 27 cent 
     rate for superstations is reduced by 30 percent per 
     subscriber per month, and the 27 cent rate for network 
     stations is reduced by 45 percent per subscriber per month.
       In addition, section 119(c) of title 17 is amended to 
     clarify that in royalty distribution proceedings conducted 
     under section 802 of the Copyright Act, the Public 
     Broadcasting Service may act as agent for all public 
     television copyright claimants and all Public Broadcasting 
     Service member stations.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 5 of the bill adds two new definitions to the 
     current section 119 satellite license. The ``unserved 
     household'' definition is modified to eliminate the 90 day 
     waiting period for satellite subscribers to wait after 
     termination of their cable service until they are eligible 
     for satellite service of network signals. A new definition of 
     a ``local network station'' is added to clarify that the 
     section 119 license is limited to the retransmission of 
     distant television stations, and not local stations.

     SEC. 6. PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICES SATELLITE FEED.

       Section 6 of the bill extends the section 119 license to 
     cover the copyrighted programming carried upon the Public 
     Broadcasting's national satellite feed. The national 
     satellite feed is treated as a superstation for compulsory 
     license purposes. Also, the bill requires that PBS must 
     certify to the Copyright Office on an annual basis that the 
     PBS membership continues to support retransmission of the 
     national satellite feed under the section 119 license.

     SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
                   REGULATIONS.

       Section 7 of the bill amends the current section 119 
     license to make it contingent upon full compliance with all 
     rules and regulations of the FCC. This provision mirrors the 
     requirement imposed upon cable operators under the cable 
     compulsory license.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this bill become effective on 
     January 1, 1999, with the exception of section 4 which 
     becomes effective on July 1, 1999.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on this first legislative day of the new 
session, I am joining Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee to 
introduce a bill to help protect satellite TV viewers. I know it also 
has the support of subcommittee Chairman, Senator DeWine, and its 
ranking member, Senator Kohl. I appreciate the fact that Republicans 
and Democrats are working together on this issue. I also want to thank 
the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for his assistance on this issue as 
well as the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain and 
their ranking member, Senator Hollings. I look forward to working with 
all Senators on this matter.
  I have received hundreds of calls from Vermonters last year whose 
satellite TV service was about to be terminated. I am still hearing 
from Vermonters from all over the state. They are steaming mad and so 
am I.
  This is an outrageous situation--the law must be changed and the 
Federal Communications Commission has to do its job.
  I have worked to change the law over the last two years to try to 
avoid the situation we now face. I have also insisted that the FCC 
change its unrealistic rules that will result in needless terminations 
of service to Vermont families.
  Unfortunately, we are on a collision course because of two Court 
orders affecting CBS and Fox signals offered to home dish owners, an 
inability to pass needed legislation last year, and the unwillingness 
of the FCC to step in and alleviate this situation.
  Before I go into the details I want to point out that this bipartisan 
bill represents very good public policy. It will increase competition 
among TV providers, give consumers more choices, preserve the local 
affiliate TV system, act to lower cable and satellite rates, and will 
eventually offer local news, weather and programming over satellite TV 
instead of programming from distant stations. Over the next couple 
years, this initiative can solve the problem of losing satellite 
service by allowing satellites to offer a full array of local TV 
stations.
  It will lead to lower rates for consumers because the bill creates 
head-to-head competition between cable and satellite TV providers. The 
bill will allow households who want to subscribe to this new satellite 
TV service, called ``local-into-local''--to receive all local Vermont 
TV stations over the satellite.
  The goal is to offer Vermonters with more choices, more TV 
selections, but at lower rates. In areas of the country where there is 
this full competition with cable providers, rates to customers are 
considerably lower.
  Thus, over time this initiative will permit satellite TV providers to 
offer a full selection of all local TV channels to viewers throughout 
most of Vermont, as well as the typical complement of superstations, 
weather and sports channels, PBS, movies and a variety of other 
channels. This means that local Vermont TV stations will be available 
over satellite dishes to many areas of Vermont currently not served by 
satellite or by cable.
  Under current law, it is illegal for satellite TV providers to offer 
local TV channels over a satellite dish when you live in an area where 
you are normally likely to get a clear TV signal with a regular rooftop 
antenna. This means that thousands of Vermonters living in or near 
Burlington cannot receive local signals over their satellite dishes.
  In addition, under current law many families must get their local TV 
signals over an antenna which often does not provide a clear picture. 
This bill will remove that legal limitation and allow satellite 
carriers to offer local TV signals to viewers no matter where they live 
in Vermont.
  To take advantage of this, satellite carriers over time will have to 
follow the rules that cable providers have to follow. This will mean 
that they must carry all local Vermont TV stations and not carry 
distant network stations that compete with local stations.
  Presently Vermonters receive network satellite signals with 
programming from stations in other states--in other words receive a CBS 
station from another state but not WCAX, the Burlington CBS affiliate.
  By allowing satellite providers to offer a larger variety of 
programming, including local stations, the satellite industry would be 
able to compete with cable, and the cable industry will be competing 
with satellite carriers.
  All the members of the Judiciary Committee have worked on this matter 
and I appreciate their efforts. On November 12, of 1997, Chairman Hatch 
and I held a full Committee hearing on satellite issues to try to avoid 
needless cutoffs of satellite TV service while, at the same time, 
working to protect the network affiliate TV broadcast system.
  Soon after, on March 5, 1998, we introduced the Hatch-Leahy satellite 
bill (S. 1720) to address these concerns. This bill was amended in 
Committee with a Hatch-Leahy substitute and was reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee unanimously on October 1, 1998.
  In the meantime, in July 1998, a federal district court judge in 
Florida found that PrimeTime 24 was offering distant CBS and Fox 
television signals to more than a million households in the U.S. in a 
manner inconsistent with its compulsory license that permits such 
satellite service only to households who do not get at least ``grade B 
intensity'' service. Under a preliminary injunction, satellite service 
to thousands of households in Vermont and other states was to be 
terminated on October 8, 1998, for CBS and Fox distant network signals 
for households signed up after March 11, 1997, the date the action was 
filed.
  To avoid immediate cutoffs of satellite TV service in Vermont and 
other states, the parties requested an extension of the October 8, 
1998, termination date which was granted until February 28, 1999. This 
extension was also designed to give the FCC time to address these 
problems faced by satellite home dish owners.
  The FCC solicited comments on whether the current definition of grade 
B intensity was adequate.
  I was very concerned about the FCC proposal in this matter and filed 
a comment asking the FCC to come up with a realistic and workable 
system to protect satellite dish owners. I criticized the FCC rule in 
that it would cut

[[Page S701]]

off households from receiving distant signals based on ``unwarranted 
assumptions'' in a manner inconsistent with the law and the clear 
intent of the Congress. I complained about entire towns in Vermont 
which were to be inappropriately cut off and insisted that FCC issue a 
final rule that permits ``a smooth transition to `local-into-local' 
satellite TV service.''
  I said in my comment to their proposal that: ``The Commission's 
proposal raises a number of complex issues, yet the guiding principle 
that the FCC should follow is simple: No customer's `distant' satellite 
TV signals should be cut off if the customer is unable to receive local 
TV broadcasts over-the-air.''
  I also pointed out that: ``The clear purpose of the law was, and is, 
to protect those living in more rural areas so that they can receive TV 
signals using satellite dishes when they are unable to receive a strong 
signal using an antenna. Your final rule should reflect that purpose. I 
have heard from constituents in two Vermont towns where I am told that 
almost no one can receive a clear TV signal, yet all families with 
satellite dishes were being targeted for termination of their satellite 
TV channels.''
  I also noted in my comment: ``A second area that concerns me relates 
to who should bear the cost of any testing that is done. I have heard 
from Vermonters who are justifiably furious that they are being asked 
to pay for these costs. The burden of proof and the burden of any 
additional expenses should not be assessed upon the families owning the 
satellite dishes.''
  ``While the hills and mountains of Vermont are a natural wonder, they 
are barriers to receiving clear TV signals over-the-air with roof top 
antennas. For example, at my home in Middlesex, Vermont, we can only 
get one channel clearly and the other channel with lots of ghosts.''
  In yet another development, the Florida district court filed a final 
order which will also require that households signed up for satellite 
service before March 11, 1997, be subject to termination of CBS and Fox 
distant signals on April 30, 1999, if they live in areas where they are 
likely to receive a grade B intensity signal, as defined by the Court 
and FCC rules, and are unable to get the local CBS or Fox affiliate to 
consent to receipt of the distant signal. My understanding is that each 
subscriber that is to lose service must receive notice 45 days in 
advance.
  I want to make clear, as I did in my comment to the FCC, that I 
strongly believe in the local affiliate television system. Local 
broadcast stations provide the public with local news, local weather, 
local informational programming, local emergency advisories, candidate 
forums, local public affairs programming, and high quality programs. 
Local broadcast stations contribute to our sense of community.
  I strongly believe that when the full local-into-local satellite 
system is in place, this system will enhance the local affiliate 
television system.
  I, thus, urge my colleagues to cosponsor this effort.
                                 ______
                                 

 By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Sessions, 
                             and Mr. Kyl):

  S. 248. A bill to modify the procedures of the Federal courts in 
certain matters, to reform prisoner litigation, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  the judicial improvement act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senators Ashcroft, Thurmond, Kyl, and Sessions, the ``Judicial 
Improvement Act of 1999.'' This legislation is designed to preserve the 
democratic process by strengthening the constitutional division of 
powers between the Federal Government and the States and between 
Congress and the Courts. I introduced this legislation last session, 
but, to my regret, the Senate did not have an opportunity to act upon 
it. I am re-introducing it because the same ills that were plaguing our 
judicial system continue to exist, and I believe this legislation can 
remedy these ills. I have every expectation that this legislation will 
be acted upon and favorably passed this session.
  I have always given credit where credit is due. So let me state that 
on the whole, our federal judges respect their constitutional roles and 
the Senate is aware of these judges' dedication to administering their 
oaths of office. Yet, unfortunately, this dedication is not universal 
and a degree of overreaching by some judges dictates that Congress move 
to more clearly delineate the proper role of federal judges. In our 
constitutional system, judges can not conveniently forget or blatantly 
ignore that the Constitution has exclusively reserved to Congress the 
power to legislate and limited their power to the interpretation of the 
law.
  This careful, but deliberate, separation of legislative and judicial 
functions is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Regardless of 
the temptation to embrace a certain judge's decision that some may find 
socially or politically expedient, we must remember that no interest is 
more compelling than preserving our Constitution.
  Now, attempts by certain federal judges to infringe upon Congress's 
legislative authority deeply concern me. I have taken the floor in this 
chamber on numerous occasions to recite some of the more troubling 
examples of judicial overreaching. I will not revisit them today. 
Suffice it to say that activism, and by that I mean a judge who ignores 
the written text of the law, whether from the right or the left, 
threatens our constitutional structure.
  An an elected official, my votes for legislation are subject to voter 
approval. Federal judges, however, are unelected, hence they are, as a 
practical matter, unaccountable to the public. While tenure during good 
behavior, which amounts to life tenure, is important in that it frees 
judges to make unpopular but constitutionally sound decisions, it can 
become a threat to liberty when placed in the wrong hands. And 
substituting the will of life-tenured federal judges for the 
democratically elected representatives is not what our Constitution's 
framers had in mind.
  In an effort to avoid this long-contemplated problem, the proposed 
reform legislation we are introducing today will assist in ensuring 
that all three branches of the Federal Government work together in a 
fashion contemplated by, and consistent with, the Constitution. In 
addition, this legislation will ensure that federal judges are more 
respectful of the States and their respective sovereignty.
  I want to be clear in stating that this bill does not, as some may 
claim, challenge the independence of federal judges. However, there are 
currently some activist federal judges improperly expanding their roles 
in an effort to substitute their own ideas and interests for the will 
of the people. Judges, however, are simply not entitled to deviate from 
their roles as interpreters of the law in order to create new law from 
the bench. If they believe otherwise, they are derelict in their duties 
and should leave the federal bench to run for public office--at least 
then they would be accountable for their actions. It is time that we 
pass legislation that precludes any federal judge from blurring the 
lines separating the legislative and judicial functions.

  It is important to note that the effort to reign in judicial activism 
should not be limited simply to opposing potential activist nominees. 
While the careful scrutiny of judicial nominees is one important step 
in the confirmation process, a step reserved to the Senate alone, 
Congress itself has an obligation to the public to ensure that judges 
fulfill their constitutionally prescribed roles and do not encroach 
upon those powers delegated to the legislature. Hence, the Congress 
performs an important role in bringing activist decisions to light and, 
where appropriate, publicly criticizing those decisions. Some view this 
as an assault upon judicial independence. That is untrue. It is merely 
a means of engaging in debate about a decision's merits or the process 
by which the decision was reached. Such criticism is a healthy part of 
our democratic system. While life tenure insulates judges from the 
political process, it should not, and must not, isolate them from the 
people.
  In addition, the Constitution grants Congress the authority, with a 
few notable limitations, to set federal courts' jurisdiction. This is 
an important tool that, while seldom used, sets forth the circumstances 
in which the judicial power may be exercised. A good example of this is 
the 104th Congress' effort to reform the statutory writ of habeas

[[Page S702]]

corpus in an attempt to curb the seemingly endless series of petitions 
filed by convicted criminals bent on thwarting the demands of justice. 
Legislation of this nature is an important means of curbing activism.
  In an effort to accomplish these goals, I have chosen to re-
introduce, along with my colleagues, the Judicial Improvement Act. It 
is a small, albeit meaningful, step in the right direction. Notably, 
this legislation will change the way federal courts review 
constitutional challenges to state and federal laws. The existing 
process allows a single federal judge to hear and grant applications 
regarding the constitutionality of state and federal laws as well as 
state ballot initiatives. In other words, a single federal judge can 
impede the will of a majority of the voters merely by issuing an order 
halting the implementation of a state referendum.
  This proposed reform will accomplish the twin goals of fighting 
judicial activism and preserving the democratic process. In essence, 
this bill modestly proposes to respond to the problem of judicial 
activism in part by: (1) Requiring a three judge district court panel 
to hear appeals and grant interlocutory or permanent injunctions based 
on the constitutionality of a state law or referendum; (2) placing time 
limitations on remedial authority in any civil action in which 
prospective relief or a consent judgment binds State or local 
officials; (3) prohibiting a federal court from having the authority to 
order state or local governments to increase taxes as part of a 
judicial remedy; (4) preventing a federal court from prohibiting state 
or local officials from reprosecuting a defendant; and (5) preventing a 
federal court from ordering the release of violent offenders under 
unwarranted circumstances.
  As I said last session and still believe to be true, this reform bill 
is a long overdue effort to minimize the potential for judicial 
activism in the federal court system. Americans are understandably 
frustrated when they exercise their right to vote and the will of their 
elected representatives is frustrated by judges who enjoy life tenure. 
It is no wonder that millions of Americans do not think their vote 
matters when they enact a referendum only to have it enjoined by a 
single district court judge. By improving the way federal courts 
analyze constitutional challenges to laws and initiatives, Congress 
will protect the rights of parties to challenge unconstitutional laws 
while at the same time reduce the ability of activist judges to abuse 
their power and circumvent the will of the people.
  I want to take a few moments to again describe how this legislation 
will curb the ability of federal judges to engage in judicial activism. 
The first reform would require a three judge panel to hear and issue 
interlocutory and permanent injunctions regarding challenged laws at 
the district court level. The current system allows a single federal 
judge to restrain the enforcement, operation and execution of 
challenged federal or state laws, including initiatives. There have 
been many instances where an activist judge has used this power to 
overturn a ballot initiative only to have his or her order overturned 
by a higher court years later.
  One need only remember how Proposition 209, a ballot initiative 
passed by the voters which prohibited affirmative action in California, 
was held in abeyance after a district court judge issued an injunction 
barring its enforcement to understand how the three judge panel 
provision may in fact play a role in ensuring that the will of the 
people is not wrongfully thwarted. The injunction was subsequently 
overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the 
law was constitutional. A three judge panel perhaps may have ruled 
correctly initially, allowing the democratic process to work properly 
while also saving taxpayer dollars.

  Obviously, I have no problem with a court declaring a law 
unconstitutional when it violates the written text of the Constitution. 
It is, however, inappropriate when a judge attempts to act like a 
legislator and imposes his own policy preference on the citizens of a 
state. Such an action weakens respect for the federal judiciary, 
creates cynicism in the voting public, and costs governments millions 
of dollars in legal fees. By requiring a ruling by a three judge panel 
to overturn the validity of a State law, the proposed law would 
eliminate the ability of one activist judge to unilaterally bar 
enforcement of a law or ballot initiative through an interlocutory or 
permanent injunction.
  In addition, new time limits on injunctive relief would be imposed. A 
temporary restraining order would remain in force no more than 10 days, 
and an interlocutory injunction no more than 60 days. After the 
expiration of an interlocutory injunction, federal courts would lack 
the authority to grant any additional interlocutory relief but would 
still have the power to issue a permanent injunction. These limitations 
are designed to prevent the federal judiciary from indefinitely barring 
implementation of challenged laws by issuing endless injunctions, and 
facilitate the appeals process by motivating courts to speedily handle 
constitutional challenges. What this reform essentially does is 
encourage the federal judiciary to rule on the merits of a case, and 
not use injunctions to keep a challenged law from going into effect or 
being heard by an appeals court through the use of delaying tactics.
  The bill also proposes to require that a notice of appeal must be 
filed not more than fourteen days after the date of an order granting 
an interlocutory injunction and the appeals court would lack 
jurisdiction over an untimely appeal of such an order. The court of 
appeals would apply a de novo standard of review before reconsidering 
the merits of granting relief, but not less than 100 days after the 
issuance of the original order granting interlocutory relief. If the 
interlocutory order is upheld on appeal, the order would remain in 
force no longer than 60 days after the date of the appellate decision 
or until replaced by a permanent injunction.
  The bill also proposes limitations on the remedial authority of 
federal courts. In any civil action where prospective relief or a 
consent judgment binds state and local officials, relief would be 
terminated upon the motion of any party or intervener: (a) Five years 
after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief; 
(b) two years after the date the court has entered an order denying 
termination of prospective relief; or (c) in the case of an order 
issued on or before the date of enactment of this act, two years after 
the date of enactment.
  Parties could agree to terminate or modify an injunction before 
relief is available if it otherwise would be legally permissible. 
Courts would promptly rule on motions to modify or terminate this 
relief and in the event that a motion is not ruled on within 60 days, 
the order or consent judgment binding state and local officials would 
automatically terminate.
  However, prospective relief would not terminate if the federal court 
makes written findings based on the record that relief remains 
necessary to correct an ongoing violation of a federal right, extends 
no further than necessary to correct the violation and is the least 
intrusive means available to correct the violation of a federal right.
  Moreover, this measure would also prohibit a federal court from 
having the authority to order a unit of state or local government to 
increase taxes as part of a judicial remedy. When an unelected federal 
judge has the power to order tax increases, this results in taxation 
without representation. Americans have fought against unfair taxation 
since the Revolutionary War, and this bill would prevent unfair 
judicial taxation and leave the power to tax to elected representatives 
of the people.
  The bill would not limit the authority of a federal court to order a 
remedy which may lead a unit of local or state government to decide to 
increase taxes. A federal court would still have the power to issue a 
money judgment against a State because the court would not be 
attempting to restructure local government entities or mandating a 
particular method or structure of State or local financing. This bill 
also doesn't limit the remedial authority of State courts in any case, 
including cases raising issues of federal law. All the bill does is 
prevent federal courts from having the power to order elected 
representatives to raise taxes. This is moderate reform which prevents 
judicial activism and unfair taxation while preserving the federal 
courts power to order remedial measures.

[[Page S703]]

  Another important provision of the bill would prevent a federal court 
from prohibiting State or local officials from re-prosecuting a 
defendant. This legislation is designed to clarify that federal habeas 
courts lack the authority to bar retrial as a remedy.
  This part of the legislation was co-sponsored by Congressman Pitts 
and Senator Specter in response to a highly-publicized murder case in 
the Congressman's district. Sixteen year old Laurie Show was harrassed, 
stalked and assaulted for six months by the defendant, who had a 
vendetta against Show for briefly dating the defendant's boyfriend. 
After luring Show's mother from their residence, the defendant and an 
accomplice forcefully entered the Show home, held the victim down, and 
slit her throat with a butcher knife, killing her. After the defendant 
was convicted in state court, she filed a habeas petition in which she 
alleged prosecutorial misconduct and averred her actual innocence. A 
federal district court judge not only accepted this argument and 
released the defendant, but he also took the extraordinary step of 
barring state and local officials from reprosecuting the woman. This 
judge even went so far as to state that the defendant was the ``first 
and foremost victim of this affair.''
  Congress has long supported the ability of a federal court to fashion 
creative remedies to preserve constitutional protections, but the 
additional step of barring state or local officials from reprosecution 
is without precedent and an unacceptable intrusion on the rights of 
States. This bill, if enacted, will prevent this type of judicial 
activism from ever occurring again.
  This bill also contains provisions for the termination of prospective 
relief when it is no longer warranted to cure a violation of a federal 
right. Once a violation that was the subject of a consent decree has 
been corrected, a consent decree must be terminated unless the court 
finds that an ongoing violation of a federal right exists, the specific 
relief is necessary to correct the violation of a Federal right, and no 
other relief will correct the violation of the Federal right. The party 
opposing the termination of relief has the burden of demonstrating why 
the relief should not be terminated, and the court is required to grant 
the motion to terminate if the opposing party fails to meet its burden. 
These provisions prevent consent decrees from remaining in effect once 
a proper remedy has been implemented, thereby preventing judges from 
imposing consent decrees that go beyond the requirements of law.
  The proposed reform law also includes provisions designed to dissuade 
prisoners from filing frivolous and malicious motions by requiring that 
the complainant prisoner pay for the costs of the filings. These 
provisions will undoubtedly curb the number of frivolous motions filed 
by prisoners and thus, relieve the courts of the obligation to hear 
these vacuous motions designed to mock and frustrate the judicial 
system.
  Finally, the bill proposes to prevent federal judges from entering or 
carrying out any prisoner release order that would result in the 
release from or nonadmission to a prison on the basis of prison 
conditions. This provision effectively will preclude activist judges 
from circumventing mandatory minimum sentencing laws by stripping 
federal judges of jurisdiction to enter such orders. This will ensure 
that the tough sentencing laws approved by voters to keep murderers, 
rapists, and drug dealers behind bars for lengthy terms will not be 
ignored by activist judges who improperly use complaints of prison 
conditions filed by convicts as a vehicle to release violent offenders 
back on to our streets. It will also prevent any federal judge from 
ever endangering families and children in our communities by preventing 
these judges from releasing prisoners based on prison conditions.
  Congress repeatedly has tried to ensure that convicted prisoners stay 
where they belong: in prison for the term to which they were sentenced. 
This effort has been ongoing for over 10 years. Consider the following 
examples: (1) In 1987, Congress passed the Sentencing Guidelines which 
effectively limited the probation of prisoners; (2) the 1994 Crime Bill 
contained incentives for States to pass Truth in Sentencing Laws which 
kept convicted prisoners incarcerated for longer periods; and (3) the 
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996 allowed for the revocation of 
good time credit if prisoners filed malicious, repetitive and frivolous 
law suits while in prison. The reform bill being introduced today will 
further Congress' ongoing efforts to provide safer streets for all 
Americans by ensuring that convicted prisoners who pose a danger to our 
communities are not released prior to the expiration of their mandated 
sentences.
  This timely legislation is a measured effort to improve the way the 
federal judiciary works. It is not an attempt to infringe upon judicial 
independence. To the contrary, this reform bill is a sensible, balanced 
attempt to promote judicial efficiency and to prevent egregious 
judicial activism. I encourage all of my colleagues to act swiftly on 
and support this truly needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 249. A bill to provide funding for the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


Introduction of the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection 
                                  Act

  Mr. HATCH, Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Missing, 
Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act of 1999. This bill 
reauthorizes two vital laws that serve a crucial line of defense in 
support of some of the most vulnerable members of our society--
thousands of missing, exploited, homeless, or runaway children. It is a 
tragedy in our Nation that each year there are as many as over 114,000 
attempted child abductions, 4,500 child abductions reported to the 
police, 450,000 children who run away, and 438,000 children who are 
lost, injured, or missing. I am told that this is a growing problem 
even in my State of Utah.
  Families who have written to me have shared the pain of a lost or 
missing child. While missing, lost, on the run, or abducted, each of 
these children is at high risk of falling into the darkness of drug 
abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, pain, hunger, and injury. Each of 
these children is precious, and deserves our efforts to save them. The 
bill I am introducing today is a step in that direction.
  My bill reauthorizes and improves the Missing Children's Assistance 
Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. First,this bill revises the 
Missing Children's Assistance Act in part by recognizing the 
outstanding record of achievements of this National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children. It will enable NCMEC to provide even greater 
protection of our Nation's children in the future. Second, this bill 
reauthorizes and revitalizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
  At the heart of the bill's amendments to the Missing Children's 
Assistance Act is an enhanced authorization of appropriations for the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Under the authority 
of the Missing children's Assistance Act, the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has selected and given 
grants to the Center for the last fourteen years to operate a national 
resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour 
toll-free telephone line. The Center provides invaluable assistance and 
training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and 
exploited children. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its 
efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage 
of missing children who are recovered safely.
  In fiscal year 1999, the Center received an earmark of $8.12 million 
in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations 
conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center 
received $1.25 million.
  The legislation I am introducing today continues and formalizes 
NCMEC's long partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP, by 
directing OJJDP to make an annual grant to the Center, and authorizing 
annual appropriations of $10 million for fiscal years 1999 through 
2004.
  NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated 
by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%, 
justifies action by Congress to formally

[[Page S704]]

recognize it as the nation's official missing and exploited children's 
center, and to authorize a line-item appropriation. This bill will 
enable the Center to focus completely on its missions, without 
expending the annual effort to obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. 
It also will allow the Center to expand its longer-term arrangements 
with domestic and foreign law enforcement entities. By providing and 
authorization, the bill also will allow for better congressional 
oversight of the Center.
  The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the 
appropriateness of this authorization. For fourteen years the Center 
has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse mandated 
by the Missing Children's Assistance Act. The Center has worked in 
partnership with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the Department of Treasury, the State Department, and 
many other federal and state agencies in the effort to find missing 
children and prevent child victimization.
  The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non-
profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's 
National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement 
Telecommunications System (NLETS).
  NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the 
National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Interent 
website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other 
websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing 
children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new CyberTipline on 
child exploitation.
  NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network, 
linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses 
operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In 
addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement 
authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France and 
others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information 
regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around 
the world instantly. NCMEC also serve as the U.S. State Department's 
representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention.

  The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received 
at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law 
enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals 
trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most 
importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has 
resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children. Each of these figures 
represents the activity of NCMEC through spring 1998. NCMEC is a 
shining example of the type of public-private partnership the Congress 
should encourage and recognize.
  The second part of the bill I am introducing today reforms and 
streamlines the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, targeting federal 
assistance to areas with the greatest need, and making numerous 
technical changes. According to the National Network for Youth, the 
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides ``critical assistance to youth 
in high-risk situations all over the country.'' Its three programs, 
discussed in more detail below, benefit those children truly in need 
and at high risk of becoming addicted to drugs, sexually exploited or 
abused, or involved in criminal behavior.
  The cornerstone of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the Basic 
Center Program which provides grants for temporary shelter and 
counseling for children under age 18. My home state of Utah received 
over $378,000 in grants in FY 1998 under this program, and I have 
received requests from Utah organizations such as the Baker Youth 
Service Home to reauthorize this important program.
  Community-based organizations also may request grants under the two 
related programs, the Transitional Living and the Sexual Abuse 
Prevention/Street Outreach programs. The Transitional Living grants 
provide longer term housing to homeless teens aged 16 to 21, and aim to 
move these teens to self-sufficiency and to avoid long-term dependency 
on public assistance. The Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach 
Program targets homeless teens potentially involved in high risk 
behaviors.
  In addition, the amendment reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless 
Youth Act Rural Demonstration Projects which provide assistance to 
rural juvenile populations, such as in my state of Utah. Finally, the 
amendment makes several technical corrections to fix prior drafting 
errors in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.
  The provisions of this bill will strengthen our commitment to our 
youth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will 
strengthen the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act, and thus improve the safety of our Nation's children.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 250. A bill to establish ethical standards for Federal 
prosecutors, and for other purposes.


                     federal prosecutor ethics act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce an 
important piece of corrective legislation--the Federal Prosecutor 
Ethics Act. This bill will address in a responsible manner the critical 
issue of ethical standards for federal prosecutors, while ensuring that 
the public servants are permitted to perform their important function 
of upholding federal law.
  The bill I am introducing today is a careful solution to a troubling 
problem--the application of state ethics rules in federal court, and 
particularly to federal prosecutors. In short, my bill will subject 
federal prosecutors to the bar rules of each state in which they are 
licensed unless such rules are inconsistent with federal law or the 
effectuation of federal policy or investigations. It also sets specific 
standards for federal prosecutorial conduct, to be enforced by the 
Attorney General. Finally, it establishes a commission of federal 
judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, to review and report on the 
interrelationship between the duties of federal prosecutors and 
regulation of their conduct by state bars and the disciplinary 
procedures utilized by the Attorney General.
  No one condones prosecutorial excesses. There have been instances 
where law enforcement, and even some federal prosecutors, have gone 
overboard. Unethical conduct by any attorney is a matter for concern. 
But when engaged in by a federal prosecutor, unethical conduct cannot 
be tolerated. For as Justice Sutherland noted in 1935, the prosecutor 
is not just to win a case, ``but that justice shall be done. . . . It 
is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to 
produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to 
bring about a just one.''
  We must, however, ensure that the rules we adopt to ensure proper 
prosecutorial conduct are measured and well-tailored to that purpose. 
As my colleagues may recall, last year's omnibus appropriations act 
included a very controversial provision known to most of my colleagues 
simply as the ``McDade provision,'' after its House sponsor, former 
Representative Joe McDade.
  This well-intentioned but ill-advised provision was adopted to set 
ethical standards for federal prosecutors and other attorneys for the 
government. In my view, it was not the measured and well-tailored law 
needed to address the legitimate concerns its sponsors sought to 
redress. Nor was I alone in this view. So great was the concern over 
its impact, in fact, that its effective date was delayed until six 
months after enactment. That deadline is approaching. In my view, if 
allowed to take effect in its present form, the McDade provision would 
cripple the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce federal law 
and cede authority to regulate the conduct of federal criminal 
investigations and prosecutions to more than 50 state bar associations.
  As enacted last fall, the McDade provision adds a new section 530B to 
title 28 of the U.S. Code. In its most relevant part, it states that an 
``attorney for the government shall be subject to State laws and rules 
. . . governing attorneys in each state where such attorney engages in 
that attorney's duties,

[[Page S705]]

to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that 
state.''
  There are important practical considerations which persuasively 
counsel against allowing 28 U.S.C. 530B to take effect unchanged. I 
have been a frequent critic of the trend toward the over-federalization 
of crime. Yet the federal government has a most legitimate role in the 
investigation and prosecution of complex multistate terrorism, drug, 
fraud or organized crime conspiracies, in rooting out and punishing 
fraud against federally funded programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security, in vindicating the federal civil rights laws, in 
investigating and prosecuting complex corporate crime, and in punishing 
environmental crime.

  It is in these very cases that Section 530B will have its most 
pernicious effect. Federal attorneys investigating and prosecuting 
these cases, which frequently encompass three, four, or five states, 
will be subject to the differing state and local rules of each of those 
states, plus the District of Columbia, if they are based here. Their 
decisions will be subject to review by the bar and ethics review boards 
in each of each of these states at the whim of defense counsel, even if 
the federal attorney is not licensed in that state.
  Practices concerning contact with unrepresented persons or the 
conduct of matters before a grant jury, perfectly legal and acceptable 
in federal court, will be subject to state bar rules. For instance, in 
many states, federal attorneys will not be permitted to speak with 
represented witnesses, especially witnesses to corporate misconduct, 
and the use of undercover investigations will at a minimum be hindered. 
In other states, section 530B might require--contrary to long-
established federal grand jury practice--that prosecutors present 
exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Moreover, these rules won't 
have to be in effect in the district where the subject is being 
investigated, or where the grand jury is sitting to have these effects. 
No, these rules only have to be in effect somewhere the investigation 
leads, or the federal attorney works, to handcuff federal law 
enforcement.
  In short, Section 530B will affect every attorney in every department 
and agency of the federal government. It will effect enforcement of our 
antitrust laws, our environmental laws prohibiting the dumping of 
hazardous waste, our labor laws, our civil rights laws, and as I said 
before, the integrity of every federal funding program.
  Section 530B is also an open invitation to clever defense attorneys 
to stymie federal criminal or civil investigations by raising bogus 
defenses or bringing frivolous state bar claims. Indeed, this is 
happening even without Section 530B as the law of the land. The most 
recent example is the use of a State rule against testimony buying to 
brand as ``unethical'' the long accepted, and essential, federal 
practice of moving for sentence reductions for co-conspirators who 
cooperate with prosecutors by testifying truthfully for the government. 
How much worse will it be when this provision declares it open season 
of federal lawyers?
  What will the costs of this provision be? At a minimum, the 
inevitable result will be that violations of federal laws will not be 
punished, and justice will not be done. But there will be financial 
costs to the federal government as well, as a result of defending these 
frivolous challenges and from higher costs associated with 
investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law.
  All of this, however, is not to say that nothing needs to be done on 
the issue of attorney ethics in federal court. Indeed, I have 
considerable sympathy for the objectives values Section 530B seeks to 
protect. All of us who at one time or another have been the subject of 
unfounded ethical or legal charges, as I have been as well, know the 
frustration of clearing one's name. All no one wants more than I to 
ensure that all federal prosecutors are held to the highest ethical 
standards. But Section 530B, as it was enacted last year, is not in my 
view the way to do it.
  The bill I am introducing today addresses the narrow matter of 
federal prosecutorial conduct in a responsible way, and I might add, in 
a manner that is respectful of both federal and state sovereignty. As 
all of my colleagues know, each of our states has at least one federal 
judicial district. But the federal courts that sit in these districts 
are not courts of the state. They are, of course instrumentalities of 
federal sovereignty, created by Congress pursuant to its power under 
Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the 
United States in ``one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the 
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''
  As enacted, Section 530B is in my view a serious dereliction of our 
Constitutional duty to establish inferior federal courts. Should this 
provision take effect, Congress will have ceded the right to control 
conduct in the federal courts to more than fifty state bar 
associations, at a devastating cost to federal sovereignty and the 
independence of the federal judiciary. Simply put, the federal 
government, like each of our states, must retain for itself the 
authority to regulate the practice of law in its own courts and by its 
own lawyers. Indeed, the principle of federal sovereignty in its own 
sphere has been well established since Chief Justice Marshall's opinion 
in McCulloch v. Maryland [17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 1819].
  However, it may only be a first step. For the problem of rules for 
the conduct of attorneys in federal court affects more than just 
prosecutors. It affects all litigants in each of our federal courts, 
who have a right to know what the rules are in the administration of 
justice. This is a problem that has been percolating in the federal bar 
for over a decade--the diversity of ethical rules governing attorney 
conduct in federal court.
  Presently, there is no uniform rule that applies in all federal 
courts. Rather, applicable ethics rules have been left up to the 
discretion of local rules in each federal judicial district. Various 
districts have taken different approaches, including adopting state 
standards based on either the ABA Model Rules or the ABA Code, adopting 
one of the ABA models directly, and in some cases, adopting both an ABA 
model and the state rules.
  This variety of rules has led to confusion, especially in multiforum 
federal practice. As a 1997 report prepared for the Judicial 
Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure put it, 
``Multiforum federal practice, challenging under ideal conditions, has 
been made increasingly complex, wasteful, and problematic by the 
disarray among federal local rules and state ethical standards.''
  Moreover, the problem may well be made worse if Section 530B takes 
effect in its present form. First, as enacted, Section 530B contains an 
internal conflict that will add to the confusion. Section 530B provides 
that federal attorneys are governed by both the state laws and bar 
rules and the federal court's local rules. These, of course, are 
frequently different, setting up the obvious quandary--which take 
precedence? Finally, Section 530B might further add to the confusion, 
by raising the possibility of different standards in the same court for 
opposing litigants--private parties governed by the federal local rules 
and prosecutors governed by Section 530B.
  The U.S. Judicial Conference's Rules Committee has been studying this 
matter, and is considering whether to issue ethics rules pursuant to 
its authority under the federal Rules Enabling Act. I believe that this 
is an appropriate debate to have, and that it may be time for the 
federal bar to mature. The days are past when federal practice was a 
small side line of an attorney's practice. Practice in federal court is 
now ubiquitous to any attorney's practice of law. It is important, 
then, that there be consistent rules. Indeed, for that very reason, we 
have federal rules of evidence, criminal procedure, and civil 
procedure. Perhaps it is time to consider the development of federal 
rules of ethics, as well.
  This is not to suggest, of course, a challenge to the traditional 
state regulation of the practice of law, or the proper control by state 
Supreme Courts of the conduct of attorneys in state court. The 
assertion of federal sovereignty over the conduct of attorneys in 
federal courts will neither impugn nor diminish the sovereign right of 
states to continue to do the same in state courts. However, the 
administration of justice in the federal courts requires the 
consideration of uniform rules to apply in federal courts and

[[Page S706]]

thus, I will be evaluating proposals to set uniform rules governing the 
conduct of attorneys in federal court.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is of vital 
importance to the continued enforcement of federal law. Its importance 
is compounded by the deadline imposed by the effective date of Section 
530B. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and support the 
Federal Prosecutor Ethics Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S.J. Res. 1. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing the voluntary 
school prayer constitutional amendment. This bill is identical to S.J. 
Res. 73, which I introduced in the 98th Congress at the request of then 
President Reagan and have reintroduced every Congress since.
  This proposal has received strong support from both sides of the 
aisle and is of vital importance to our Nation. It would restore the 
right to pray voluntarily in public schools--a right which was freely 
exercised under our Constitution until the 1960's, when the Supreme 
Court ruled to the contrary.
  Also, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled an Alabama statute 
unconstitutional which authorized teachers in public schools to provide 
``a period of silence ... for meditation or voluntary prayer'' at the 
beginning of each school day. As I stated when that opinion was issued 
and repeat again: the Supreme Court has too broadly interpreted the 
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and, in doing so, has 
incorrectly infringed on the rights of those children--and their 
parents--who wish to observe a moment of silence for religious or other 
purposes.
  Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington School 
District decisions, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was 
generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially 
approving, or holding in special favor, any particular religious faith 
or denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought 
to prevent what had originally caused many colonial Americans to 
emigrate to this country--an official, State religion. At the same 
time, they sought, through the Free Exercise Clause, to guarantee to 
all Americans the freedom to worship God without government 
interference or restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true 
religious liberty precludes the government from both forcing and 
preventing worship.
  As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once stated: ``We are a 
religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' 
Nearly every President since George Washington has proclaimed a day of 
public prayer. Moreover, we, as a Nation, continue to recognize the 
Deity in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that we are a Nation 
``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the motto, ``In God We 
Trust''. In this Body, we open the Senate and begin our workday with 
the comfort and stimulus of voluntary group prayers. I would note that 
this practice has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
  It is unreasonable that the opportunity for the same beneficial 
experience is denied to the boys and girls who attend public schools. 
This situation simply does not comport with the intentions of the 
framers of the Constitution and is, in fact, antithetical to the rights 
of our youngest citizens to freely exercise their respective religions. 
It should be changed, without further delay.
  The Congress should swiftly pass this resolution and send it to the 
States for ratification. This amendment to the Constitution would 
clarify that it does not prohibit vocal, voluntary prayer in the public 
school and other public institutions. It emphatically states that no 
person may be required to participate in any prayer. The government 
would be precluded from drafting school prayers. This well-crafted 
amendment enjoys the support of an overwhelming number of Americans.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and 
approval of this legislation during this Congress.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 1

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States, which shall be valid to all intents and 
     purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years from the date of its submission to the States by 
     the Congress:

                              ``Article --

       ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to 
     prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or 
     other public institutions. No person shall be required by the 
     United States or by any State to participate in prayer. 
     Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the 
     words of any prayer to be said in public schools.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, 
        Mr. Brownback, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gramm, 
        Mr. Grams, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, 
        Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of 
        New Hampshire, and Mr. Thompson):
  S.J. Res. 2. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require two-thirds majorities for 
increasing taxes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators 
Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Brownback, Coverdell, Crapo, Frist, Gramm, 
Grams, Hagel, Helms, Hutchison, Inhofe, Mack, McConnell, Sessions, 
Shelby, Smith of New Hampshire, and Thompson, to introduce the Tax 
Limitation Amendment, a joint resolution that proposes to amend the 
Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to 
raise taxes.
  Mr. President, this is an idea that comes to us from the states. 
Voters from around the country have approved similar restrictions in 
recent years--doing so in most cases by overwhelming margins. Most 
recently, a solid majority of Montana voters approved an amendment to 
their state's constitution that requires voter approval of all new 
taxes and tax increases. That is a far stronger constraint than what is 
being proposed here.
  By overwhelming majorities, voters in Arkansas, Maryland, and 
Virginia upheld their states tax-limitation initiatives, rejecting 
ballot propositions on November 3 last year that were designed to water 
down existing constraints on tax increases.
  Two years ago, also by overwhelming majorities, voters from Florida 
to California approved initiatives aimed at limiting government's 
ability to raise taxes. Florida's Question One, which requires a two-
thirds vote of the people to enact or raise any state taxes or fees, 
passed with 69.2 percent of the vote.
  Seventy percent of Nevada voters approved the Gibbons amendment, 
requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the state legislature to pass 
new taxes or tax hikes. South Dakotans easily approved an amendment 
requiring either a vote of the people or a two-thirds vote of the 
legislature for any state tax increase.
  And California voters tightened the restrictions in the most famous 
tax limitation of all, Proposition 13, so that all taxes at the local 
level now have to be approved by a vote of the people. Of course, 
voters in my home state of Arizona overwhelmingly approved a state tax 
limit of their own in 1992.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment I am introducing today would impose 
similar constraints on federal tax-raising authority. It would require 
a two-thirds majority vote of each house of Congress to pass any bill 
levying a new tax or increasing the rate or base of any existing tax. 
In short, any measure that would take more out of the taxpayers' 
pockets would require a supermajority vote to pass.
  I would note that the proposed amendment includes provisions that 
would allow Congress to waive the supermajority vote requirement in 
times of war, or when the United States is engaged in military conflict 
which causes an imminent and serious

[[Page S707]]

threat to national security. But to ensure that such waiver authority 
is truly reserved for such emergencies and is not abused, any new taxes 
imposed under a waiver could only remain in effect for a maximum of two 
years.
  Mr. President, why is a tax-limitation amendment necessary?
  The two largest tax increases in our nation's history were enacted 
earlier this decade by only the slimmest of margins. In fact, President 
Clinton's 1993 tax increase did not even win the support of a majority 
of Senators. Vice President Gore broke a 50 to 50 vote tie to secure 
its passage.
  Despite very modest efforts to cut taxes in the last few years, the 
effects of the record-setting tax increases of 1990 and 1993 are still 
being felt today. The tax burden imposed on the American people hit a 
peacetime high of 19.8 percent of GDP in 1997 and, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, is continuing to rise--to 20.5 percent in 
1998 and 20.6 in 1999. That will be higher than any year since 1945, 
and it would be only the third and fourth years in our nation's entire 
history that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income. 
Notably, the first two times revenues broke the 20 percent mark, the 
economy tipped into recession.
  Already, economists are beginning to project slower economic growth 
in coming years. Barring any further shocks from abroad, growth for 
1999 to 2003 is estimated at about two percent. In fact, growth during 
the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent 
annually. That compares to the 3.9 percent annual growth rate during 
the period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase. 
The heavy tax burden may not be the only reason for slow growth, but it 
is a significant factor.
  With that in mind, I believe the President and Congress should 
consider reducing income-tax rates across the board for all Americans. 
We will no doubt have that debate about the need for tax relief in 
coming months. But whether we agree to cut taxes or not, we--the 
President and Congress--should be able to agree that taxes are high 
enough and should not be raised further, at least not without the kind 
of significant, broad-based and bipartisan support that would be 
required under the Tax Limitation Amendment.
  Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential 
operation is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax 
rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent 
experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax 
rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the 
Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's 
unified budget deficit.
  In any event, voters around the country seem to believe that raising 
taxes should only be done when there is broad support for the 
proposition. The TLA will ensure that no tax can be raised in the 
future without such consensus.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to cosponsor the initiative, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be 
reprinted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 2

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the 
     rate or base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds 
     majority of the whole number of each House of Congress.
       ``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a 
     declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive 
     section 1 when the United States is engaged in military 
     conflict when causes an imminent and serious threat to 
     national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, 
     adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, 
     which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing 
     alone, be subject to section 1 but for this section and which 
     becomes law pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for 
     not longer than 2 years.
       ``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate under this article shall be 
     determined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting 
     for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House 
     respectively.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Biden, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. DeWine, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Mack, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Helms, Mr. Frist, 
        Mr. Gramm, Mr. Lott, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states to 
                  protect the rights of crime victims

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to ensure that crime victims are treated with 
fairness, dignity, and respect, I rise to introduce, along with Senator 
Feinstein, a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to 
establish and protect the rights of victims of violent crime. I would 
like to update the members on the latest form of the Crime Victims 
Rights Amendment and outline our plans for the 106th Congress.
  This joint resolution is the product of extended discussions with 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Senators Hatch and 
Biden, the Department of Justice, the White House, law enforcement 
officials, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as 
Professors Larry Tribe and Paul Cassell. As a result of these 
discussions, the core values in the original amendment remain 
unchanged, but the language has been refined to better protect the 
interest of all parties.
  Before I discuss the amendment in detail, I would like to thank 
Senator Feinstein for her efforts to advance the cause of crime 
victims' rights and for her very valuable work on the language of the 
amendment. She has been a tireless and invaluable advocate for the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. 
Constitution, mainly through amendments, grants those accused of crime 
many constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, 
counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be free 
from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to subpoena 
witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to due 
process under the law.
  The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For 
example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed 
of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, 
no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the 
victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays 
in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might 
be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of 
rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to 
suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands 
of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victim Rights 
Amendment is a constitutional amendment that would bring balance to the 
judicial system by giving crime victims the rights to be informed, 
present, and heard at critical stages throughout their ordeal--the 
least the system owed to those it failed to protect.
  Mr. President, the current version, which is the 62d draft of the 
amendment, contains the rights that we believe victims should have:
  The amendment gives victims the rights:
  To be notified of the proceedings;
  To attend all public proceedings;
  To be heard at certain crucial stages in the process;
  To be notified of the offender's release or escape;
  To consideration for a trial free from unreasonable delay;
  To an order of restitution;
  To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release 
from custody; and
  To be notified of these rights and standing to enforce them.
  These rights are the core of the amendment.

[[Page S708]]

  Mr. President, if reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. 
Constitution. Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment 
was first recognized by a Presidential Task Force on Victims of Crime, 
32 states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of 
about 80 percent. These state measures have materially helped protect 
crime victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons: First, each 
amendment is different, and not all states have provided protection to 
victims; a Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime 
victims' rights for all Americans, just as the Federal Constitution 
provides for the accused. Second, statutory and State constitutional 
provisions are always subservient to the Federal Constitution; so, in 
cases of conflict, the defendants' rights--which are already in the 
U.S. Constitution--will always prevail. Our amendment will correct this 
imbalance.
  It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a 
recent 400 page report by the Department of Justice on victims rights 
and services that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to 
guarantee fundamental right for victims of crime.'' The report 
continued: ``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only 
legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in 
victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction on the State and Federal levels.'' Further, ``Granting 
victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is 
exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to 
protect and has been amendment to permanently ensure. Such rights 
include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard 
when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property.''
  Until crime victims are protected by the United States Constitution, 
the rights of victims will be subordinate to the rights of the 
defendant. Indeed, the National Governors Association--by a vote of 49-
1--passed a resolution strongly supporting a constitutional amendment 
for crime victims. The resolution stated: ``Despite . . . widespread 
State initiatives, the rights of victims do not receive the same 
consideration or protection as the rights of the accuses. These rights 
exist on different judicial levels. Victims are relegated to a position 
of secondary importance in the judicial process.'' The resolution also 
stated that ``The rights of victims have always received secondary 
consideration within the U.S. Judicial process, even though States and 
the American people by a wide plurality consider victims' rights to be 
fundamental. Protection of these rights is essential and can only come 
from a fundamental change in our basic law: the U.S. Constitution.''

  Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be 
in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change. All 
we need to do is pass some good statutes to make sure that victims are 
treated fairly.'' But statutes have been inadequate to restore balance 
and fairness for victims. The history of our country teaches us that 
constitutional protections are needed to protect the basic rights of 
the people. Our criminal justice system needs the kind of fundamental 
reform that can only be accomplished through changes in our fundamental 
law--the Constitution.
  Attorney General Reno has confirmed the point, noting that, ``unless 
the Constitution is amended to ensure basic rights to crime victims, as 
will never correct the existing imbalance in this country between 
defendants' constitutional rights and the haphazard patchwork of 
victims' rights.'' Attempts to establish rights by federal or state 
statute, or even state constitutional amendment, have proven 
inadequate, after more then twenty years of trying.
  On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, the Associate 
Attorney General, recently testified that ``the state legislative route 
to change has proven less than adequate in according victims their 
rights. Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state 
provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the 
Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will 
provide a national baseline.''
  A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. In 
the 1997 Harvard Law Bulletin, Professor Laurence Tribe has explained 
that the existing statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as 
experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection 
whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional 
indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights 
regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened.'' He has 
also stated, ``there appears to be a considerable bloody of evidence 
showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules 
exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often 
tend to be honored in the breach. . . .''
  Additionally, in the Baylor Law Review, Texas Court of Appeals 
Justice Richard Barajas has explained that ``[i]t is apparent . . . 
that state constitutional amendments alone cannot adequately address 
the needs of crime victims.'' Federal statutes are also inadequate. 
Professor Cassell's detailed 1998 testimony about the Oklahoma City 
Bombing Case shows that, as he concluded, ``federal statutes are 
insufficient to protect the rights of crime victims.''
  Mr. President, I was pleased that in July 1998 the Senate Judiciary 
Committee passed the amendment, S.J. Res. 44, by a bipartisan vote of 
11 to 6. The amendment has strong bipartisan support. It was 
cosponsored by 30 Republicans and 12 Democrats, including leadership 
members such as Senators Lott, Thurmond, Mack, Coverdell, Craig, 
Breaux, Reid, Torricelli, and Ford (now retired).
  In the 106th Congress, Senator Feinstein and I will work hard to 
ensure the amendment's passage. We plan to hold a hearing early in the 
Congress, followed by a markup and consideration by the full Senate. We 
welcome comments and suggestions from Members and other interested 
parties.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her hard 
work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime 
victims. Mr. President, for far to long, the criminal justice system 
has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, 
dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly 
just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 3

       Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
     thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following 
     article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and 
     purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                               Article--

       Section 1. A victim of a crime of violence, as these terms 
     may be defined by law, shall have the rights:
       to reasonable notice of, and not be excluded from, any 
     public proceedings relating to the crime;
       to be heard, if present, and to submit a statement at all 
     such proceedings to determine a conditional release from 
     custody, and an acceptance of a negotiated plea, or a 
     sentence
       to the foregoing rights at a parole proceeding that is not 
     public, to the extent those rights are afforded to the 
     convicted offender;
       to reasonable notice of a release or escape from custody 
     relating to the crime;
       to consideration of the interest of the victim that any 
     trial be free from unreasonable delay;
       to an order of restitution from the convicted offender;
       to consideration for the safety of the victim in 
     determining any conditional release from custody relating to 
     the crime; and
       to reasonable notice of the rights established by this 
     article.
       Section 2. Only the victim or the victim's lawful 
     representative shall have standing to assert the rights 
     established by this article. Nothing in this article shall 
     provide grounds to stay or continue any trial, reopen any 
     proceeding or invalidate any ruling, except with respect to 
     conditional release or restitution or to provide rights 
     guaranteed by this article in future proceedings, without 
     staying or continuing a trial. Nothing in this article shall 
     give rise to or authorize the creation of a claim for damages 
     against the

[[Page S709]]

     United States, a State, or political subdivision, or a public 
     officer or employee.
       Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce 
     this article by appropriate legislation. Exceptions to the 
     rights established by this article may be created only when 
     necessary to achieve a compelling interest.
       Section 4. This article shall take effect on the 180th day 
     after the ratification of this article. The right to an order 
     of restitution established by this article shall not apply to 
     crimes committed before the effective date of this article.
       Section 5. The rights and immunities established by this 
     article shall apply in Federal and State proceedings, 
     including military proceedings to the extent that the 
     Congress may provide by law, juvenile justice proceedings, 
     and proceedings in the District of Columbia and any 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, 
Senator Kyl, to once again introduce a constitutional amendment to 
provide rights for victims of violent crime.
  We have achieved significant progress in our effort to pass the 
amendment. After working extensively--indeed, exhaustively--with 
prosecutors, law professors, the Justice Department, the White House 
Counsel's Office, and leaders of victims groups from around the country 
to carefully craft and hone the amendment's language, we succeeded in 
bringing the amendment to markup in the Judiciary Committee.
  After numerous committee business meetings, and one of the most high-
minded debates in which I have been privileged to participate, the 
Judiciary Committee passed the amendment by a strong, bipartisan vote. 
Unfortunately, with the press of final business at the end of the 
Congress, there was not sufficient time to consider the amendment on 
the Senate floor and work it through the House.
  So here we are now, carrying the fight forward into this new, 106th 
Congress. We are fighting to ensure that the 8.6 million victims of 
violent crime in the country receive the fair treatment by the judicial 
system which they deserve. Too often in America victims of violent 
crime are victimized a second time, by the government.
  Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. What really 
focused my attention on the need for greater protection of victims' 
rights was a particularly horrifying case in 1974, in San Francisco, 
when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the Carlson 
family in Portero Hill.
  Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, bludgeoning him to death with a 
hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped 
Carlson's 24-year-old wife, breaking several of her bones. He slit her 
wrist, tried to strangle her with a telephone cord, and then, before 
fleeing, set the Carlson's home on fire--cowardly reteating into the 
night, leaving this family to burn up in flames.
  But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify 
against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and 
continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. 
When I was Mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to 
notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. 
Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were.
  Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice--
It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the 
responsibility of the state to send a letter through the mail or make a 
phone call to let the victim know that her attacker is up for parole, 
and she should have the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
  But today, in many states in this great nation, victims still are not 
made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the 
courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when a convicted 
offender is released from prison.
  I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to 
our nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted 
the Crime Victim's Rights Amendment before us today.
  The people of California were the first in the nation to pass a crime 
victims' amendment to the state constitution in 1982--the imitative 
Proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims 
the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation 
and parole hearings, established a right to safe and secure public 
school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's 
Proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights.

  Since the passage of Proposition Eight, 31 more states have passed 
constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims. 
Just this past November, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee added 
victims' rights amendments to their state constitutions. These 
amendments were overwhelmingly supported by the voters, winning with 
93%, 71% and 89% of the vote, respectively.
  But citizens in other states lack these basic rights. The 32 
different state constitutional amendments differ from each other, 
representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from state to state. 
And even in those states which have state amendments, criminals can 
assert rights grounded in the federal constitution to try to trump 
those rights.
  The United States Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the 
accused in our society, all of which were established by amendment to 
the Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this nation must attempt 
to guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions 
victimized by crime each year.
  For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution 
specifically protects:
  The right to a grand jury indictment for capital or infamous crimes;
  The prohibition against double jeopardy;
  The right to due process;
  The right to a speedy trial and the right to an impartial jury of 
one's peers;
  The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal 
accusation;
  The right to confront witnesses;
  The right to counsel;
  The right to subpoena witnesses--and so on.
  However, nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there 
appear any guarantee of rights for crime victims.
  To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I are putting forth this 
Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. This provides for certain rights for 
victims of crime:
  The right to be notified of public proceedings in their case;
  The right not be excluded from these proceedings;
  The right to be heard at proceedings to determine a release from 
custody, sentencing, or acceptance of a negotiated plea;
  The right to notice of the offender's release or escape;
  The right to consideration for the interest of the victim in a trial 
free from unreasonable delay;
  The right to an order of restitution from the convicted offender;
  The right to consideration for the safety of the victim in 
determining any release from custody; and
  The right to notice of your rights as a victim.
  Conditions in our nation today are significantly different from those 
in 1789, when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution without 
providing explicitly for the rights of crime victims. In 1789, there 
weren't 9 million victims of violent crime every year. In fact, there 
are more victims of violent crime each year in this country now than 
there were people in the country when the Constitution was written.

  Moreover, there is good reason why defendants' rights were embedded 
in the Constitution in 1789 and victims' rights were not--the way the 
criminal justice system worked then, victims did not need any guarantee 
of these rights.
  In America in the late 18th century and well into the 19th century, 
public prosecutors did not exist. Victims could, and did, commence 
criminal cases themselves, by hiring a sheriff to arrest the defendant, 
and initiating a private prosecution. The core rights in our 
amendment--to notice, to attend, and to be heard--were inherently made 
available to the victim. As Juan Cardenas, writing in the Harvard 
Journal of Law and Public Policy, observed, ``At trial, generally, 
there were no lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense. 
Victims of crime simply acted as their own counsel, although wealthier 
crime victims often hired a prosecutor.''

[[Page S710]]

  Gradually, public prosecution replaced the system of private 
prosecution. With the explosive growth of crime in this country in 
recent years (the rate of violent crime has more than quadrupled over 
the last 35 years), it became easier and easier for the victim to be 
left aside in the process.
  As other scholars have noted:

       With the establishment of the prosecutor the conditions for 
     the general alienation of the victim from the legal process 
     further increase. The victim is deprived of his ability to 
     determine the course of a case and is deprived of the ability 
     to gain restitution from the proceedings. Under such 
     conditions the incentives to report crime and to cooperate 
     with the prosecution diminish. As the importance of the 
     prosecution increases, the role of the victim is transformed 
     from principal actor to a resource that may be used at the 
     prosecutor's discretion.

  Thus, we see why the Constitution must be amended to guarantee these 
rights:
  There was no need to guarantee these rights in the Constitution in 
1789;
  The criminal justice system has changed dramatically since then; and
  The prevalence of crime in America has changed dramatically creating 
the need and circumstances to respond to these developments and restore 
balance in the criminal justice system by guaranteeing the rights of 
violent crime victims in the Constitution.
  Among the amendment's supporters are Professor Laurence Tribe of the 
Harvard Law School.
  Let me just briefly quote portions of his testimony from the House 
hearing on the amendment last Congress:

       The rights in question--rights of crime victims not to be 
     victimized yet again through the process by which government 
     bodies and officials prosecute, punish, and release the 
     accused or convicted offender--are indisputably basic human 
     rights against government, rights that any civilized system 
     of justice would aspire to protect and strive never to 
     violate.
       [O]ur Constitution's central concerns involve protecting 
     the rights of individuals to participate in all those 
     government processes that directly and immediately involve 
     those individuals and affect their lives in some focused and 
     particular way . . . The parallel rights of victims to 
     participate in these proceedings are no less basic, even 
     though they find no parallel recognition in the explicit 
     text of the U.S. Constitution.
       The fact that the States and Congress, within their 
     respective jurisdictions, already have ample affirmative 
     authority to enact rules protecting these rights is . . . not 
     a reason for opposing an amendment altogether . . . The 
     problem, rather, is that such rules are likely, as experience 
     to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection 
     whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, 
     traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an 
     accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are 
     genuinely threatened.

  Some people argue that state victims' rights amendments are 
sufficient.
  However, crime victims throughout the country, including those in the 
other 18 states, deserve to have rights, just as we applied civil 
rights to people throughout our great nation 30 years ago.
  Moreover, state amendments lack the force that a federal 
constitutional amendment would have, and too often are given short 
shrift:
  Maryland has a state amendment. But when Cheryl Rae Enochs Resch was 
beaten to death with a ceramic beer mug by her husband, her mother was 
not notified of this killer's early release only two and a half years 
into his ten year sentence, and was not given the opportunity to be 
heard about this release, in violation of the state amendment.
  Arizona has a state amendment. But an independent audit of victim-
witness programs in four Arizona counties, including Maricopa County 
where Phoenix is located, found that:
  Victims were not consistently notified of hearing during which 
conditions of a defendant's release were discussed . . .
  Victims were not consistently . . . conferred with by prosecutors 
regarding plea bargains . . .; and
  Victims were not consistently . . . provided with an opportunity to 
request post-conviction notification.
  Ohio has a state amendment. But when the murderer of Maxine Johnson's 
husband change his plea, Maxine was not notified of the public hearing, 
and then was not given the opportunity to testify at his sentencing, as 
provided for in Ohio law.
  A Justice Department-supported study of the implementation of state 
victims' rights amendments, released last year, made similar findings:

       Even in states with strong legal protections for victims' 
     rights, the Victims' Rights study revealed that many victims 
     are denied their rights. Statutes themselves appear to be 
     insufficient to guarantee the provision of victims' rights.
       Nearly two-thirds of crime victims, even in states with 
     strong victims' rights protection, were not notified that the 
     accused offender was out on bond.
       Nearly half of all victims, even in the strong protection 
     states, did not receive notice of the sentencing hearing--
     notice that is essential if they are to exercise their right 
     to make a statement at sentencing.
       A substantial number of victims reported that they were not 
     given an opportunity to make a victim impact statement at 
     sentencing or parole.

  State amendments simply are not enough--they provide different rights 
in different states, they do not exist at all in others, and they are 
too often ignored when they do exist.
  We implore members of this body to examine this amendment, and to 
help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation.
  The text of the amendment which we are introducing today is the very 
same text which the Judiciary Committee passed on a strong bipartisan 
basis last summer. Sen Kyl and I urge the leaders of the Senate and of 
the committee to move this amendment expeditiously, so that the clock 
does not run out on us yet again. This amendment has been the subject 
of three Senate hearings, two hearings in the House, and an extensive 
examination and debate in the Judiciary Committee.
  We urge Senators Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the committee, 
to schedule a hearing on the amendment in January or February, with a 
markup to follow shortly thereafter. It is our hope that the committee 
can complete its action with all deliberate speed, and we call upon our 
distinguished Leaders, Senators Lott and Daschle, to commit to a floor 
vote on the amendment during National Victims' Rights Week in late 
April.
  After two hundred years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the 
millions of victims of violent crime? I believe that is our obligation 
and should be our biggest priority--not only for the crime victims, 
but, for all Americans--to ensure passage of a Crime Victims' Rights 
Constitutional Amendment.
  I want to personally thank Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to 
accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing 
to work with him in the months to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:
  S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to provide that expenditures for a 
fiscal year shall exceed neither revenues for such fiscal year nor 19 
per centum of the Nation's gross domestic product for the calendar year 
ending before the beginning of such fiscal year; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


             balanced budget/spending limitation amendment

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Balanced 
Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment--a joint resolution proposing to 
amend the Constitution of the United States to establish both a federal 
spending limit and a requirement that the federal government maintain a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. President, it seems to me that although we may have succeeded in 
balancing the unified budget, we still have two very different visions 
of where we should be headed. Is a balanced budget the paramount goal, 
even if it comes with substantially higher taxes and more spending? Or 
is the real goal of a balanced budget to be more responsible with 
people's hard-earned tax dollars--to limit government's size and give 
people more choices and more control over their lives? Before we try to 
answer those questions, let us try to give them some context.
  When we balanced the unified budget last year, we did so by taxing 
and spending at a level of about $1.72 trillion. That is a level of 
spending that is 25 percent higher than when President Clinton took 
office just six years ago. Our government now spends the equivalent of 
$6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the country every year. That 
is the equivalent of nearly $27,000 for the average family of four. But 
all of that spending comes at a tremendous cost to hard-working 
taxpayers.
  The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America

[[Page S711]]

saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 37.6 
percent of income in 1997--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That 
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, shelter, and 
transportation combined. Put another way, in too many families, one 
parent is working to put food on the table, while the other is working 
almost full time just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.
  Perhaps a different measure of how heavy a tax burden the federal 
government imposes would be helpful. Consider that federal revenues hit 
a peacetime high of 19.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 
1997 and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will continue 
to climb--to 20.5 percent in 1998 and 20.6 percent in 1999. That will 
be higher than any year since 1945, and it would be only the third and 
fourth years in our nation's entire history that revenues have exceeded 
20 percent of national income. Notably, the first two times revenues 
broke the 20 percent mark, the economy tipped into recession.
  For me, it is not enough to balance the budget if it means that hard-
working families continue to be overtaxed. It is not enough to balance 
the budget if government continues to grow, seemingly without limits, 
taking choice and freedom away from people in the process. And it is 
not enough to balance the budget by collecting so much in taxes that it 
leads the economy into recession.
  A balanced budget is not the only goal, or even the highest goal. A 
balanced budget should be the way we find what is the appropriate size 
and scope of government--the way to make Washington more respectful of 
hard-working taxpayers' earnings and their desire to do right by 
themselves and their families. That is where our paramount concern 
should be--with the taxpayers.

   Mr. President, last year was the first time in nearly 30 years that 
Washington managed to balance its books. In fact, we posted a record 
unified budget surplus of $70 billion, and we did so even though we 
have no constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Some will use 
that fact to argue there is no need for a balanced budget amendment. I 
would suggest to them that they look back at what happened last 
October.
  Just three weeks--exactly 21 days--after confirming that the federal 
government had indeed achieved its first budget surplus in a 
generation, Congress passed, and the President signed, a bill that used 
fully a third of the surplus for increased spending on a variety of 
government programs other than Social Security, tax relief, or 
repayment of the national debt.
  Many people will recall that President Clinton pledged in his State 
of the Union address a year ago to ``save every penny of any surplus'' 
for Social Security, yet he was the first in line with a long list of 
programs to be funded out of the budget surplus. And fearful that if 
the President did not get his way he would veto the budget and tar 
Congress with the blame for another government shutdown, many Members 
of Congress went along and voted for this raid on the surplus.
  That was just the first in what is expected to be a series of efforts 
by President Clinton to spend down the surplus in coming months. 
Another $2.5 billion supplemental spending request is already in the 
works.
  Coupled with a peacetime tax burden that is at an all-time high and 
growing, this portends a dangerous return to the old ways of budget-
busting, bigger government--that is, unless we agree to abide by the 
lasting discipline of a constitutional requirement to balance the 
budget.
  The Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment would impose 
discipline on Congress and the President in two ways. First, it would 
require that we maintain a balanced federal budget. Second, consistent 
with the vision of limited government, it would limit federal spending 
to 19 percent of the national income, as measured by the Gross Domestic 
Product. That is roughly the level of revenue collected by the 
government over the last 40 years. Interestingly, a December 1998 
report by the Joint Economic Committee concludes that the optimal level 
of spending may actually be lower--17.5 percent of GDP.
  In other words, beyond a certain point--the Joint Committee suggests 
it is 17.5 percent of GDP--government's claim to private resources can 
actually hurt the economy. Consider, for example, that economic growth 
during the high-tax Clinton years has averaged only about 2.3 percent 
annually, whereas we averaged 3.9 percent annual growth during the 
period after the Reagan tax cuts and before the 1990 tax increase.
  Raising sufficient revenue to pay for government's essential 
operations is obviously a necessary part of governing, but raising tax 
rates is not necessarily the best way to raise revenue. As recent 
experience proves, it is a strong and growing economy--not high tax 
rates--that generates substantial amounts of new revenue for the 
Treasury. It was the growing economy that helped eliminate last year's 
unified budget deficit.
  The advantage of the Balanced Budget/Spending Limitation Amendment is 
that it keeps our eye on the ball. It tells Congress to limit spending. 
And by linking spending to economic growth, it gives Congress a 
positive incentive to enact pro-growth economic and tax policies. Only 
a healthy and growing economy--measured by GDP--would increase the 
dollar amount that Congress is allowed to spend, although always 
proportionate to the size of the economy. In other words, 19 percent of 
a larger GDP represents more revenue to the Treasury than 19 percent of 
a smaller GDP.

  I urge my colleagues to consider the need for a balanced budget 
amendment, and the advantages of the Balanced Budget/Spending 
Limitation Amendment in particular. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S. J. Res. 4

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Except as provided in this article, outlays of 
     the United States Government for any fiscal year may not 
     exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
       ``Section 2. Except as provided in this article, the 
     outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year may 
     not exceed 19 per centum of the Nation's gross domestic 
     product for the last calendar year ending before the 
     beginning of such fiscal year.
       ``Section 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for 
     suspension of the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article 
     for any fiscal year for which three-fifths of the whole 
     number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for 
     a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 19 per 
     centium of the Nation's gross domestic product for the last 
     calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal 
     year.
       ``Section 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except those for the repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 5. This article shall apply to the second fiscal 
     year beginning after its ratification and to subsequent 
     fiscal years.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself and Mr. Gorton):
  S.J. Res. 5. A joint resolution to provide for a Balanced Budget 
Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the use of Social Security 
surpluses to achieve compliance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                balanced budget constitutional amendment

  Mr. GRAMM. President, I rise today with Senator Gorton to introduce a 
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment which is designed to protect 
Social Security. Since we last considered a balanced budget amendment 
in the Senate, we have achieved balance in the unified federal budget 
for the first time in 30 years, and have made substantial progress 
toward achieving balance without relying on the surpluses currently 
accumulating in Social Security. For 1998, the Department of the 
Treasury reports that the federal government ran a unified budget 
surplus of $70 billion, and an on-budget deficit of $29 billion when 
the $99 billion surplus in Social Security is not counted. This on-
budget deficit is

[[Page S712]]

projected to disappear by 2002 under current budget policies.
  The Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment I am introducing today 
is identical to S.J. Res. 1 of the 105th Congress, which received 66 
votes in the Senate on March 4, 1997, except that surplus revenues in 
Social Security are not counted in determining compliance.
  The President and a majority of Congress have expressed support for 
balancing the budget without counting Social Security surpluses, and 
now that goal is within our reach. We should take this opportunity to 
approve this Constitutional amendment and send it to the States for 
ratification. This Constitutional amendment would provide the structure 
and enforcement mechanism to allow us to achieve this bipartisan goal.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Bryan):
  S.J. Res. 6. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and 
expenditures intended to affect elections; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem with 
which we are all too familiar: the ever-increasing cost of political 
campaigns. Sadly, this cost can be counted not only in millions of 
dollars but also in lost credibility. Each election year, our political 
system and we as representatives lose the invaluable and irreplaceable 
trust of the American people.
  The enormous amount of money required to wage a political campaign 
today has given rise to the pervasive belief that our elections--
indeed, even we ourselves--are up for sale to the highest bidder. 
Though this is not the reality, the fact that it is the perception is 
almost as damning.
  It is time to strike a blow against the anything-goes fundraising and 
spending encouraged by both political parties. The need to limit 
campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever: the total cost of 
Congressional campaigns skyrocketed from $446 million in 1990 to over 
$620 million in 1996. This represents a 71-percent increase in just six 
years. Although fundraising slowed in the election cycle just ended, 
candidates for general election in 1998 still spent over $10 million 
more than their counterparts in 1996.
  Make no mistake: this lull is a temporary one. Experts attribute the 
slowed spending last year to the unusually large number of 
uncompetitive elections. I know this is true because in my state, which 
was the setting for highly competitive elections for my Senate seat as 
well as the governorship and other state offices, candidates spent 
record amounts and made 1998 the most expensive election year in South 
Carolina history. In fact, although the total cost of all Congressional 
elections increased only slightly this year, candidates for Senate 
office spent over 15 percent more than their counterparts in 1996.
  We can be sure that in 2000, election spending will skyrocket to new, 
astounding levels. And we can be equally sure that this will add to the 
public's already overwhelming cynicism about its representatives and to 
the problem of corruption, or at least its appearance in our political 
system.
  At best, the obsession with money distracts us from the people's 
business. At worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political 
process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they don't conflict with 
the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted 
to accommodate fundraisers.
  All this is the result of the rising costs of political campaigns. 
Ironically, campaign expenditures have risen dramatically, far 
exceeding inflation, since Congress attempted campaign finance reform 
in 1974. Even greater than the increases in aggregate campaign costs 
were those for average winning candidates--the most useful measure of 
the real costs of running for office. The average cost for a winning 
House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to over $640,000 in 1998. For 
a victorious Senate candidate, the cost of victory rose from $609,000 
to $4.4 million last year.
  I remember Senator Richard Russell used to say, ``They give you a six 
year term in this U.S. Senate: two years to be a statesman, the next 
two years to be a politician, and the last two years to be a 
demagogue.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as 
statesmen. We proceed straight to demagoguery after an election because 
of the imperatives of raising money.

  The public demands the system be cleaned up. But how? For years, 
Senator Specter and I have introduced a constitutional amendment 
allowing Congress to set reasonable campaign expenditure limits. Today 
Senator Specter and I will reintroduce our amendment to empower 
Congress and the States to limit campaign spending as they see fit. I 
believe a constitutional amendment is the only way to fix the system; 
yet since 1976, Congress has failed to adopt one. It has opted instead 
for a series of half-hearted, piece-meal solutions, with predictable 
results.
  For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tired to tackle 
runaway campaign spending through statutory means. Again and again, 
Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past 
campaign finance reform efforts, which have bogged down in partisanship 
as Democrats and Republicans each have tried to gore the other's sacred 
cows.
  The most recent statutory attempt to reform our tangled campaign 
system was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Although I 
supported this legislation and will do so again this year, I have grave 
doubts about its ability to effectively reform our tangled campaign 
finance system. I fear McCain-Feingold never will be enacted, and that 
even if it passes, it will not withstand the Supreme Court's scrutiny.
  Since 1976, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not 
uphold any law that limits the money political candidates can spend to 
win office. The most recent example of the Court's position, as well as 
of the obstacles local and state officials attempting reform face in 
their courts, came last November, when the Supreme Court refused to 
entertain an appeal from the City of Cincinnati involving an ordinance 
that limited the amount city council candidates could spend trying to 
get elected. That ordinance had been struck down by a lower federal 
court as unconstitutional. So you see, Mr. President, no statutory 
legislation--at the federal, state, or local level--is going to succeed 
at cleaning up our political system because no such legislation will 
pass constitutional muster.
  The framework for today's campaign finance system was erected back in 
1974, when Congress responded to public outrage over the Watergate 
scandals and the disturbing money trails from the 1972 Presidential 
election by passing, on a bipartisan basis, a comprehensive campaign 
finance law. I was here in 1974, and I was proud to support the Federal 
Election Campaign Act. The centerpiece of this reform was a limitation 
on campaign expenditures. Congress recognized that spending limits were 
the only rational alternative to a system that essentially awards 
office to the highest bidder.
  Unfortunately, in 1976 the Supreme Court overturned these spending 
limits in its infamous Buckley versus Valeo decision. The Court 
mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money 
with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the 
Court drew a tortuous distinction between campaign contributions and 
campaign expenditures. The Court concluded that limiting an 
individual's campaign contributions was a justifiable abridgment of the 
First Amendment, on the grounds that ``the governmental interest in 
preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption outweighs 
considerations of free speech.''
  Yet the Court also concluded, in a dichotomous and confusing 
decision, that the state's interest in preventing corruption and its 
appearance did not justify limiting a candidate's total expenditures. 
This, the Court ruled, constituted an unacceptable infringement on 
candidates' speech.
  I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental 
interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption--
does not justify limits on campaign spending. The Court committed a 
grave error by striking down spending limits as a threat to free 
speech. The fact is, imposing spending limits in federal campaigns 
would help restore the free

[[Page S713]]

speech that has been eroded by the Buckley decision.
  As Professor Gerald G. Ashdown wrote in the New England Law Review, 
amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign 
expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches 
to reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in 
Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance 
atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could 
constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, 
candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the 
troubles . . . would be eliminated.''
  Let us be done with the hollow charge that spending limits 
are somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White 
pointed out in his dissent from the majority's Buckley opinion, both 
contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content 
of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of 
political speech in general.

  The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on 
campaign contributions but struck down restrictions on how much 
candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical 
reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I 
have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of speech. By 
failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear 
unwilling to speak up in his own defense.
  Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent 
to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, 
Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate 
with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a 
significant head start.''
  Indeed, Justice Marshall went further. He argued that by upholding 
the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall 
spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal 
wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right. The Buckley decision has been 
a boon to wealthy candidates, who can flood the airwaves and drown out 
their opponents' voices.
  Make no mistake: political speech is not free. A political 
candidate's ability to disseminate his ideas and speak to the voters 
depends entirely on his finances. Thus, candidates who are personally 
wealthy or possess large campaign coffers have a tremendous advantage 
over poorer candidates--they always will enjoy more speech. The 
amendment Senator Specter and I propose today will help level the 
playing field between rich and poor candidates and ensure that all 
enjoy equal speech.
  Believe me, Mr. President, I am not enunciating any radical view 
today. The Court itself equated money with speech in its Buckley 
decision. Of course, the Court--and critics of this amendment--adheres 
to the belief that limiting candidate expenditures is a violation of 
the First Amendment. Yet the Court rules in 1976 that there exist 
compelling interests--in this case, the need to prevent the appearance 
and reality of corruption--to justify the state in circumscribing 
protected speech. All this amendment does is apply the Court's 
rationale to candidates' speech.
  Buckley's nullification of spending limits has helped give rise to 
American's belief that political offices are up for sale to the highest 
bidder and has curtailed public discourse. By rendering spending limits 
impossible it has fueled the escalating costs of campaigns and forced 
politicians to focus more and more on fundraising and less on important 
public issues. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley 
versus Valeo by empowering Congress to limit campaign spending.
  My proposed constitutional amendment would accomplish this. It does 
not proscribe specific cures for what ails our campaign finance system. 
Instead, it would provide Congress the authority to reform the system 
by limiting candidate spending.
  To a distressing degree today, elections are determined not in the 
political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections 
are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate 
into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of 
corporations and special interests.
  Mr. President, campaign spending must be brought under control. The 
constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit Congress to 
impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign 
expenditures.
  Such a reform would have four important effects. It would end the 
mindless pursuits of enormous campaign war chests. Also, it would free 
candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them 
to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't 
have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats. 
Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And finally, 
it would create a more level playing field for all candidates.
  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would like to elaborate on the 
advantages of a constitutional amendment such as I propose over 
statutory attempts to reform the campaign system. Recent history amply 
demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional 
route. It is not coincidence that the six most-recent amendments to the 
Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. These are 
profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy; it is entirely 
appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment.

  And let's not be distracted by the argument that amending the 
constitution will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering 
on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970s, and we haven't 
advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a century, 
and no legislative solution has done the job.
  Excluding the unusual case of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which 
required over 200 years to be ratified, the last five constitutional 
amendments took an average of only 17 months to be adopted. There is no 
reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the 
States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern 
the 2000 elections. Indeed, this approach could prove more expeditious 
than the alternative statutory approach. This joint resolution, once 
passed by the Congress, will go directly to the States for 
ratification. Once ratified, it will become the law of the land and 
will not be subject to veto or Supreme Court challenge.
  Furthermore, I anticipate and reject the argument that if we were to 
pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be 
unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign 
expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did 
exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again.
  Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess 
directly, decisively, and conclusively. The Supreme Court has chosen to 
ignore the overwhelmingly detrimental effects of money in today's 
campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it elucidated a vague and 
inconsistent definition of free speech. In its place, I urge passage of 
this amendment. Let us ensure equal freedom of expression for all who 
seek Federal office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Ashcroft):
  S. J. Res. 7. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


             the constitutional balanced budget act of 1999

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today, once again, introducing a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In so doing, I continue 
the effort that I and many of my colleagues have long pursued to 
provide a permanent and strong mandate for a fiscally responsible path 
for our Nation.
  It is a political reality, of course, that Congress' success in 
decreasing our deficit levels and achieving a balanced budget in the 
105th Congress to a certain extent mitigated the urgency of passing 
this Constitutional Amendment.
  In my view, however, this is the ideal time to move forward on a 
constitutional amendment. The fact that we have reached a balanced 
budget has shown that it can be done. Significantly, it has refuted the 
arguments and scare tactics of opponents that a balanced budget would 
mean the end of Social Security and Medicare. Rather,

[[Page S714]]

we now have a record to demonstrate the strong benefits of a balanced 
budget to our economy in general and to each segment of our society in 
particular.
  I am as proud as any Member of this body of our recent success in 
restraining the deficit. But that success does not mean that this 
amendment is no longer necessary. Our history, unfortunately, 
demonstrates that the fiscal discipline of recent years is the 
exception, not the rule. The political incentives in this town to spend 
now and pay later remain. Thus, it is as true now as it always been 
that only a structural change in our basic charter can ensure long term 
fiscal responsibility and a secure future for our children and 
grandchildren. This is a matter that remains vital to the economic 
health of the State of Utah and the Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 7

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-
     thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following 
     article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, 
     which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of 
     the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States within seven years after the 
     date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article--

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year, in which total 
     outlays do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2004 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

                          ____________________