[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 34 (Thursday, March 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2274-S2318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Hagel, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 529. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to improve 
crop insurance coverage, to make structural changes to the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation and the Risk Management Agency, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                crop insurance for the 21st century act

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, 
Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, to introduce a bill that we call the Crop 
Insurance for the 21st Century Act. We believe this bill represents an 
important step in improving the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and in 
creating greater access to the risk management tools that our farmers 
and ranchers simply must have.
  Senator Kerrey and I, and many others who are privileged to represent 
the agriculture community, have long discussed the need to address 
reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. However, the necessary demands 
from the agriculture community and the Congress to successfully reform 
this program, in my personal opinion at least, did not reach a 
crescendo until last fall when we approved something called the omnibus 
appropriations bill, and that contained approximately $6 billion in 
disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers.
  I am sure, while Republicans and Democrats and individual 
agricultural groups were unable to agree on the necessary size and 
scope of the disaster package, one thing became abundantly clear to all 
involved--if we had a Crop Insurance Program that worked, without 
question, the situation would not have been so serious.
  This has been a longstanding effort. I can remember well, back in 
1978, when I was a staff member in the House of Representatives to my 
predecessor, that was when the Crop Insurance Program was first 
established. It has been 20 years, and we still have an obligation to 
reform the program and make sure that it works for all regions, all 
farmers, all commodities.
  In response to the demands for the improved risk management tools, 
Senator Kerrey and I committed to pursuing major crop insurance reforms 
in this Congress. To aid us in this task, last November we contacted 
all of the major farm organizations and all of the commodity groups, 
all of the crop insurance companies, all of the agricultural lending 
groups, and requested their guidance on these issues. We were 
listening. We wanted to find out their advice in regard to what do we 
need to pay attention to, what is the most serious issue that we need 
to address in the Crop Insurance Program. We received feedback from 
over 20 of these major organizations.

[[Page S2275]]

  These comments we received served as a guidepost in developing this 
legislation. And, while the comments received were wide ranging, there 
was near consensus in several areas.
  These included as follows: First, the need for increased levels of 
coverage at affordable prices to all producers. Second, we need 
expanded availability of revenue-based insurance products. Third, 
program changes to address the needs of producers suffering multiple 
crop failures. Fourth, structural changes to the Risk Management 
Agency--the acronym for that is RMA, and that is what I will call it 
from now on, but it is the Risk Management Agency--that will allow for 
increased access to new and improved crop insurance policies.
  Senator Kerry and I took these comments to heart, and the legislation 
we are introducing today has been developed in large part by really 
trying to work to incorporate these comments into legislative language.
  Our bill inverts this existing subsidy structure. Currently, many 
producers do not purchase the highest levels of coverage because the 
greatest level of Government assistance simply occurs at the lowest 
levels of coverage. This often makes the higher levels of coverage 
simply unaffordable. It causes many producers to have insufficient 
coverage, which eventually leads to calls for the ad hoc disaster bills 
that are so expensive. We cannot continue to pass a disaster package 
every year.
  I tell the Presiding Officer, we were just discussing this in a 
previous meeting, it costs the Federal Government about $1.5 billion on 
average in regard to the disaster bills. They seem to occur on even 
numbered years. I think the Presiding Officer knows what I am talking 
about. We cannot afford that.
  Therefore, under our legislation, the highest level of subsidy will 
occur at the 75/100 coverage levels. While the inversion of subsidies 
will be the most important change for many producers, we have included 
several changes that we believe will benefit America's farmers and 
ranchers. These include, first, the average production history--that is 
called APH in the crop insurance acronym world--APH adjustments for 
producers that have no production history because they are beginning 
farmers or they are farming new land or they are rotating crops.
  Let me add, at this juncture, that is exceedingly important, because 
under the farm bill that how exists, farmers have a lot more 
flexibility, and when they move to a new crop, obviously, they ought to 
be able to simply insure that crop.
  Second, mandating APH adjustments for producers suffering from crop 
losses in multiple years. Third, requiring the RMA to work to undertake 
a pilot project to develop new rating structures for undeserved areas 
of the country, and particularly the southern part of the United 
States, with the intention it will eventually become a permanent change 
in the program.
  Here is a suggestion or a part of the bill that will be of interest 
to Senator Thomas--removing the prohibition on coverages for livestock. 
I just indicated that we had a good visit this morning about this very 
subject. The livestock sector is going through a very difficult time in 
our country today. We need to address this problem with regard to 
insurance and how it would dovetail into the livestock industry and 
give our stockmen and our ranchers some protection.
  In addition, the legislation provides for major changes in the 
structure of the RMA, the FCIC, that will allow for accelerated product 
approval and the development of improved crop insurance policies. Many 
people understand the Risk Management Agency serves as a regulator over 
the crop insurance industry. What many do not know is that this same 
outfit, the RMA, also serves as a developer for products that are then 
sold in direct competition with privately developed products. Thus, the 
RMA serves as a competitor with the industry it is supposed to 
regulate.

  I am aware of no other private industry that faces these same 
hurdles. Senator Kerrey and I believe it is time to change this culture 
that has often served as a roadblock to producer access to new and 
improved products. Our legislation will, first, change the structure of 
the FCIC board of directors to bring reinsurance and expertise in the 
agriculture economy to the board. Second, make the FCIC the overseer of 
the RMA. Third, allow the RMA to continue to develop policies for 
specialty crops and underserved areas.
  Fourth, to create an Office of Private Sector Partnership to serve as 
a liaison between private sector companies and the FCIC board of 
directors. Fifth, to leave the final approval or disapproval of all 
policies in the hands of the board. And, finally, allow companies to 
charge a minimal fee on each policy when one company decides to sell 
another company's product. Hopefully, Mr. President, this will allow 
the companies to recover the research and development costs and will 
encourage the creation of new policies.
  While these steps will not be the answer to solving all of the 
problems in the Crop Insurance Program, we believe they will be an 
important step. Each year our producers put the seed in the ground with 
great faith and optimism and believe that, with a little faith and a 
little luck and the good Lord willing and the creeks not rising, they 
will produce a crop. But the task is not easy. Between the multiple 
risks of drought and flood and fire and hail and blizzard and disease 
and insects and also a little market interference in regard to the 
Federal Government, it often seems the deck is stacked against them. If 
producers do survive these risks, they are often still at the mercy of 
weakened exports, and Asian flu or the global contagion, as we call it, 
caused by a global financial crisis and inadequate access to foreign 
markets.
  I will be the first to admit that reforming this program cannot come 
without budgetary costs. At the same time, I can think of no other 
industry that faces the number of multiple risks that must be addressed 
on an annual basis by those in production agriculture.
  Congress must not and cannot be forced to pass these ad hoc disaster 
bills every year. We must give our producers the risk management tools 
that they need. I believe this legislation is an important first step, 
and I ask our colleagues to join Senator Kerrey and myself in this 
difficult but absolutely vital task.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my good friend and colleague, the 
Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator 
Roberts the Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act.
  This bill will make crop insurance more affordable, more flexible, 
and more responsive to the changing needs of farmers.
  That has been our goal from the start, when we asked for help from 
farmers in Nebraska, in Kansas, and from the many farm, commodity, 
banking and crop insurance interests that work with producers. They 
responded with a multitude of ideas, and those ideas form the basis for 
this bill.
  The basic structure of the crop insurance program was set out in 
1980, and much of that structure remains in place today.
  Congress last reformed the crop insurance program in 1994, when we 
created new opportunities for private sector delivery of policies and 
risk sharing. And our success has been great--more than 181 million 
acres are enrolled in the program today, up almost 100 million acres 
since 1993.
  But we are now seeing participation on the decline. That is cause for 
concern.
  And last year, we discovered more cause for concern. Farmers in the 
northern plains who had been reliable buyers of crop insurance found 
that it was no longer offering much protection, after repeated years of 
weather-related disasters.
  Other farmers across the country made the seemingly improbable 
decision not to buy a 100 percent subsidized catastrophic policy 
because they found it worthless--so worthless they wouldn't spend even 
$50 for the administrative fee. And they then chose not to purchase a 
buy-up policy, either.
  And of greatest concern was the inevitable ad hoc disaster program, 
which Congress had theoretically eliminated in 1994. We spent an 
additional $6 billion on disaster aid last year in part to make up for 
these problems. And there are no substantive changes in the program to 
ward off another disaster bill this year.
  We will spend at least $18 billion this fiscal year to support 
agriculture. And the crisis is only deepening.

[[Page S2276]]

  Will this bill fix that crisis? No. Crop insurance does not and can 
not provide income. If you're getting a check from your insurance 
company--for your car, or your house, or your farm--you've lost money.

  But the program today no longer provides even enough support to keep 
most farmers in business after a couple of loss years. How can it, when 
most of them have a 35 percent deductible? For a farm operation with 
$500,000 worth of production, that means the farmer absorbs the first 
$175,000 of loss.
  Let me give you an example of how the economics of crop insurance 
work today. Doug Schmale of Lodgepole, NE, grows about 1,500 acres of 
wheat on his farm. He's a believer in crop insurance and buys it every 
year. And now he buys CRC, because he understands that covering revenue 
is an improvement over just covering yields.
  Doug says the reason he only buys 65 percent coverage is because, 
``That's where it makes the most sense, because that's where the 
government puts the money. But it's still not adequate.''
  Doug is insuring 26 bushels of wheat per acre, which he admits is 
nowhere close to what he can live on. And since 1987 he's only 
collected on his insurance policy twice. And he pays about $8,000 a 
year to buy it, every year.
  What Doug wants is to buy a 75 percent CRC policy. But if he does 
that today, his costs will more than double. He'll go from $4.72 an 
acre to $9.75. And that's not even an option when wheat is only worth 
$3.00.
  Doug says that this bill will finally make coverage affordable for 
him. He'll get enough coverage--at a price he can afford--to stay in 
business if he has two bad years in a row.
  There's been a lot of talk about ``safety nets'' over the past few 
years. And we all know that we wouldn't insure our houses with a 35 
percent deductible. But the economics of agriculture say to farmers, 
``Underinsure,'' especially now, when every dollar per acre makes an 
enormous difference.
  Congress must help change that message. Our message to farmers must 
be, ``We want you to insure your farm operation for enough coverage 
that your policy has some value. We want you to be able to take into 
account crop rotation, new crops and new land. If you have an 
unbelievable run of bad luck with the weather, we want crop insurance 
to help you stay in business.

  ``And we will help you do it.''
  Additionally, this bill recognizes that many farmers are trying new 
crops and in fact other government policies have encouraged them to do 
so. The crop insurance program offers little option but to underinsure 
or go without coverage. This bill would required changes in the program 
to take that into account.
  And just as importantly, this bill takes a big step toward 
restructuring the agency that oversees the program. Unbelievably, the 
statute now makes the board of directors responsible for reporting to 
the government agency, instead of having the agency report to the 
Board. We'll put the board of directors at the top of the hierarchy 
where they belong.
  By making changes in the administration of the program, we'll come 
closer to the flexible and responsive risk management program that 
farmers expect. That may be the most important thing we accomplish.
  Senator Roberts and I have worked together on crop insurance in the 
past, and we are happy to take the lead again. And I reiterate: this is 
not the panacea to the financial crisis in rural America, but it is a 
worthwhile first step.
  I look forward to a renewed spirit of bipartisanship on ag issues, 
and we are starting here today.
  Mr. President, quite simply, this piece of legislation will make crop 
insurance more affordable, more flexible and more responsive to the 
changing needs of farmers. That has been our goal from the start, for 
farmers in Nebraska, farmers in Kansas and farmers throughout the 
country.
  The basic structure of the Crop Insurance Program was set in place in 
1980. Much of that structure remains in place today. The last time 
Congress changed the law was in 1994, and at that time we created new 
opportunities for private sector delivery of policies and risk sharing. 
It is a model, in my judgment, Mr. President, that has worked.
  The taxpayers take half the risk; the private sector takes half the 
risk. They are the ones out selling the product and, as a consequence, 
there is far less taxpayer exposure than there would be otherwise. 
Senator Roberts just alluded to it. In fact, I think he did more than 
just allude to it. He said it directly.
  The ad hoc disaster program we believed we were ending in 1994, when 
we passed the crop insurance bill, well, it came back last year with a 
vengeance for $6 billion. It is not a very efficient way of helping 
businesspeople, family-operated farms that suffer losses. It is a very 
inefficient way. Typically it costs us a great deal more money and 
typically it does not benefit the people who need it the most.
  What crop insurance gives the farmer is a management tool that they 
can use to manage risk. It is not a replacement for other programs. It 
is not a replacement for income. It is a tool that they can use to 
manage the considerable risk of manufacturing a product outside.
  In 1994, after we created the program, we met with considerable 
success. We had 181 million acres that were enrolled in the program--
that is up from 100 million acres enrolled in 1993--but we are seeing 
participation rates decline. Last year we discovered more cause for 
concern when farmers in the northern plains who had been reliable 
buyers of crop insurance found that it was no longer offering much 
protection. They were unwilling to buy a 100-percent subsidized 
catastrophic policy because they found it was worthless. It is only 50 
bucks, but they are telling us that it is worthless.
  Other concerns were expressed by farmers, to both Senator Roberts and 
I, and many other Members of Congress, about how to make this Crop 
Insurance Program work. We have tried, with this piece of legislation, 
to do that, by inverting the subsidies, by equalizing the subsidies for 
revenue insurance, by allowing revenue insurance to be offered for 
price as well as for yields, by changing the APH for multiyear losses, 
as well as making changes for farmers that are coming on line for the 
first time, by allowing livestock to be covered for the first time, a 
permissive piece, and, most importantly for me, by restructuring the 
Risk Management Agency itself, making the Risk Management Agency 
director responsive to the board and bringing on a new private sector 
entity to evaluate reinsurance and evaluate what, indeed, the market 
itself wanted to do.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk specifically about one 
individual, a man by the name of Doug Schmale from Lodgepole, NE. He 
grows about 1,500 acres of wheat on his farm. He likes crop insurance. 
He buys it every year and has bought it since 1987. He has collected 
but twice.
  I talked to him about the details. Listen to his details. It is the 
same thing we are hearing from farmers throughout the country. He buys 
65 percent coverage, he said, because ``that's where it makes the most 
sense, because that's where the Government puts the money. But it's not 
adequate.''
  It doesn't provide him with the protection he needs. That means he 
will be insuring about 26 bushels an acre, which he admits is nowhere 
close to what he can produce, nowhere near the kind of losses he would 
expect if he were to suffer a loss on that crop.
  What he would like to do is buy a 75 percent crop recovery policy. If 
he does that, the premiums are so high that, given the price of wheat, 
he cannot afford to buy it.
  Again, Mr. President, we are not talking about throwing a bunch of 
money out here. We are talking about allowing these subsidies to change 
so the private sector can sell the product easier. I must emphasize 
this over and over, that what crop insurance represents for the 
taxpayer is a terrific way to put a product out there to manage risk, 
because the private sector assumes half the loss. The private sector 
will suffer a significant loss if there are losses. So they are not 
going to be out there underwriting policies for things that they 
consider to be too risky, because they are on the line for half the 
loss.
  This piece of legislation represents a substantial step forward. We 
have pilot projects in there for beginning farmers.

[[Page S2277]]

We have pilot projects in there, as well, for many of our southern 
friends who are concerned that cotton, because it is a lower-cost 
product, has not been able to get good underwriting. We have tried to 
accommodate concerns for many other crops as well.
  We believe that if we can get this legislation passed this year, it 
will be a giant step forward from what we had in 1994 and will continue 
us in the direction of saying that we are not going to have ad hoc 
disaster programs. We are going to allow the farmer himself to have a 
product that enables him to manage that risk and reduce the risk 
associated with a rather risky endeavor of production agriculture.
  I don't know if the Senator from Kansas has anymore enlightened, 
humorous remarks to make. I wonder if the Senator from Kansas will 
agree that what we saw after we passed the law in 1994 was a 
substantial increase in the number of acres that are covered, and the 
program is working, but we have kind of hit a wall. We reformed it 
considerably. We are moving more toward the market, but we have hit a 
wall.
  The market is basically saying, ``We have products that we can sell; 
our farmers will buy the products.'' But here are changes we need to 
make in this law and if you make these changes, we think you will find 
more acreage is underwritten, more satisfied customers and less need 
for ad hoc disaster, as a consequence.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my distinguished 
friend, the whole goal of this is to provide the farmer and rancher 
with the risk management tools to enable that decisionmaking to be made 
by the individual producer as opposed to those of us in Washington who 
respond, as I indicated before, it seems like almost even numbered 
years to the plight of those who are experiencing disasters. We think 
this program or this reform will certainly represent a lot more 
consistencies.

  Yes, it will cost money, but if you add up the average $1.5 billion 
that we have paid in disaster programs, not to mention the $6 billion 
emergency bill as of last year, of course that is reflective of the 
loss of export demand we have seen because of the economic problems all 
over the world. But I certainly agree with my colleague and my 
cosponsor.
  Mr. President, I have several unanimous consent requests, I tell my 
colleague, if I may offer them at this point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Craig, Burns, 
Hagel, Daschle, Conrad,  and Baucus be added as original cosponsors on 
the bill just introduced by Senator Kerrey and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that any 
Senator wishing to be added to this legislation as an original 
cosponsor be allowed to do so prior to the close of business today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that growing list of 
cosponsors. I hope this is a piece of legislation which we can persuade 
our friends on the Budget Committee to make room for. It will save us 
money in the long term. It will save us and prevent us from spending 
multibillions of dollars a year on ad hoc disaster assistance in some 
kind of a supplemental appropriation. I hope very much that we are able 
to get some additional room.
  I was disappointed we did not see it in the President's budget. He 
has a lot of new spending priorities. I think if we put this a bit 
ahead of some of the spending priorities, we ought to make room for it.
  I promise my colleagues, if we do that, if we change the law in this 
way, you will find we will be saving money in the long term trying to 
make certain that family-based agriculture, one of the most important 
parts of our economy, still producing this year at least $20 billion 
worth of surplus in trade--it is going to be down a it in 1999, but it 
is still an enormously important part of our economy--I assure my 
colleagues if we get room in our budget to include the cost of this 
expansion of crop insurance that it will save us money in the long 
term.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friends and 
colleagues Senators Roberts and Kerrey as a cosponsor of legislation 
being introduced today to reform the Federal agricultural crop 
insurance program. I am proud to stand with these leaders in purposing 
sweeping legislation to bring back some normalcy to our Nation's farm 
economy and expand the risk management tools available to our farm and 
ranch families.
  The bill addresses several concerns farmers from my state and I have 
about the current crop insurance program. Specifically, I am pleased 
that the legislation includes provisions to establish an APH history 
adjustment for beginning farmers and multi-year disasters. In addition, 
removing the exclusion for livestock coverage is long overdue.
  By cosponsoring this legislation today, I do not wish to imply that 
our search for meaningful crop insurance reform ideas has been 
completed. Just the contrary--I see this bill as a reasonable and 
appropriate first step toward our long-term goal of providing real risk 
management tools to our farmers and ranchers.
  While I am pleased that the bill includes provisions that allow the 
Risk Management Agency to develop policies for ``speciality'' or 
``minor'' crops and for crops in under-served areas, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to develop even stronger and more beneficial 
risk management tools for these producers. Idaho's great agricultural 
economy is based on minor and nontraditional crops. We lead the nation 
in the production of such crops as potatoes, winter peas, and trout. 
Idaho is second in the production of seed peas, lentils, sugar beets, 
barley and mint. Furthermore, we are in the top five states in the 
production of hops, onions, plums, sweet cherries, alfalfa, and 
American cheese.
  The needs of these producers are just as important as those of more 
traditional farm commodities. I want to assure my colleagues that I 
will continue to work for the resolution of this and other matters as 
our effort to reform Federal crop insurance progresses.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 530. A bill to amend the Act commonly known as the Expert Apple 
and Pear Act to limit the applicability of that act to apples; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


                  expert apple and pear act amendments

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
amending the 1933 Export Apple and Pear Act to provide for the 
expansion of pear exports.
  Currently, all apple and pear exporters must follow the guidelines 
set forth in the Act when negotiating overseas sales of these 
commodities. According to the Act, only high grade apples and pears are 
to be sold in foreign markets. Should an exporter decide to broker a 
deal with another country involving lower grade apple and pears, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture must provide a waiver to farmers 
allowing them to do so.
  While growers have prospered under the 1933 Export Apple and Pear 
Act, more and more countries have requested to purchase lower grade 
pears. The purpose of this legislation is to eliminate pears from the 
Export Apple and Pear Act allowing growers and exporters the ability to 
expand the market for low grade pears without having to approach USDA 
in each instance for a waiver.
  There is no doubt that the Pacific Northwest fruit industry is facing 
a difficult year financially. I believe this bill provides one 
additional mechanism necessary for an economically strapped industry to 
access additional markets while still promoting a quality U.S. product.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise to comment on a bill I 
have introduced today that will provide Oregon pear producers the 
flexibility they need to meet the demands of their foreign customers.
  With continued low commodity prices in nearly all sectors of American 
agriculture, and with financial uncertainty in many of our export 
markets, now is the time for the Congress to do

[[Page S2278]]

all it can to remove unnecessary hindrances to sales of farm products 
abroad. The legislation which I have introduced today with my 
colleague, the senior senator from the state of Washington, would 
delete references to pears in the Export Apple and Pear Act. Under the 
Export Apple and Pear Act, only pears meeting Federal high quality 
standards are allowed to be exported. Although this standard served the 
purposes of the pear industry when the Export Apple and Pear Act was 
originally enacted in 1933, it has increasingly become an obstacle to 
U.S. pear producers who desire to enter new markets through the export 
of lower grade pears. In recent years, pear producers have had to 
obtain special waivers from USDA in order to sell lower grade pears to 
the emerging markets of Russia and Latin America. With American 
agriculture increasingly a part of a larger, global economy, U.S. pear 
producers need the Congress to remove this antiquated regulatory hurdle 
to expanded pear exports.
  Perhaps my colleagues noted that the companion bill to this 
legislation, H.R. 609, was adopted unanimously by the House of 
Representatives earlier this week. The swift passage of this 
legislation in the House is the result of the clear consensus of both 
the pear industry and the Department of Agriculture that the inclusion 
of pears in the Export Apple and Pear Act is no longer necessary.
  Mr. President, from Hood River, in the shadow of Mount Hood, to the 
Rogue Valley, just north of California, the pear industry has long been 
a key part of the success of Oregon agriculture. With the regulatory 
relief provided by this bill, I believe that pear producers in Oregon 
and around the country will have the ability to continue to compete 
effectively overseas and prosper at home. I urge my colleagues to join 
Senator Gorton and myself in support of early adoption of this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Kennedy, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 531. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on 
behalf of the Congress to Rosa Parks in recognition of her 
contributions to the Nation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.


legislation to authorize the president to award a gold medal on behalf 
                     of the congress to rosa parks.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senators 
Sessions, Levin, Kennedy and Harkin to introduce an important piece of 
legislation that will honor one of the most important figures in the 
American civil rights movement, Rosa Parks.
  Given her immense contributions to our Nation, we believe it is only 
fitting that she be honored with a Congressional Gold Medal.
  For decades, Mr. President, African-Americans in this country, this 
birth place of freedom, were treated as second class citizens, or less.
  Even after the moral enormity of slavery had finally been ended, 
African-Americans were subjected to discrimination, segregation and, if 
they resisted, prosecution and even lynching.
  Rosa Parks set in motion the events that brought to an end the 
shameful history of Jim Crow.
  Rosa Parks refused to obey the segregation laws in her home city of 
Montgomery, AL, and go to the back of the bus.
  When confronted, she refused give up her seat on that bus to a white 
man, even when threatened with jail.
  She was arrested, and the reaction would change the face of this 
Nation.
  Over 40,000 people boycotted Montgomery buses for 381 days.
  Faced with official condemnation and violence, these brave men and 
women maintained their unity until the bus segregation laws were 
finally changed.
  Their actions brought about the 1956 Supreme Court decision declaring 
the Montgomery segregation law unconstitutional and spurred the civil 
rights movement to further action; action which produced the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, breaking down the barriers of legal discrimination 
against African-Americans and establishing equality before the law as a 
reality for all Americans.
  Rosa Parks set these historic events in motion.
  She was the first woman to join the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP 
and served as an active volunteer for the Montgomery Voters League.
  Because of her strength, perseverance and quiet dignity, all 
Americans have been freed from the moral stain of segregation.
  And this mother of the civil rights movement continues to be active 
in the struggle for equality and the empowerment of the 
disenfranchised.
  Ms. Parks has received many awards in recognition of her efforts for 
racial harmony, including the NAACP's highest honor for civil rights 
contributions, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest 
civilian honor, and the first International Freedom Conductor Award 
from the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.
  Throughout her life, Rosa Parks has been an example of the power of 
conviction and quiet dignity in pursuit of justice and empowerment. Mr. 
President, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting legislation to 
bestow upon her the Congressional Gold Medal she so well deserves.
  Mr. President, I remember as a young student in grade school being 
told the story of the woman who said she would not move to the back of 
the bus. I did not know who that was by name. I just remember being so 
struck and touched by that story. I did not realize someday I would 
have the opportunity to meet that lady. She lives in my State of 
Michigan today. I have had a chance to get to know her a bit, but, more 
importantly, to work with her organizations there which do fine work 
for our communities and for our country.
  So Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today to offer this 
Congressional Gold Medal proposal. I want to thank our cosponsors. We 
are very hopeful that others will join us so we can pass this proposal 
as soon as possible.
  At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to say how much I appreciate the 
courtesies of Senator Abraham and Senator Levin as we work through this 
effort to achieve this Gold Medal for Ms. Rosa Parks. I think it is a 
very fitting and appropriate thing that we do so.
  So I rise today to recognize Ms. Parks, a native Alabamian, who 
through her life and example has touched both the heart and the 
conscience of an entire Nation. She is a native of Tuskegee, and a 
former resident of Montgomery, AL. Her dignity in the face of 
discrimination helped spark a movement to ensure that all citizens were 
treated equally under the law.
  Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental pillar upon which our 
Republic rests. In fact, over the first 2 months of this year this 
Senate has discussed that very issue in some detail. As legislators, we 
should work to strengthen the appreciation for this fundamental 
governing principle and recognize those who have made extraordinary 
contributions toward ensuring that all American citizens have the same 
opportunities, regardless of their race, sex, creed, or national 
origin, to enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer.
  Through her efforts, Ms. Parks has become a living embodiment of this 
principle. And it is entirely appropriate that this Congress takes the 
opportunity to acknowledge her contribution by authorizing the award of 
a Congressional Gold Medal to her. Her courage, what we in Alabama 
might call ``gumption'', at a critical juncture resulted in historic 
change.
  Certainly, there is much still to be done. True equality, the total 
elimination of discrimination, and a real sense of ease and acceptance 
among the races has not been fully reached. But it is fair to say that 
in the history of this effort, the most dramatic and productive chapter 
was ignited by the lady we honor today.
  Ms. Parks' story is well known, but it bears repeating. She was born 
on February 4, 1913, in the small town of Tuskegee AL to Mr. James and 
Leona McCauley. As a young child, she moved to Montgomery with her 
mother, who was a local schoolteacher. Like many Southern cities, the 
Montgomery of Ms. Parks' youth was a segregated city with numerous laws 
mandating the unequal treatment of people based on the

[[Page S2279]]

color of their skin. These laws were discriminatory in their intent, 
and divisive, unfair, and humiliating in their application, but for 
years Ms. Parks had suffered with them until the fateful day of 
December 1, 1955, when her pride and her dignity would allow her to 
obey them no more. On this day Ms. Parks, a 42-year-old seamstress, 
boarded a city bus after a long, hard day at work. Like other public 
accommodations, this bus contained separate sections for white and 
black passengers, with white passengers allocated the front rows, and 
black passengers given the back. This bus was particularly crowded that 
evening. At one of the stops, a white passenger boarded, and the bus 
driver, seeing Ms. Parks, requested that she give up her seat and move 
to the back of the bus, even though this meant that she would be forced 
to stand. Ms. Parks refused to give up her seat and was arrested for 
disobeying that order.
  For this act of civic defiance, Ms. Parks set off a chain of events 
that have led some to refer to her as the ``Mother of the Civil Rights 
Movement.'' Her arrest led to the Montgomery bus boycott, and organized 
movement led by a young minister, then unknown, named Martin Luther 
King, Jr., who had been preaching at the historic Baptist church 
located on Montgomery's Dexter Avenue. The bus boycott lasted 382 days, 
and its impact directly led to the integration of the bus lines while 
the attention generated helped lift Dr. King to national prominence. 
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule on the 
constitutionality of the Montgomery law which Ms. Parks had defied and 
the court struck it down.
  This powerful image, that of a hard working American ordered to the 
back of the bus, simply because of her race, was a catalytic event. It 
was the spark that caused a nation to stop accepting things as they had 
been and focused everyone on the fundamental issue--whether we could 
continue as a segregated society. As a result of the movement Ms. Parks 
helped start, today's Montgomery is very different from the Montgomery 
of Ms. Parks' youth. Today, the citizens of Montgomery look with a 
great deal of historical pride upon the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. 
Today's Montgomery is home to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an 
organization devoted to the cause of civil rights and also the Civil 
Rights Memorial, a striking monument of black granite and cascading 
water which memorializes the individuals who gave their lives in the 
pursuit of equal justice. Today's Montgomery is a city in which its 
history as the ``Capital of the Confederacy'' and its history as the 
``Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement'' are both recognized, 
understood and reconciled. But Montgomery is not alone in this 
development. Many American cities owe the same debt of gratitude to Ms. 
Parks that Montgomery does. In fact, Ms. Parks' contributions may 
extend beyond even the borders of our nation. In the book ``Bus Ride to 
Justice,'' Mr. Fred Gray, who gained fame while in his 20's as Ms. 
Parks' attorney in the bus desegregation case and as the lead attorney 
in many of Alabama's and the Nation's most important civil rights 
cases, wrote these words, and I don't think they are an exaggeration:

       Little did we know that we had set in motion a force that 
     would ripple throughout Alabama, the South, the nation, and 
     even the world. But from the vantage point of almost 40 years 
     later, there is a direct correlation between what we started 
     in Montgomery and what has subsequently happened in China, 
     eastern Europe, South Africa, and even more recently, in 
     Russia. While it is inaccurate to say that we all sat down 
     and deliberately planned a movement that would echo and 
     reverberate around the world, we did work around the clock, 
     planning strategy and creating an atmosphere that gave 
     strength, courage, faith and hope to people of all races, 
     creeds, colors and religions around the world. And it all 
     started on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, with Rosa Parks on 
     December 1, 1955.

  For her courage and her conviction, and for her role in changing 
Alabama, the South, the nation and the world for the better, our Nation 
owes thanks to Ms. Parks. I hope that this body will extend its thanks 
and recognition to her by awarding her the Congressional Gold Medal.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Rosa Parks is truly one of this Nation's 
greatest heroes. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice have shaped 
our Nation's history and are remembered with respect and with reverence 
by us all.
  Forty three years ago--December 1995--in Montgomery, Alabama the 
modern civil rights movement began. Rosa Parks refused to give up her 
seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this 
courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American 
people but the entire world.
  My home state of Michigan proudly claims Rosa Parks as one of our 
own. Rosa Parks and her husband made the journey to Michigan in 1957. 
Unceasing threats on their lives and persistent harassment by phone 
prompted the move to Detroit where Rosa Park's brother resided.
  Rosa Park's arrest for violating the city's segregation laws was the 
catalyst for the Montgomery bus boycott. Her stand on that December day 
in 1955 was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime of struggle 
for equality and justice. For instance, twelve years earlier, in 1943, 
Rosa Parks had been arrested for violating another one of the city's 
bus related segregation laws, which required African Americans to pay 
their fares at the front of the bus then get off of the bus and re-
board from the bus at the rear. The driver of that bus was the same 
driver with whom Rosa Parks would have her confrontation 12 years 
later.
  The rest is history--the boycott which Rosa Parks began was the 
beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African 
Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who 
would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the 
Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
  The Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting tribute to Rosa Parks--the 
gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the 
humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus.
  We have come a long way towards achieving Dr. King's dream of justice 
and equality for all. But we still have much work to do. Let us 
rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle on Civil Rights, and to 
human rights in Rosa Parks name.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief biography of the 
life and times and movement which was sparked by Rosa Parks, the mother 
of the civil rights movement, and excerpted from USL Biographies, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Rosa Parks--American Social Activist

       ``I felt just resigned to give what I could to protect 
     against the way I was being treated.''


                              introduction

       On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat 
     on a bus to a white man who wanted it. By this simple act, 
     which today would seem unremarkable, she set in motion the 
     civil rights movement, which led to the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 and ultimately ensured that today all black Americans 
     must be given equal treatment with whites under the law.
       Parks did not know that she was making history nor did she 
     intend to do so. She simply knew that she was tired after a 
     long day's work and did not want to move. Because of her 
     fatigue and because she was so determined, America was 
     changed forever. Segregation was on its way out.


                   growing up in a segregated society

       In the first half of this century, Montgomery, Alabama, was 
     totally segregated, like so many other cities in the South. 
     In this atmosphere Parks and her brother grew up. They had 
     been brought to Montgomery by their mother, Leona (Edwards) 
     McCauley, when she and their father separated in 1915. Their 
     father, James McCauley, went away north and they seldom saw 
     him, but they were made welcome by their mother's family and 
     passed their childhood among cousins, uncles, aunts, 
     grandparents, and great-grandparents.
       Parks's mother was a schoolteacher, and Parks was taught by 
     her until the age of eleven, when she went to Montgomery 
     Industrial School for Girls. It was, of course, an all-black 
     school, as was Booker T. Washington High School, which she 
     attended briefly. Virtually everything in Montgomery was for 
     ``blacks only'' or ``whites only,'' and Parks became used to 
     obeying the segregation laws, though she found them 
     humiliating.
       When Parks was twenty, she married Raymond Parks, a barber, 
     and moved out of her mother's home. Parks took in sewing and 
     worked at various jobs over the years. She also became an 
     active member of the National Association for the Advancement 
     of Colored People (NAACP), working as secretary of the 
     Montgomery chapter.

[[Page S2280]]

                            silent protests

       In 1955 Parks was forty-two years old, and she had taken to 
     protesting segregation in her own quiet way--for instance, by 
     walking up the stairs of a building rather than riding in an 
     elevator marked ``blacks only.'' She was well respected in 
     the black community for her work with the Montgomery Voters 
     League as well as the NAACP. The Voters League was a group 
     that helped black citizens pass the various tests that had 
     been set up to make it difficult for them to register as 
     voters.
       As well as avoiding black-only elevators, Parks often 
     avoided traveling by bus, preferring to walk home from work 
     when she was not too tired to do so. The buses were a 
     constant irritation to all black passengers. The front four 
     rows were reserved for whites (and remained empty even when 
     there were not enough white passengers to fill them). The 
     back section, which was always very crowded, was for black 
     passengers. In between were some rows that were really part 
     of the black section, but served as an overflow area for 
     white passengers. If the white section was full, black 
     passengers in the middle section had to vacate their 
     seats--a whole row had to be vacated, even if only one 
     white passenger required a seat.


                        the arrest of rosa parks

       This is what happened on the evening of December 1, 1955: 
     Parks took the bus because she was feeling particularly tired 
     after a long day in the department store where she worked as 
     a seamstress. She was sitting in the middle section, glad to 
     be off her feet at last, when a white man boarded the bus and 
     demanded that her row be cleared because the white section 
     was full. The others in the row obediently moved to the back 
     of the bus, but Parks just didn't feel like standing for the 
     rest of the journey, and she quietly refused to move.
       At this, the white bus driver threatened to call the police 
     unless Parks gave up her seat, but she calmly replied ``Go 
     ahead and call them.'' By the time the police arrived, the 
     driver was very angry, and when asked whether he wanted Parks 
     to be arrested or let off with a warning, he insisted on 
     arrest. So this respectable middle-aged woman was taken to 
     the police station, where she was fingerprinted and jailed. 
     She was allowed to make one phone call. She called an NAACP 
     lawyer, who arranged for her to be released on bail.


                            the bus boycott

       Word of Parks' arrest spread quickly, and the Women's 
     Political Council decided to protest her treatment by 
     organizing a boycott of the buses. The boycott was set for 
     December 5, the day of Parks' trial, but Martin Luther King, 
     Jr., and other prominent members of Montgomery's black 
     community realized that here was a chance to take a firm 
     stand on segregation. As a result, the Montgomery Improvement 
     Association was formed to organize an boycott that would 
     continue until the bus segregation laws were changed. 
     Leaflets were distributed telling people not to ride the 
     buses, and other forms of transport were relied on.
       The boycott lasted 382 days, causing the bus company to 
     lose a vast amount of money. Meanwhile, Parks was fined for 
     failing to obey a city ordinance, but on the advice of her 
     lawyers she refused to pay the fine so that they could 
     challenge the segregation law in court. The following year, 
     the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Montgomery segregation law 
     illegal, and the boycott was at last called off. Yet Parks 
     had started far more than a bus boycott. Other cities 
     followed Montgomery's example and were protesting their 
     segregation laws. The civil rights movement was underway.


                  mother of the civil rights movement

       Parks has been hailed as ``the mother of the civil rights 
     movement,'' but this was not an easy role for her. Threats 
     and constant phone calls she received during the boycott 
     caused her husband to have a nervous breakdown, and in 1957 
     they moved to Detroit, where Parks' brother, Sylvester, 
     lived. There Parks continued her work as a seamstress, but 
     she had become a public figure and was often sought out to 
     give talks about civil rights.
       Over the years, Parks has received several honorary 
     degrees, and in 1965 Congressman John Conyers of Detroit 
     appointed her to his staff. Parks' husband died in 1977 and 
     she retired in 1988, but she has continued to work for the 
     betterment of the black community. She is particularly eager 
     to help the young, and in 1987 she established the Rosa and 
     Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, a training 
     school for Detroit teenagers.
       Each year sees more honors showered upon her. In 1990, some 
     three thousand people attended the Kennedy Center in 
     Washington, D.C., to celebrate the seventy-seventh birthday 
     of the indomitable campaigner and former seamstress, Rosa 
     Parks.

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and I thank our colleagues from Michigan 
and Alabama.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 532. A bill to provide increased funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Programs, to 
resume the funding of the State grants program of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, and to provide for the acquisition and development 
of conservation and recreation facilities and programs in urban areas, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


           public lands and recreation investment act of 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public 
Lands and Recreation Investment Act of 1999. This bill will provide 
funding for two of our nation's most important conservation and 
recreation programs--the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban 
Parks and Recreation Recovery Act--that have been woefully underfunded 
in recent years.
  Every year, the Federal government collects about $4 billion from oil 
and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf. These leases have 
detrimental impacts on our environment, so it is fitting that in 1965 
Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This fund is 
authorized to use $900 million annually in Outer Continental Shelf 
lease payments to purchase park and recreation lands in or near our 
national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public 
lands. The fund also is supposed to provide grants to states, so that 
state and local governments may purchase parklands and recreation 
facilities.
  Acquisition of these lands protects some of our nation's most crucial 
natural resources, including key watersheds that provide drinking water 
to millions of Americans, and vital wildlife habitat for endangered 
species. Public lands also provide recreation opportunities for 
millions of Americans, and open spaces in increasingly crowded urban 
areas. Over the years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has 
protected lands in all 50 States, including such special places as 
Yellowstone National Park, the Everglades, and the California Desert.
  Unfortunately, the Land and Water Conservation Fund's tremendous 
promise has not yet been fulfilled. Last year Congress and the 
President provided only $328 million of the $900 million collected by 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition. The rest 
went back into the Treasury, for deficit reduction or spending on other 
programs. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has collected over $21 
billion since its creation in 1965, but only $9 billion has been spent. 
Unappropriated balances in the fund now total $13 billion, and they are 
growing every year.
  In the meantime, a huge backlog has developed in the federal 
acquisition of environmentally sensitive land. The U.S. Department of 
Interior estimates that the cost of acquiring inholdings in national 
parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands now 
totals over $10 billion. In addition, the federal government receives 
about $600 million in Land and Water Conservation Fund requests each 
year.
  The funding shortfall has been particularly difficult for State and 
local governments. For the last several years, Congress has provided no 
funding for the stateside grants portion of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, or to The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, a 
separate program that provides for rehabilitation of recreation 
facilities and improved recreation programs in our nation's cities.
  Last month President Clinton proposed the Lands Legacy Initiative, 
which would provide $1 billion from the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund in fiscal year 2000. The President's initiative would expand our 
nation's public lands, provide grants to states for land acquisition, 
promote open space and ``smart growth,'' improve wildlife habitat, and 
protect farmland from development. The Lands Legacy Initiative is a 
good first step, but our commitment to public lands should not be a 
one-year deal.
  Therefore, I am pleased that other Senators have introduced bills 
that would provide permanent funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act, as 
well as a number of other programs. I support Senator Boxer's bill, the 
Permanent Protection for America's Resources Act, and I look forward to 
working with her and with all Senators interested in public lands, 
coastal restoration, and wildlife protection.
  If Senator Boxer's bill does not move, however, the bill that I am 
introducing today is a moderate alternative that I believe will enjoy 
broad

[[Page S2281]]

bipartisan support. The bill is important for three reasons. First, it 
focuses exclusively on guaranteed annual funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. I 
want to ensure that the Land and Water Conservation Fund remains a top 
priority for Congress regardless of other important environmental 
programs that are funded. We cannot lose sight of how important the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund is to America's conservation and 
recreation efforts.
  Second, the bill makes no changes to the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund that impede the federal government's ability to acquire land. Two 
bills currently pending in Congress would restrict federal land 
purchases to inholdings within existing parks only, and require prior 
Congressional authorization even for small acquisitions that have 
traditionally been approved through the appropriations process. These 
bills also require that two-thirds of the federal funding be spent east 
of the 100th meridian.
  Under these terms, projects such as the Headwaters acquisition, where 
the federal government and State of California bought the largest 
ancient redwood stand in private hands, would have been impossible. I 
believe strongly that the primary purpose of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund--to enable the federal government to permanently 
protect our nation's most special places--must be preserved and 
strengthened, not eroded.
  Finally, this bill revives the state grants portion of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, which has funded over 37,000 state parks 
projects over the last three decades, as well as the Urban Parks and 
Recreation Recovery Program. These programs have worked well for 
decades, and I would like to restore funding for them while preserving 
broad latitude for states and local governments to determine their own 
conservation and recreation priorities. The bill does not establish 
competitive grants under the state program.
  Specifically, the bill amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act to say that $900 million will be automatically appropriated each 
year for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and 
Recreation Recovery Program. The bill also provides that 40 percent of 
the funds provided under this act must be spent on stateside grants. 
This will revive the moribund State grants program and ensure that 
states get their fair share of parks and recreation dollars. States 
will be required to ``pass through'' 50 percent of the grants they 
receive directly to local governments.
  In addition, the bill provides that 10 percent of the funds provided 
under this act be allocated to the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery 
program. This will ensure that recreation facilities and open space 
remain top priorities where they are urgently needed--increasingly 
crowded cities. The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act will be 
amended to allow funds to be spent for construction of recreation 
facilities, and acquisition of park lands in urban areas.

  The bill also requires the President to submit an annual priority 
list to Congress for expenditure of funds provided to federal agencies 
under this act. The bill specifically provides for Congressional 
approval of this priority list, so that Congress will retain authority 
to decide how Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars are spent on 
federal lands.
  The bill changes requirements for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund's stateside grants program, including a new requirement for States 
to develop, with public input, action agendas that identify their top 
conservation and recreation acquisition needs. Finally, the bill 
provides that Indian tribes will be recognized collectively as one 
state under the state grants program.
  The Public Land and Recreation Investment Act will have a major and 
immediate impact on conservation and recreation nationwide. In my home 
state, increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund could 
allow for the purchase of 483,000 acres of inholdings in national parks 
and wilderness areas in the California Desert, dramatically improving 
recreation opportunities in three of our nation's newest national 
parks. It could permanently protect sensitive watersheds at Lake Tahoe 
and help preserve the Lake's astounding water quality. And it could 
restore wetlands in San Francisco Bay, which has lost over 80 percent 
of its wetlands in the last 100 years.
  Nationally, funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund will 
help to preserve special places like Cape Cod National Seashore and the 
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, whose land acquisition needs have gone 
unmet in recent years.
  Reviving the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act will help cities 
across our nation improve parks and recreation opportunities for their 
residents. In the past, the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act has 
funded summer recreation, anti-drug counseling, and job training for 
teenagers in low income neighborhoods in Fresno. The City of Milwaukee 
instituted a ``Park Watch'' program to help neighborhoods combat 
vandalism and crime in city parks. And in Tuscon, Arizona, the UPARR 
program funded a health and physical fitness program for children, 
senior citizens, and disabled youth.
  This bill is strongly supported by groups that seek to protect 
conservation and recreation resources for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I will submit for the Record at the end of my 
statement, letters from the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and 
Defenders of Wildlife, who strongly support the Public Land and 
Recreation Investment Act of 1999.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is that for too long, we have diverted 
monies intended for conservation and recreation to other purposes. This 
bill will help to correct that imbalance, and ensure a lasting legacy 
for our children and grandchildren. Whether they hike through a 
pristine wilderness, climb on an urban jungle gym, or picnic in a 
greenbelt outside their hometown, they will have the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act to 
thank. That is something I believe we can all be proud of.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 532

       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 Land and Recreation 
     Investment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.) has been critical in acquiring land to 
     protect America's national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, 
     and public land in all 50 States from potential development 
     and in improving recreational opportunities for all 
     Americans;
       (2) the Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped to 
     preserve nearly 7,000,000 acres of America's most special 
     places, from the California Desert to the Everglades, in part 
     by providing grants that have helped States purchase over 
     2,000,000 acres of parkland and open space;
       (3) although amounts in the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund are meant to be used only for conservation and 
     recreation purposes, since 1980 Congress and the President 
     have diverted much of this vital funding for deficit 
     reduction and other budgetary purposes;
       (4) because of chronic shortages in funding for the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund, the backlog of Federal 
     acquisition needs now totals over $10,000,000,000; the 
     backlog includes key wetlands, watersheds, wilderness, and 
     wildlife habitat and important historic, cultural, and 
     recreational sites;
       (5) the findings of the 1995 National Biological Service 
     study entitled ``Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: 
     A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation'' 
     demonstrate the need to escalate conservation measures that 
     protect the Nation's wildlands and wildlife habitats;
       (6) lack of funding for the State grants portion of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund has hampered State and local 
     efforts to protect parklands, coastlines, habitat areas, and 
     open space from development;
       (7) recreation needs in America's cities have been 
     neglected, in part because the Urban Park and Recreation 
     Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) has not been 
     funded since 1995;
       (8) at the same time that Federal investment in 
     conservation and recreation has shrunk, demand for outdoor 
     recreation has skyrocketed: visits to our public lands have 
     increased dramatically in recent years, and the national 
     survey on recreation and the environment conducted by the 
     Forest Service indicates substantial growth in most outdoor 
     activities; and

[[Page S2282]]

       (9) increased investment in conservation and recreation is 
     essential to maintaining America's environmental quality and 
     high quality of life.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to ensure that funding is available without further Act 
     of appropriation to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
     the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program;
       (2) to protect the Nation's parklands, wildlife habitat, 
     and recreational resources;
       (3) to revive the State grants portion of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund; and
       (4) to ensure that local governments and Indian tribes 
     receive a fair share of proceeds from the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund.

     SEC. 4. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.

       (a) Appropriations.--Section 3 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 3. Appropriations.--Moneys'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 3. APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Moneys'';
       (2) by striking the third sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Permanent Appropriation.--There is appropriated out 
     of the fund to carry out this Act $900,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year, to remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Allocation of Fund.--Section 5 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-7) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first, second, and third sentences and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Of amounts annually available to carry 
     out this Act for any fiscal year--
       ``(1) 40 percent shall be allocated for financial 
     assistance to States under section 6, of which not less than 
     50 percent shall be directed to local governments to provide 
     natural areas, open space, parkland, wildlife habitat, and 
     recreation areas;
       ``(2) 50 percent shall be allocated for Federal purposes 
     under section 7; and
       ``(3) 10 percent shall be allocated for grants to local 
     governments under the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.).''; and
       (2) by striking ``There shall be'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Special Account.--There shall be''.
       (c) Financial Assistance to States.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``forty per centum'' and 
     all that follows through ``twenty per centum'' and inserting 
     ``30 percent of the first $225,000,000 and 20 percent''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Indian tribes.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `Indian 
     tribe' means an Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, 
     pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the 
     Interior recognizes as an Indian tribe under section 104 of 
     the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 
     U.S.C. 479a-1).
       ``(B) Apportionment.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the Indian tribes--
       ``(i) shall be treated collectively as 1 State; and
       ``(ii) shall receive shares of their collective 
     apportionment under that paragraph in amounts to be 
     determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(C) Other treatment.--For all other purposes of this 
     title, each Indian tribe shall be treated as a State, except 
     that--
       ``(i) an Indian tribe shall not be required to direct 50 
     percent of the financial assistance provided under this Act 
     to local governments; and
       ``(ii) an Indian tribe may use financial assistance 
     provided under this Act only if the Indian tribe provides 
     assurances, subject to the approval of the Secretary, that 
     the Indian tribe will maintain conservation and recreation 
     opportunities to the public at large in perpetuity on land 
     and facilities funded under this Act.
       ``(D) Limitation.--For any fiscal year, no single Indian 
     tribe shall receive more than 10 percent of the total amount 
     made available under paragraph (1) to all Indian tribes, 
     collectively.'';
       (B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) State Action Agendas.--
       ``(1) In general.--To qualify for financial assistance 
     under this section, a State, in consultation with local 
     subdivisions, nonprofit and other private organizations, and 
     interested citizens, shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary a State action agenda for recreation, open space, 
     and conservation that identifies the State's recreation, open 
     space, and conservation needs and priorities.
       ``(2) Requirements.--A State action agenda--
       ``(A) shall take into account long-term recreation, open 
     space, and conservation needs (including preservation of 
     habitat for threatened and endangered species and other 
     species of conservation concern) but focus on actions that 
     can be funded over a 4-year period;
       ``(B) shall be updated every 4 years and approved by the 
     Governor;
       ``(C) shall be considered in an active public involvement 
     process that includes public hearings around the State;
       ``(D) shall take into account activities and priorities of 
     managers of conservation land, open space, and recreation 
     land in the State, including Federal, regional, local, and 
     nonprofit agencies; and
       ``(E) to the extent practicable, shall be coordinated with 
     other State, regional, and local plans for parks, recreation, 
     open space, and wetland conservation.
       ``(3) Use of recovery action plans.--A State shall use 
     recovery action plans developed by local governments under 
     section 1007 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2506) as a guide in formulating the 
     conclusions and action items contained in the State action 
     agenda.''; and
       (C) by striking subsection (f)(3) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Conversion of use of property.--
       ``(A) In general.--No property acquired or developed with 
     assistance under this section may be converted to a use other 
     than use for recreation, open space, or conservation without 
     the approval of the Secretary.
       ``(B) Approval.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may approve a conversion 
     of use of property under subparagraph (A) if the State 
     demonstrates that--

       ``(I) no prudent or feasible alternative to conversion of 
     the use of the property exists;
       ``(II) because of changes in demographics, the property is 
     no longer viable for use for recreation, open space, or 
     conservation; or
       ``(III) the property must be abandoned because of 
     environmental contamination that endangers public health or 
     safety.

       ``(ii) Substitution of other property.--

       ``(I) In general.--Conversion of the use of property shall 
     satisfy any condition that the Secretary considers necessary 
     to ensure that--

       ``(aa) the substituted property is property in the State 
     that is of at least equal market value and reasonably 
     equivalent usefulness and location; and
       ``(bb) the use of the substituted property for recreation, 
     open space, or conservation is consistent with the State 
     action agenda.

       ``(II) Wetland areas.--A wetland area or interest in a 
     wetland area (as identified in the wetland provisions of the 
     State action agenda) that is proposed to be acquired as a 
     suitable substitute property and that is otherwise acceptable 
     to the Secretary shall be considered to be of reasonably 
     equivalent usefulness to the property proposed for 
     conversion.''.

       (2) Transition provision.--Any comprehensive statewide 
     outdoor recreation plan developed by a State under section 
     6(d) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-8(d)) before the date that is 5 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act shall remain in effect in the 
     State until a State action agenda has been adopted in 
     accordance with the amendment made by paragraph (1), but not 
     later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8(e)) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (e)--

       (I) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``State comprehensive plan'' and inserting ``State action 
     agenda''; and
       (II) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, or wetland areas and 
     interests therein as identified in the wetlands provisions of 
     the comprehensive plan''; and

       (ii) in subsection (f)(3)--

       (I) in the second sentence, by striking ``then existing 
     comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan'' and 
     inserting ``State action agenda''; and
       (II) by striking ``: Provided,'' and all that follows.

       (B) Section 32(e) of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1011(e)) is amended in the last proviso of the first 
     paragraph by striking ``existing comprehensive statewide 
     outdoor recreation plan found adequate for purposes of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897)'' 
     and inserting ``State action agenda required by section 6 of 
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 
     460l-8)''.
       (C) Section 102(a)(2) of the National Historic Preservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 470b(a)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan prepared 
     pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (78 Stat. 897)'' and inserting ``State action agenda required 
     by section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
     1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (D) Section 8(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1247(a)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``comprehensive statewide outdoor 
     recreation plans'' and inserting ``State action agendas''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.)'' 
     after ``Fund Act''.
       (E) Section 11(a)(2) of the National Trails System Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1250(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``(relating to the 
     development of Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 
     Plans)'' and inserting ``(16 U.S.C. 460l-8) (relating to the 
     development of State action agendas''.
       (F) Section 11 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1282) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``comprehensive statewide outdoor 
     recreation plans'' and inserting ``State action agendas''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``(78 Stat. 897)'' and inserting ``(16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.)''; and

       (ii) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by striking ``(relating to 
     the development of statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation 
     plans)'' and inserting ``(16 U.S.C. 460l-8) (relating to the 
     development of State action agendas''.
       (G) Section 1008 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
     Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.

[[Page S2283]]

     2507) is amended in the last sentence by striking ``statewide 
     comprehensive outdoor recreation plans'' and inserting 
     ``State action agendas required by section 6 of the Land and 
     Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (H) Section 206(d) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``statewide 
     comprehensive outdoor recreation plan required by the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 et 
     seq.)'' and inserting ``State action agenda required by 
     section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(D)(ii), by striking ``statewide 
     comprehensive outdoor recreation plan that is required by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     4 et seq.)'' and inserting ``State action agenda that is 
     required by section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-8)''.
       (I) Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) is amended by 
     striking ``statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under 
     the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended'' and 
     inserting ``State action agendas required by section 6 of the 
     Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     8)''.
       (d) Federal Purposes.--Section 7 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-9) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Priority Acquisitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--As part of the annual budget request 
     under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for each 
     fiscal year, the President shall submit a list of priority 
     acquisitions for expenditure of the Federal allocation under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Consultation.--The Federal priority list shall be 
     prepared in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture 
     and the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(3) Considerations.--In preparing the priority list, the 
     agency heads shall consider--
       ``(A) the potential adverse impacts that might result if 
     the acquisition were not undertaken;
       ``(B) the availability of appraisals of land, water, or 
     interests in land or water and other information necessary to 
     complete the acquisition in a timely manner;
       ``(C) the conservation and recreational values that the 
     acquired land, water, or interest in land or water will 
     provide; and
       ``(D) any other factors that the agency heads consider 
     appropriate.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--An agency head shall expend funds 
     appropriated for a fiscal year for acquisitions in the order 
     of priority specified in the budget request unless Congress, 
     in the general appropriation Act for the fiscal year, 
     specifies a different order of priority or list of 
     priorities.''.

     SEC. 5. URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 1004 of the Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2503) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (j), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subsection (k), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) `acquisition grant' means a matching capital grant to 
     a general purpose local government to cover the direct and 
     incidental costs of purchasing new parkland to be permanently 
     dedicated for public conservation and recreation; and
       ``(m) `development and construction grant' means a matching 
     capital grant to a general purpose local government to cover 
     costs of development and construction of existing or new 
     neighborhood recreation sites, including indoor and outdoor 
     recreation facilities.''.
       (b) Eligibility of General Purpose Local Governments.--
     Section 1005 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2504) is amended by striking ``Sec. 1005.'' 
     and all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1005. ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Eligibility of General Purpose Local Governments.--
       ``(1) Eligibility list.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph and periodically 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 
     Register--
       ``(A) a list of general purpose local governments eligible 
     for assistance under this Act; and
       ``(B) a description of the criteria used in determining 
     eligibility.
       ``(2) Criteria.--The criteria for determining eligibility 
     shall be based on factors that the Secretary determines are 
     related to--
       ``(A) deteriorated recreational facilities or systems;
       ``(B) economic distress; and
       ``(C) lack of recreational opportunity.''.
       (c) Grants.--The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 
     1978 is amended by striking section 1006 (16 U.S.C. 2505) and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 6. GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide an acquisition 
     grant, development and construction grant, innovation grant, 
     or rehabilitation grant to a general purpose local government 
     on approval by the Secretary of an application made by the 
     chief executive officer of the local government.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of a project 
     undertaken with a grant under subsection (a) shall not exceed 
     70 percent.
       ``(c) Transfer of grant.--
       ``(1) In general.--With the consent of the Secretary, and 
     if consistent with an approved application, an acquisition 
     grant, development and construction grant, innovation grant, 
     or rehabilitation grant may be transferred in whole or in 
     part to a special purpose local government, private nonprofit 
     agency or political subdivision, or regional park authority.
       ``(2) Assurances.--A transferee of a grant shall provide an 
     assurance that the transferee will maintain public 
     conservation and recreation opportunities in perpetuity at 
     facilities funded with the grant funds.
       ``(d) Grant Payments.--
       ``(1) Advance approval.--Payment of a grant under 
     subsection (a) may be made only for a project that the 
     Secretary has approved in advance.
       ``(2) Progress payments.--Payment of a grant under 
     subsection (a) may be made from time to time in keeping with 
     the rate of progress toward completion of a project, on a 
     reimbursable basis.''.
       (d) Conversion of Use of Property.--The Urban Park and 
     Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 is amended by striking 
     section 1010 (16 U.S.C. 2509) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 1010. CONVERSION OF USE OF PROPERTY.

       ``(a) In General.--No property acquired, improved, or 
     developed under this title may be converted to a use other 
     than use for public recreation without the approval of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Approval.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may approve a conversion 
     of use of property under subsection (a) if the grant 
     recipient demonstrates that--
       ``(A) no prudent or feasible alternative to conversion of 
     the use of the property exists;
       ``(B) because of changes in demographics, the property is 
     no longer viable for use for recreation; or
       ``(C) the property must be abandoned because of 
     environmental contamination that endangers public health or 
     safety.
       ``(2) Substitution of other property.--Conversion of the 
     use of property shall satisfy any condition that the 
     Secretary considers necessary to ensure that--
       ``(A) the substituted property is of at least equal market 
     value and reasonably equivalent usefulness and location; and
       ``(B) the use of the substituted property for recreation is 
     consistent with the current recreation recovery action 
     program.''.
       (e) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 1014 of the Urban 
     Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2513) is 
     repealed.
                                  ____

                                                 January 29, 1999.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, 
     the Sierra Club and our nearly one million members and 
     supporters, we want to thank you for your leadership in 
     introducing the Public Land and Recreation Improvement Act of 
     1999 to provide permanent increased funding for both the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund and the Urban Parks and 
     Recreation Recovery Program.
       Ensuring full and permanent funding for the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been a major priority of the 
     environmental community for many years. LWCF represents a 
     promise made by Congress to the American people to reinvest 
     revenue from the development of non-renewable resources into 
     acquisition and permanent protection of key land, water, and 
     open space resources for future generations.
       Unfortunately, the LWCF promise is one that has remained 
     largely unfulfilled--funding has averaged only about 25% of 
     its annual authorized level. As a result, numerous 
     conservation opportunities are being lost. Our nation's 
     obligation to purchase lands within our National Wildlife 
     Refuges, Parks, Forests, and Bureau of Land Management units 
     has been neglected. Rivers, estuaries, and wetlands across 
     the country are at risk. Pristine wilderness, vital to clean 
     water and habitat protection, and the foundation of our 
     nation's natural heritage is being threatened or destroyed. 
     Parks and open space--the cornerstone for quality of life in 
     our urban areas--are falling victim to urban sprawl and 
     unchecked development.
       As the Public Land and Recreation Improvement Act of 1999 
     correctly asserts, the need to provide additional protection 
     to our nation's vanishing wildlands and habitats is greater 
     than ever. The National Biological Service warned in a 1995 
     report that the nation's ecosystems are in decline and many 
     of our park and forest areas must be acquired quickly before 
     lands and wildlife are destroyed.
       Your bill takes an important step forward in renewing the 
     commitment made to the American people more than 30 years ago 
     when the LWCF Act was originally passed to preserve--instead 
     of losing forever--these irreplaceable land and water 
     resources.
       As you know, the President has also recently made a 
     commitment to seek full and permanent funding for LWCF and 
     other related programs to protect habitat, open space, and 
     important marine and coastal resources. Moreover, the 
     environmental community strongly supports the dedication of 
     funding both for marine and coastal resource protection and 
     critically underfunded state non-game wildlife conservation 
     programs. We are eager to work with you, the President, and 
     other leaders on these issues in Congress to ensure permanent 
     and mandatory funding that addresses all of these crucial 
     needs without creating any incentives for new offshore 
     drilling as some current proposals in Congress would do.

[[Page S2284]]

       Again, we applaud your leadership in introducing this 
     important legislation and thank you for your commitment to 
     preserving our magnificent natural heritage.
           Sincerely,
     Rodger Schlickeisen,
       President, Defenders of Wildlife.
     Carl Pope,
       Executive Director, Sierra Club.
                                  ____



                                       The Wilderness Society,

                                 Washington, DC, February 1, 1999.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: The Wilderness Society would like 
     to commend your efforts in introducing the ``Public Lands and 
     Recreation Investment Act of 1999''. By focusing your bill on 
     LWCF and the Urban Park and Recreation and Recovering (UPAAR) 
     program, it will address needs of expanding population and 
     urban sprawl.
       This bill crystallizes several important concepts. It 
     dramatically elevates the funding for LWCF and resuscitates 
     the state-size grant program. Additionally, it reactivates 
     UPAAR and adapts it to respond to contemporary urban needs by 
     allowing land acquisition. Furthermore, the inclusing of 
     language that allow tribes to participate equally with states 
     for matching grants for planning acquisition and 
     rehabilitation sets an important standard.
       We support your thoughtful efforts on behalf America's 
     public lands and appreciate the leadership you have provided.
           Sincerely,
                                               William H. Meadows,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 533. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize 
local governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State 
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


     interstate transportation of municipal solid waste control act

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today, as I have done on two previous 
occasions, to introduce legislation to stem the flow--actually flood--
of trash into Virginia and other States that have been affected. I am 
pleased to be joined, in doing so, by my senior colleague from 
Virginia, who will be joining us very shortly, Senator Warner.
  We have witnessed a virtual explosion in legislation in Congress 
focussed on rights. In recent months, Congress focused on the Patients' 
Bill of Rights, the Soldiers' Bill of Rights and the Taxpayer Bill of 
Rights. These are just a few recent examples.
  The bill I am introducing today, along with my colleague, Senator 
Warner, could be called a Bill of Responsibilities. It recognizes the 
responsibilities of the various levels of government to manage the huge 
volumes of trash we are generating.
  The primary responsibility for taking care of trash lies with local 
governments. They are responsible for picking up the trash and they are 
responsible for finding a place to put it down. Local governments are 
also charged with the responsibility of making local land-use decisions 
and should be allowed to decide for themselves whether a community 
should be subjected to a large landfill that takes garbage from out of 
State. Recognizing the responsibilities vested in local governments, 
the legislation we are introducing today allows localities to ban 
unwanted out-of-State trash.
  States have a responsibility for ensuring that the State's 
environment is protected and that its highways and waterways are safe. 
This legislation recognizes that responsibility, allowing States to 
override local government approval of out-of-State imports if local 
decisions on trash affect the State as a whole. To help States fund 
this responsibility, the bill allows States to assess up to a $3 per 
ton fee on out-of-State trash. This fee is similar to the out-of-State 
tuition that States charge students to come to their States to take 
advantage of host State's colleges and universities.
  In addition, the legislation allows States to cap the amount of trash 
that can accumulate in landfills that have local approval. By allowing 
States to impose such a cap, this legislation strikes what we believe 
is the right balance between localities' desires to generate revenues 
by accepting waste and States's responsibilities to protect State 
resources, to provide a safe network of highways, and to ensure that 
State regulatory agencies are not overwhelmed by the influx of new 
waste.
  This legislation also addresses the responsibilities of States that 
have refused to face the obligations of siting their own refuse. States 
that export huge amounts of waste are imposing a burden on those States 
that have created new capacity. The bill we are introducing sends a 
very strong message to States that ship more than 6 million tons a year 
to other States, although no State yet meets that threshold. The bill 
allows importing States to ban the garbage coming from such 
superexporting States. If the importing State chooses not to exercise 
this prohibition, the bill allows the State to impose large and 
escalating fees on those superexporting States that have not had the 
political will to site their own excess capacity.
  While large regional landfills are becoming more common because of 
the expense of building modern and environmentally sound facilities, 
those landfills should accept waste on the basis of a region's 
cooperation rather than on the basis of a single State's abdication of 
its responsibilities.
  Finally, this legislation recognizes the responsibility of the 
Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Because the Supreme Court has 
determined the garbage is commerce, like any other commodity, States 
and localities have been powerless to halt the disposal of out-of-State 
waste within their borders. While some States have attempted to limit 
out-of-State trash on their own, unless Congress acts to grant States 
and localities the ability to ban or limit out-of-State trash, those 
State laws are likely to be struck down as unconstitutional.
  This legislation overcomes that constitutional hurdle by granting 
States and localities the right to restrict interstate trash disposal. 
If we again fail to pass legislation that protects localities from 
being buried under out-of-State garbage, we are abdicating our own 
responsibility to protect the quality of life of communities in each of 
our States.
  The bills I have introduced in past Congresses focused on protecting 
localities from unwanted garbage. The bill Senator Warner and I 
introduce today builds on that foundation. It reflects Virginia's most 
recent experience with importing garbage and addresses both the 
problems we have seen and the lessons we have learned. We now have 
enough history to examine the benefits and the possible burdens of host 
community agreements, and how they can best be used to develop state-
of-the-art landfills. We also understand better the hardships that 
trash traffic can impose on communities that do not benefit from 
another community's decision to host a large landfill. Finally, it 
addresses a problem that has festered for too long, the inability of 
States to summon the political will to site their own capacity. I 
encourage the Senate to move quickly to consider this particular 
legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along 
with my colleague, Senator Robb, legislation to give our States and 
local governments authority to ensure that they can effectively manage 
the disposal of municipal waste within their borders.
  For several years, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, on 
which I serve, has considered many legislative proposals to convey 
authorities to States and localities to begin to address this serious 
problem. Unfortunately, no legislation has been enacted since this 
serious problem first surfaced in the early 1990s.
  Mr. President, in past years, Senator Robb and I have introduced 
legislation individually to allow localities to have the ability to 
decide when and under what circumstances waste generated from out-of-
state sources came into their communities for disposal. Today, I am 
pleased that we are renewing our commitment to solving this serious 
problem by working together to introduce this legislation.
  Today, large volumes of waste are traveling from Northeastern states 
to Mid-west and Mid-Atlantic states. Over the past few years, the 
amount of waste traveling across state lines has greatly increased and 
projections are that interstate waste shipments from certain states 
will continue to grow.

[[Page S2285]]

  Most States and localities are responsible in ensuring that adequate 
capacity exists to accommodate municipal waste generated within each 
community. I regret, however, that the evidence available today shows 
that there are specific situations where State and local governments 
are neglecting responsible environmental stewardship.
  The result of this neglect is that other States are bearing the 
burden of disposing of their waste. These State and local governments 
currently have no authority to refuse this waste or even to control the 
amount of waste that is sent for disposal on a daily basis.
  Our legislation recognizes that in the normal course of business is 
it necessary for some amount of waste to travel across State lines, 
particularly in circumstances where there are large urban areas located 
at state borders. Our legislation will not close down State borders or 
prevent any waste shipments.
  States will have, however, for the first time, the ability to 
effectively manage and plan for the disposal out-of-State waste along 
with waste generated within their borders.
  Specifically, our legislation will allow States who are today 
receiving 1 million tons of waste or more to control the growth of 
these waste shipments.
  These States would be permitted to freeze at current levels the 
amount of waste they are receiving or, if they decided, they could 
determine the amount of out-of-State waste they can safely handle. 
Today, they have no voice, but this legislation will give all citizens 
the right to participate in these important waste disposal decisions.
  For all States and localities, protections would be provided to 
ensure that all interstate waste must be handled pursuant to a host 
community agreement. These voluntary agreements between the local 
community receiving the waste and the industry disposing of the waste 
have allowed some local governments to determine waste disposal 
activities within their borders.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
develop a fair and equitable resolution to this problem.
  I encourage my colleagues to carefully review our legislation and I 
welcome their comments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
  S. 535. A bill to amend section 49106(c)(6) of title 49, United 
States Code, to remove a limitation on certain funding; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


       metropolitan washington airports authority improvement act

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
along with Senator Robb, to give Reagan National and Dulles 
International Airports equitable treatment under Federal law that is 
enjoyed today by all of the major commercial airports.
  When the Congress enacted legislation in 1986 to transfer ownership 
of Reagan National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority--and I 
may say, Mr. President, I was a part of that airport commission. It was 
chaired by the former Governor of Virginia, Linwood Holton; Senator 
Sarbanes joined me on that. From that, I drew up this very legislation 
that did the transfer. We included in that legislation that I drafted a 
provision to create a congressional board of review.
  Immediately upon passage of the 1986 Transfer Act, local community 
groups filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the board 
of review. The Supreme Court upheld the lawsuit and concurred that the 
Congressional Board of Review as structured was unconstitutional 
because it gave Members of Congress veto authority over the airport 
decisions. The Court ruled that the functions of the board of review 
was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
  During the 1991 House-Senate conference on the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act, I offered an amendment, which was 
adopted, to attempt to revise the Board of Review to meet the 
constitutional requirements.
  Those provisions were also challenged and again were ruled 
unconstitutional.
  In 1996, in another attempt to address the situation, the Congress 
enacted legislation to repeal the Board of Review since it no longer 
served any function due to several federal court rulings. In its place, 
Congress increased the number of federal appointees to the MWAA Board 
of Directors from 1 to 3 members.
  In addition to the requirement that the Senate confirm the 
appointees, the statute contains a punitive provision which denies all 
federal Airport Improvement Program entitlement grants and passenger 
facility charges to Dulles International and Reagan National if the 
appointees were not confirmed by October 1, 1997.
  Mr. President, the Senate has not confirmed the three Federal 
appointees, Since October, 1997, Dulles International and Reagan 
National, and its customers, have been waiting for the Senate to take 
action. Finally in 1998, the Senate Commerce Committee favorably 
reported the three pending nominations to the Senate for consideration, 
but unfortunately no further action occurred because these nominees 
were held hostage for other unrelated issues. Many speculate that these 
nominees have not been confirmed because of the ongoing delay in 
enacting a long-term FAA reauthorization bill.
  Mr. President, I am not here today to join in that speculation. I do 
want, however, to call to the attention of my colleagues the severe 
financial, safety and consumer service constraints this inaction is 
having on both Dulles and Reagan National.
  As the current law forbids the FAA from approving any AIP entitlement 
grants for construction at the two airports and from approving any 
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) applications, these airports have been 
denied access to over $200 million.
  These are funds that every other airport in the country receives 
annually and are critical to maintaining a quality level of service and 
safety at our Nation's airports. Unlike any other airport in the 
country, federal funds have been withheld from Dulles and Reagan 
National for over 18 months.
  These critically needed funds have halted important construction 
projects at both airports. Of the over $200 million that is due, 
approximately $161 million will fund long-awaited construction projects 
and $40 million is needed to fund associated financing costs.
  I respect the right of the Senate to exercise its constitutional 
duties to confirm the President's nominees to important federal 
positions. I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to link 
the Senate's confirmation process to vitally needed federal dollars to 
operate airports.
  Also, I must say that I can find no justification for the Senate's 
delay in considering the qualifications of these nominees to serve on 
the MWAA Board. To my knowledge, no one has raised concerns about the 
qualifications of the nominees. We are neglecting our duties.
  For this reason, I am introducing legislation today--the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority Improvement Act--to repeal the punitive 
prohibition on releasing Federal funds to the airports until the 
Federal nominees have been confirmed.

  Airports are increasingly competitive. Those that cannot keep up with 
the growing demand see the services go to other airports. This is 
particularly true with respect to international services, and low-fare 
services, both of which are essential.
  As a result of the Senate's inaction, I provide for my colleagues a 
list of the several major projects that are virtually on hold since 
October, 1997. They are as follows:
  At Dulles International there are four major projects necessary for 
the airport to maintain the tremendous growth that is occurring there.
  Main terminal gate concourse: It is necessary to replace the current 
temporary buildings attached to the main terminal with a suitable 
facility. This terminal addition will include passenger hold rooms and 
airline support space. The total cost of this project is $15.4 million, 
with $11.2 million funded by PFCs.
  Passenger access to main terminal: As the Authority continues to keep 
pace with the increased demand for parking and access to the main 
terminal, PFCs

[[Page S2286]]

are necessary to build a connector between a new automobile parking 
facility and the terminal. The total cost of this project is $45.5 
million, with $29.4 million funded by PFCs.
  Improved passenger access between concourse B and main terminal: With 
the construction of a pedestrian tunnel complex between the main 
terminal and the B concourse, the Authority will be able to continue to 
meet passenger demand for access to this facility. Once this project is 
complete, access to concourse B will be exclusively by moving sidewalk, 
and mobile lounge service to this facility will be unnecessary. The 
total cost of this project is $51.1 million, with $46.8 million funded 
by PFCs.
  Increased baggage handling capacity: With increased passenger levels 
come increase demands for handling baggage. PFC funding is necessary to 
construct a new baggage handling area for inbound and outbound 
passengers. The total cost of this project is $38.7 million, with $31.4 
million funded by PFCs.
  At Reagan National there are two major projects that are dependent on 
the Authority's ability to implement passenger facility charges (PFCs).
  Historic main terminal rehabilitation: Even though the new terminal 
at Reagan National was opened last year, the entire Capital Development 
Program will not be complete until the historic main terminal is 
rehabilitated for airline use. This project includes the construction 
of nine air carrier gates, renovation of historic portions of the main 
terminal for continued passenger use and demolition of space that is no 
longer functional. The total cost of this project is $94.2 million with 
$20.7 million to be paid for by AIP entitlement grants and $36.2 
million to be funded with PFCs. Additional airfield work to accompany 
this project will cost $12.2 million, with $5.2 million funded by PFCs.
  Terminal connector expansion: In order to accommodate the increased 
passengers moving between Terminals B and C (the new terminal) and 
Terminal A, it is necessary to expand the ``Connector'' between the two 
buildings. The total cost of the project is $4.8 million, with $4.3 
million funded by PFCs.
  Mr. President, my legislation is aimed at ensuring that necessary 
safety and service improvements proceed at Reagan National and Dulles. 
Let's give them the ability to address consumer needs just like every 
other airport does on a daily basis.
  Mr. President, here is the problem. This legislation does not remove 
the Congress of the United States, and particularly the Senate, from 
the advise-and-consent role, but it allows the money, which we need for 
the modernization of these airports, to flow properly to the airports 
to continue the program of restructuring them physically to accommodate 
somewhat larger traffic patterns, as well as do the necessary 
modernization to achieve safety--most important, safety--and greater 
convenience for the passengers using these two airports.
  Those funds have been held up. It is over $200 million, as my 
colleague from Virginia will join me in saying; $200 million are more 
or less held in escrow pending the confirmation by the Senate of the 
United States of three individuals to this board.
  For reasons known to this body, that confirmation has been held up. 
The confirmation may remain held up. But this legislation will let the 
moneys flow to the airports for this needed construction for safety and 
convenience, and then at a later date, hopefully, we can achieve the 
confirmation of these three new members to the board. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb, is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my senior colleague, 
Senator Warner, in introducing legislation to put an end to the 
strangulation of the Capital region's airports. As Senator Warner just 
indicated, more than $200 million in airport improvements are on hold, 
and have been on hold since October 1, 1997, as part of an effort to 
strong-arm the region into accepting more flights at Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport.
  I believe this tactic is outrageous. It is bad enough that the 
Congress is trying to micromanage local airports. As Governor of 
Virginia, I worked with my now colleague and senior partner, Senator 
Warner, and then-Secretary of Transportation Dole to pass this 
legislation in 1986 designed to get the Federal Government out of the 
airport management business altogether.
  The legislation that was enacted shifted control of the Washington 
airports away from the Federal Government and to a regional authority 
so they could effectively and efficiently manage their own airports, 
just like they do in every other State in the Union.
  Even at that time, though, I was not particularly sanguine about the 
prospect that the Federal Government would not be able to resist the 
temptation to meddle with our local airports for its own ends. So I was 
not surprised at the efforts to add flights to National, and it is no 
secret that, notwithstanding a strong personal friendship that I and my 
senior colleague have with the distinguished chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, we sharply disagree on this particular issue. But to block 
airport improvements and hurt this region's consumers in an attempt to 
force a policy change is simply wrong.
  The Senate has the power to delay airport improvements at National 
and Dulles, because it must approve nominees to the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority that manage both--both--Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport.
  Without the nominees, the airports cannot obtain grants under the 
Airport Improvement Program or use the passenger facility charges to 
fund projects.
  These two programs are the lifeblood of airport funding. So Senate 
inaction on the nominees keeps Dulles and National from making 
improvements that can truly make a difference to consumers.
  Proponents of more flights at National argue they are helping 
consumers. But blocking the nominees blocks major improvements that 
would also help consumers.
  These improvements include easier passenger access between the 
terminals and parking, better access among terminals, improved baggage 
handling, and the renovation of aging facilities.
  We should resolve the issue of the number of flights and the distance 
of flights at National with open debate and not through coercion.
  The legislation Senator Warner and I are proposing today severs the 
link between action on the nominees and action on airport improvements, 
and we urge our colleagues to support this effort.
  Our proposal retains the Senate's role in approving the nominees. So 
if Members have concerns about airport management, those concerns can 
be addressed. But it is simply wrong to hold airport improvements 
hostage. It is time to rescue Dulles and National. We shouldn't allow 
the critical improvements at both airports to remain captive any 
longer.
  I am very pleased to join my senior colleague. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague. This 
Senator, and I hope Senator Robb, is prepared to stand on this floor 
until this measure passes, no matter what it takes.
  Mr. ROBB. I can assure my senior colleague, like a stone wall.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. 535

       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 ``Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports Authority Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF LIMITATION.

       Section 49106(c)(6) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 536. A bill entitled the ``Wendell H. Ford National Air 
Transportation System Improvement Act of 1999''; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

[[Page S2287]]

 wendell h. ford national air transportation system improvement act of 
                                  1999

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues 
my strong opposition and serious concerns about safety and service 
impacts resulting from S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. 
This legislation has been reported from the Commerce Committee and 
reauthorizes the activities of the Federal Aviation Administration.
  My remarks today will focus on the unwise provisions included in this 
bill which tear apart the Perimeter and High Density rules at Reagan 
National Airport. These rules have been in effect--either in regulation 
or in statute--for nearly 30 years. Since 1986, these rules have been a 
critical ingredient in providing for significant capital investments 
and a balance in service among this region's three airports--Dulles 
International, Reagan National, and Baltimore-Washington International.
  First and foremost, I believe these existing rules have greatly 
benefitted the traveling public--the consumer. The provisions in the 
Committee bill will severely reduce the level of service that Reagan 
National now provides and, as a result, consumer convenience in air 
travel will suffer greatly.
  The provisions in S. 82 differ dramatically from the provisions 
included in the legislation the Senate passed last year by a vote of 92 
to 1. Of the four slot-controlled airports in the country--Reagan 
National, O'Hare International in Chicago, and Kennedy and LaGuardia in 
New York--only Reagan National received a significant increase in take-
off and landing slots from last year's bill--24 per day to 48 per day.
  This increase is unjustified and not supported by any evidence that 
it is needed. Today, Reagan National handles approximately 800 take-off 
and landing operations per day, Chicago's O'Hare handles approximately 
2,000 take-off and landing operations per day. Yet, in the Committee-
reported bill Reagan National would receive another 48 slots while 
O'Hare would receive only another 30 slots per day. This is a 
disproportionate increase especially when one compares the size and 
daily operations of the airports. Again, at New York's Kennedy and 
LaGuardia, there are no changes in this year's bill from the provisions 
included in the bill passed by the Senate last year.
  Mr. President, to gain a full understanding of the severe impact that 
these changes will have on our regional airports, one must examine the 
recent history of these three airports. Prior to 1986, Dulles and 
Reagan National were federally-owned and managed by the FAA. The level 
of service provided at these airports was deplorable. At National, 
consumers were routinely subject to traffic gridlock, insufficient 
parking, and routine flight cancellations and delays. Dulles was an 
isolated, underutilized airport.
  For years, the debate raged within the FAA and the surrounding 
communities about the future of Reagan National. Should it be improved, 
expanded or closed? This ongoing uncertainly produced an atmosphere 
where no investments were made in National and Dulles and service 
continued to deteriorate.
  A national commission, now known as the Holton Commission, was 
created in 1984 and led by former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton and 
former Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole to resolve these 
long-standing controversies which plagued both airports. The result was 
a recommendation to transfer Federal ownership of the airports so that 
sorely needed capital investments to improve safety and service could 
be made.
  I was pleased to have participated in the development of the 1986 
legislation to transfer operations of these airports to a regional 
authority. It was a fair compromise of the many issues which had 
stalled any improvements at both airports over the years. The 
regulatory High Density Rule was placed in the statute so that neither 
the FAA nor the Authority could change it unilaterally. The previous 
passenger cap was repealed, thereby ending growth controls, in exchange 
for a freeze on slots. Lastly, the perimeter rule at 1,250 miles was 
established.

  For those interested in securing capital investments at both 
airports, the transfer of these airports under a long-term lease 
arrangement to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority gave MWAA 
the power to sell bonds to finance the long-overdue work. The Authority 
has sold millions of dollars in bonds which has financed the new 
terminal, rehabilitation of the existing terminal, a new control tower 
and parking facilities at Reagan National.
  These improvements would not have been possible without the 1986 
Transfer Act which included the High Density Rule, and the Perimeter 
Rule. Limitations on operations at National had long been in effect 
through FAA regulations, but now were part of the balanced compromise 
in the Transfer Act.
  For those who feared significant increases in flight activity at 
National and who for years had prevented any significant investments in 
National, they were now willing to support major rehabilitation work at 
National to improve service. They were satisfied that these guarantees 
would ensure that Reagan National would not become another ``Dulles or 
BWI''. Citizens had received legislative assurances that there would be 
no growth at Reagan National in terms of permitted scheduled flights 
beyond on the 37-per-hour-limit.
  These critical decisions in the 1986 Transfer Act were made to fix 
both the aircraft activity level at Reagan National and to set its role 
as a short/medium haul airport. These compromises served to insulate 
the airport from its long history of competing efforts to increase and 
to decrease its use.
  Since the transfer, the Authority has worked to maintain the balance 
in service between Dulles and Reagan National. The limited growth 
principle for Reagan National has been executed by the Authority in all 
of its planning assumptions and the Master Plan. While we have all 
witnessed the transformation of National into a quality airport today, 
these improvements in terminals, the control tower and parking 
facilities were all determined to meet the needs of this airport for 
the foreseeable future based on the continuation of the High Density 
and Perimeter rules. These improvements, however, have purposely not 
included an increase in the number of gates for aircraft or airfield 
capacity.
  Prior to the 1986 Transfer Act, while National was mired in 
controversy and poor service, Dulles was identified as the region's 
growth airport. Under FAA rules and the Department of Transportation's 
1981 Metropolitan Washington Airports Policy, it was recognized that 
Dulles had the capacity for growth and a suitable environment to 
accommodate this growth. Following enactment of the Transfer Act, 
plans, capital investments and bonding decisions made by the Authority 
all factored in the High Density and Perimeter rules.
  Mr. President, I provide this history on the issues which stalled 
improvements at the region's airports in the 1970s and 1980s because it 
is important to understanding how these airports have operated so 
effectively over the past thirteen years.
  Everyone one of us should ask ourselves if the 1986 Transfer Act has 
met our expectations. For me, the answer is a resounding yes. Long-
overdue capital investments have been made in Reagan National and 
Dulles. The surrounding communities have been given an important voice 
in the management of these airports. We have seen unprecedented 
stability in the growth of both airports. Most importantly, the 
consumer has benefitted by enhanced service at Reagan National.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose the Committee bill to add 48 
slots, or another 16,000 flights annually, at Reagan National. There is 
no justification for an increase of this size. It is not recommended by 
the Administration, by the airline industry, by the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority or by the consumer.
  Last year, I cautiously supported a modest increase in flights at 
Reagan National because I believed it was a fair compromise of the many 
competing demands in the airline industry today. While many of my 
constituents strongly opposed this limited increase in aircraft 
activity at National, I came to the conclusion that this growth could 
be accommodated without significantly disrupting consumer services or 
safety.
  Mr. President, I deeply regret that the Committee did not include in 
S.82 the provisions from last year's bill which was the result of an 
agreement

[[Page S2288]]

between the Chairman, the Majority Leader and those of us representing 
this region. I am prepared today to stand behind our agreement and will 
continue to work with the Commerce Committee to ensure that they 
understand how detrimental this excessive increase in flights will be 
for our hard-fought regional balance, air traffic safety and consumer 
service.
  At a time when the Committee is considering legislation to protect 
air travel consumer rights, why are we considering legislation that 
will do nothing but severely disrupt consumer services at Reagan 
National?
  The capital improvements made at Reagan National since the 1986 
Transfer Act have not expanded the 44 gates or expanded airfield 
capacity. All of the improvements that have been made have been on the 
landside of the airport. No improvements have been made to accommodate 
increase aircraft capacity. Expanding flights at National to a level 
included in the Committee bill will simply ``turn back the clock'' at 
National to the days of traffic gridlock, overcrowded terminal activity 
and flight delays--all to the detriment of the traveling public.
  This ill-advised scheme is sure to return Reagan National to an 
airport plagued by delays and inconvenience. This proposal threatens to 
overwhelm the new facilities, just as the previous facilities were 
overwhelmed. However, now it would be worse. Now, we would be facing 
increased aircraft delays. There would be delays and inconvenience both 
on the ground and in the air.
  Any discussion of operations at Reagan National cannot occur without 
a recognition of the impact these increased flights will have on 
aircraft noise. One of the principal reasons why many in the Washington 
region were so wary of improvements at Reagan National, making it more 
attractive for additional flights and increased noise levels, appears 
to be coming true.
  My colleagues will attempt to persuade you that these new flights, 
based on noise measurement techniques, will not result in noticeable 
increases in noise levels. The plain fact is that the increased flights 
included in the Committee bill will result in about 16,000 new flights 
each year at Reagan National. Do any of us believe that 16,000 new 
flights will not result in a ``noticeable'' increase in noise.
  Mr. President, I regret that I must oppose the recommendations of the 
Commerce Committee to add another 48 slots at Reagan National. This is 
an unjustified increase that has not been thoroughly examined by the 
FAA. I believe it has the very real possibility of jeopardizing the 
significant improvements made at Reagan National in the past 10 years 
and will return the airport to the days of poor service, delays and 
overcrowding.
  The current temporary extension of FAA activities and AIP funding 
expires at the end of this month. I readily recognize that the Congress 
must move forward with a full reauthorization proposal. Due to the 
press of time, it is regrettable that the Committee has decided to make 
such a significant change from last year's bill. This new approach does 
not aid our efforts to enact a full FAA reauthorization bill for our 
communities.
  For these reasons, I am introducing today the FAA legislation passed 
by the Senate last September by a vote of 92 to 1. It provides for a 
modest increase in flights at Reagan National both inside and beyond 
the 1,250-mile perimeter.
  Mr. President, I also intend to exercise all of my rights and engage 
in an extensive debate on these important issues.
  Mr. President, this bill is exactly the bill passed by the U.S. 
Senate last year with a vote of 91 Senators to 1 no vote.
  Mr. President, this is the bill which said that there shall be 24 
slots in the judgment of the Senate. It was to go to the House, which 
it did. The House and the Senate could not reconcile their differences. 
I worked very carefully with Senator McCain. I want to make it clear we 
had an understanding that I would support this bill of 24 even though I 
felt the slots were too many.
  I had every reason to believe that in the negotiations with the 
House, the number of slots would come down below 24--usually the House 
and Senate split their differences--to, say 12, which although I still 
would not like to see 12 additional slots, for safety and other 
reasons, 90 other Senators felt there should be additional slots.
  So recognizing the preponderance of the Senate wanted additional 
slots, I was willing to accept. Senator McCain did not break his deal 
with me because the House would not accept any. So now he will soon be 
back here on the floor, presumably with another bill for 48 slots. I 
think that is too high. My bill hopefully will be put on as an 
amendment, as a substitute, in the course of that deliberation.
  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. 536

       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 SECTIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Wendell H. 
     Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act of 
     1998''.
       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Amendments to title 49, United States Code.

                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 101. Federal Aviation Administration operations.
Sec. 102. Air navigation facilities and equipment.
Sec. 103. Airport planning and development and noise compatibility 
              planning and programs.
Sec. 104. Reprogramming notification requirement.
Sec. 105. Airport security program.
Sec. 106. Contract tower programs
Sec. 107. Automated surface observation system stations.

            TITLE II--AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

Sec. 201. Removal of the cap on discretionary fund.
Sec. 202. Innovative use of airport grant funds.
Sec. 203. Matching share.
Sec. 204. Increase in apportionment for noise compatibility planning 
              and programs.
Sec. 205. Technical amendments.
Sec. 206. Repeal of period of applicability.
Sec. 207. Report on efforts to implement capacity enhancements.
Sec. 208. Prioritization of discretionary projects.
Sec. 209. Public notice before grant assurance requirement waived.
Sec. 210. Definition of public aircraft.
Sec. 211. Terminal development costs.
Sec. 212. Airfield pavement conditions.
Sec. 213. Discretionary grants.

                 TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO AVIATION LAW

Sec. 301. Severable services contracts for periods crossing fiscal 
              years.
Sec. 302. Foreign carriers eligible for waiver under Airport Noise and 
              Capacity Act.
Sec. 303. Government and industry consortia.
Sec. 304. Implementation of Article 83 Bis of the Chicago Convention.
Sec. 305. Foreign aviation services authority.
Sec. 306. Flexibility to perform criminal history record checks; 
              technical amendments to Pilot Records Improvement Act.
Sec. 307. Aviation insurance program amendments.
Sec. 308. Technical corrections to civil penalty provisions.
Sec. 309. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation 
              without an airman's certificate.
Sec. 310. Nondiscriminatory interline interconnection requirements.

                TITLE IV--TITLE 49 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Sec. 401. Restatement of 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
Sec. 402. Restatement of 49 U.S.C. 44909.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Oversight of FAA response to year 2000 problem.
Sec. 502. Cargo collision avoidance systems deadline.
Sec. 503. Runway safety areas; precision approach path indicators.
Sec. 504. Airplane emergency locators.
Sec. 505. Counterfeit aircraft parts.
Sec. 506. FAA may fine unruly passengers.
Sec. 507. Higher standards for handicapped access.
Sec. 508. Conveyances of United States Government land.
Sec. 509. Flight operations quality assurance rules.
Sec. 510. Wide area augmentation system.
Sec. 511. Regulation of Alaska air guides.
Sec. 512. Application of FAA regulations.
Sec. 513. Human factors program.
Sec. 514. Independent validation of FAA costs and allocations.
Sec. 515. Whistleblower protection for FAA employees.
Sec. 516. Report on modernization of oceanic ATC system.
Sec. 517. Report on air transportation oversight system.

[[Page S2289]]

Sec. 518. Recycling of EIS.
Sec. 519. Protection of employees providing air safety information.
Sec. 520. Improvements to air navigation facilities.
Sec. 521. Denial of airport access to certain air carriers.
Sec. 522. Tourism.
Sec. 523. Equivalency of FAA and EU safety standards.
Sec. 524. Sense of the Senate on property taxes on public-use airports.
Sec. 525. Federal Aviation Administration Personnel Management System.
Sec. 526. Aircraft and aviation component repair and maintenance 
              advisory panel.
Sec. 527. Report on enhanced domestic airline competition.
Sec. 528. Aircraft situational display data.
Sec. 529. To express the sense of the Senate concerning a bilateral 
              agreement between the United States and the United 
              Kingdom regarding Charlotte-London route.
Sec. 530. To express the sense of the Senate concerning a bilateral 
              agreement between the United States and the United 
              Kingdom regarding Cleveland-London route.
Sec. 531. Allocation of Trust Fund funding.
Sec. 532. Taos Pueblo and Blue Lakes Wilderness Area demonstration 
              project.
Sec. 533. Airline marketing disclosure.
Sec. 534. Certain air traffice control towers.
Sec. 535. Compensation under the Death on the High Seas Act.

                TITLE VI--AVIATION COMPETITION PROMOTION

Sec. 601. Purpose.
Sec. 602. Establishment of small community aviation development 
              program.
Sec. 603. Community-carrier air service program.
Sec. 604. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 605. Marketing practices.
Sec. 606. Slot exemptions for nonstop regional jet service.
Sec. 607. Exemptions to perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington 
              National Airport.
Sec. 608. Additional slot exemptions at Chicago O'Hare International 
              Airport.
Sec. 609. Consumer notification of e-ticket expiration dates.
Sec. 610. Joint venture agreements.
Sec. 611. Regional air service incentive options.
Sec. 612. GAO study of air transportation needs.

                  TITLE VII--NATIONAL PARK OVERFLIGHTS

Sec. 701. Findings.
Sec. 702. Air tour management plans for national parks.
Sec. 703. Advisory group.
Sec. 704. Overflight fee report.
Sec. 705. Prohibition of commercial air tours over the Rocky Mountain 
              National Park.

             TITLE VIII--CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT COMMEMORATION

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings.
Sec. 803. Establishment.
Sec. 804. Membership.
Sec. 805. Duties.
Sec. 806. Powers.
Sec. 807. Staff and support services.
Sec. 808. Contributions.
Sec. 809. Exclusive right to name, logos, emblems, seals, and marks.
Sec. 810. Reports.
Sec. 811. Audit of financial transactions.
Sec. 812. Advisory board.
Sec. 813. Definitions.
Sec. 814. Termination.
Sec. 815. Authorization of appropriations.

   TITLE IX--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE 
                               AUTHORITY

Sec. 901. Extension of expenditure authority.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision, 
     the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of title 49, United States Code.
                        TITLE I--AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 101. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 106(k) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations for Operations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Transportation for operations of the 
     Administration $5,631,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and 
     $5,784,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1999, not more 
     than $9,100,000 shall be used to support air safety efforts 
     through payment of United States membership obligations, to 
     be paid as soon as practicable.
       ``(2) Authorized expenditures.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     under paragraph (1) $450,000 may be used for wildlife hazard 
     mitigation measures and management of the wildlife strike 
     database of the Federal Aviation Administration.
       ``(3) University consortium.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated not more than $9,100,000 for the 3 fiscal year 
     period beginning with fiscal year 1999 to support a 
     university consortium established to provide an air safety 
     and security management certificate program, working 
     cooperatively with the Federal Aviation Administration and 
     United States air carriers. Funds authorized under this 
     paragraph--
       ``(A) may not be used for the construction of a building or 
     other facility; and
       ``(B) shall be awarded on the basis of open competition.''.
       (b) Coordination.--The authority granted the Secretary 
     under section 41717 of title 49, United States Code, does not 
     affect the Secretary's authority under any other provision of 
     law.

     SEC. 102. AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 48101(a) is amended by striking 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) for fiscal year 1999--
       ``(A) $222,800,000 for engineering, development, test, and 
     evaluation: en route programs;
       ``(B) $74,700,000 for engineering, development, test, and 
     evaluation: terminal programs;
       ``(C) $108,000,000 for engineering, development, test, and 
     evaluation: landing and navigational aids;
       ``(D) $17,790,000 for engineering, development, test, and 
     evaluation: research, test, and evaluation equipment and 
     facilities programs;
       ``(E) $391,358,300 for air traffic control facilities and 
     equipment: en route programs;
       ``(F) $492,315,500 for air traffic control facilities and 
     equipment: terminal programs;
       ``(G) $38,764,400 for air traffic control facilities and 
     equipment: flight services programs;
       ``(H) $50,500,000 for air traffic control facilities and 
     equipment: other ATC facilities programs;
       ``(I) $162,400,000 for non-ATC facilities and equipment 
     programs;
       ``(J) $14,500,000 for training and equipment facilities 
     programs;
       ``(K) $280,800,000 for mission support programs;
       ``(L) $235,210,000 for personnel and related expenses; and
       ``(2) $2,189,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
       (b) Continuation of ILS Inventory Program.--Section 
     44502(a)(4)(B) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``fiscal years 1995 and 1996'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 1999 and 2000''; and
       (2) by striking ``acquisition,'' and inserting 
     ``acquisition under new or existing contracts,''.
       (c) Life-Cycle Cost Estimates.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall establish life-cycle 
     cost estimates for any air traffic control modernization 
     project the total life-cycle costs of which equal or exceed 
     $50,000,000.

     SEC. 103. AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE 
                   COMPATIBILITY PLANNING AND PROGRAMS.

       (a) Extension and Authorization.--Section 48103 is amended 
     by--
       (1) striking ``September 30, 1996,'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 1998,''; and
       (2) striking ``$2,280,000,000 for fiscal years ending 
     before October 1, 1997, and $4,627,000,000 for fiscal years 
     ending before October 1, 1998.'' and inserting 
     ``$2,410,000,000 for fiscal years ending before October 1, 
     1999 and $4,885,000,000 for fiscal years ending before 
     October 1, 2000.''.
       (b) Project Grant Authority.--Section 47104(c) is amended 
     by striking ``1998,'' and inserting ``2002,''.

     SEC. 104. REPROGRAMMING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       Before reprogramming any amounts appropriated under section 
     106(k), 48101(a), or 48103 of title 49, United States Code, 
     for which notification of the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives is required, the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall submit a written 
     explanation of the proposed reprogramming to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives.

     SEC. 105. AIRPORT SECURITY PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 471 (as amended by section 202(a) 
     of this Act) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 47136. Airport security program

       ``(a) General Authority.--To improve security at public 
     airports in the United States, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall carry out not less than 1 project to 
     test and evaluate innovative airport security systems and 
     related technology.
       ``(b) Priority.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall give the highest priority to a request from 
     an eligible sponsor for a grant to undertake a project that--
       ``(1) evaluates and tests the benefits of innovative 
     airport security systems or related technology, including 
     explosives detection systems, for the purpose of improving 
     airport and aircraft physical security and access control; 
     and
       ``(2) provides testing and evaluation of airport security 
     systems and technology in an operational, test bed 
     environment.
       ``(c) Matching Share.--Notwithstanding section 47109, the 
     United States Government's share of allowable project costs 
     for a project under this section is 100 percent.

[[Page S2290]]

       ``(d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may establish 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate for carrying out a project under this section, 
     including terms and conditions relating to the form and 
     content of a proposal for a project, project assurances, and 
     schedule of payments.
       ``(e) Eligible Sponsor Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `eligible sponsor' means a nonprofit corporation composed of 
     a consortium of public and private persons, including a 
     sponsor of a primary airport, with the necessary engineering 
     and technical expertise to successfully conduct the testing 
     and evaluation of airport and aircraft related security 
     systems.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts made 
     available to the Secretary under section 47115 in a fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall make available not less than 
     $5,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for such 
     chapter (as amended by section 202(b) of this Act) is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 47135 the 
     following:

``47136. Airport security program.''.

     SEC. 106. CONTRACT TOWER PROGRAM.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 
     Federal Contract Tower Program under title 49, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 107. AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVATION SYSTEM STATIONS.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall not terminate human weather observers for Automated 
     Surface Observation System stations until--
       (1) the Secretary of Transportation determines that the 
     System provides consistent reporting of changing 
     meteorological conditions and notifies the Congress in 
     writing of that determination; and
       (2) 60 days have passed since the report was submitted to 
     the Congress.
            TITLE II--AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 201. REMOVAL OF THE CAP ON DISCRETIONARY FUND.

       Section 47115(g) is amended by striking paragraph (4).

     SEC. 202. INNOVATIVE USE OF AIRPORT GRANT FUNDS.

       (a) Codification and Improvement of 1996 Program.--
     Subchapter I of chapter 471 is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 47135. Innovative financing techniques

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation is 
     authorized to carry out a demonstration program under which 
     the Secretary may approve applications under this subchapter 
     for not more than 20 projects for which grants received under 
     the subchapter may be used to implement innovative financing 
     techniques.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the demonstration program 
     shall be to provide information on the use of innovative 
     financing techniques for airport development projects.
       ``(c) Limitation--In no case shall the implementation of an 
     innovative financing technique under this section be used in 
     a manner giving rise to a direct or indirect guarantee of any 
     airport debt instrument by the United States Government.
       ``(d) Innovative Financing Technique Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `innovative financing technique' includes 
     methods of financing projects that the Secretary determines 
     may be beneficial to airport development, including--
       ``(1) payment of interest;
       ``(2) commercial bond insurance and other credit 
     enhancement associated with airport bonds for eligible 
     airport development; and
       ``(3) flexible non-Federal matching requirements.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     471 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 47134 the following:

``47135. Innovative financing techniques.''.

     SEC. 203. MATCHING SHARE.

       Section 47109(a)(2) is amended by inserting ``not more 
     than'' before ``90 percent''.

     SEC. 204. INCREASE IN APPORTIONMENT FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY 
                   PLANNING AND PROGRAMS.

       Section 47117(e)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``31'' each 
     time it appears and substituting ``35''.

     SEC. 205. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Use of Apportionments for Alaska, Puerto Rico, and 
     Hawaii.--Section 47114(d)(3) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) An amount apportioned under paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection for airports in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico may 
     be made available by the Secretary for any public airport in 
     those respective jurisdictions.''.
       (b) Supplemental Apportionment for Alaska.--Section 
     47114(e) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Alternative'' in the subsection caption 
     and inserting ``Supplemental'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by--
       (A) striking ``Instead of apportioning amounts for airports 
     in Alaska under'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding''; and
       (B) striking ``those airports'' and inserting ``airports in 
     Alaska''; and
       (3) striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) An amount apportioned under this subsection may be 
     used for any public airport in Alaska.''.
       (c) Repeal of Apportionment Limitation on Commercial 
     Service Airports in Alaska.--Section 47117 is amended by 
     striking subsection (f) and redesignating subsections (g) and 
     (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.
       (d) Discretionary Fund Definition.--
       (1) Section 47115 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``25'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``12.5''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence in subsection (b).
       (2) Section 47116 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``75'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``87.5'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) in subsection 
     (b) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and inserting 
     before subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, the following:
       ``(1) one-seventh for grants for projects at small hub 
     airports (as defined in section 41731 of this title); and
       ``(2) the remaining amounts based on the following:''.
       (e) Continuation of Project Funding.--Section 47108 is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(e) Change in Airport Status.--If the status of a primary 
     airport changes to a nonprimary airport at a time when a 
     development project under a multiyear agreement under 
     subsection (a) is not yet completed, the project shall remain 
     eligible for funding from discretionary funds under section 
     47115 of this title at the funding level and under the terms 
     provided by the agreement, subject to the availability of 
     funds.''.
       (f) Grant Eligibility for Private Reliever Airports.--
     Section 47102(17)(B) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i) and 
     redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (2) inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) a privately-owned airport that, as a reliever 
     airport, received Federal aid for airport development prior 
     to October 9, 1996, but only if the Administrator issues 
     revised administrative guidance after July 1, 1998, for the 
     designation of reliever airports; or''.
       (g) Reliever Airports Not Eligible for Letters of Intent.--
     Section 47110(e)(1) is amended by striking ``or reliever''.
       (h) Passenger Facility Fee Waiver for Certain Class of 
     Carriers.--Section 40117(e)(2) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (B);
       (2) by striking ``payment.'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``payment; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(D) in Alaska aboard an aircraft having a seating 
     capacity of less than 20 passengers.''.
       (i) Passenger Facility Fee Waiver for Certain Class of 
     Carriers or for Service to Airports in Isolated 
     Communities.--Section 40117(i) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking ``transportation.'' in paragraph (2)(D) and 
     inserting ``transportation; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(3) may permit a public agency to request that collection 
     of a passenger facility fee be waived for--
       ``(A) passengers enplaned by any class of air carrier or 
     foreign air carrier if the number of passengers enplaned by 
     the carriers in the class constitutes not more than one 
     percent of the total number of passengers enplaned annually 
     at the airport at which the fee is imposed; or
       ``(B) passengers enplaned on a flight to an airport--
       ``(i) that has fewer than 2,500 passenger boardings each 
     year and receives scheduled passenger service; or
       ``(ii) in a community which has a population of less than 
     10,000 and is not connected by a land highway or vehicular 
     way to the land-connected National Highway System within a 
     State.''.
       (j) Use of the Word ``gift'' and Priority for Airports in 
     Surplus Property Disposal.--
       (1) Section 47151 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``give'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``convey to'';
       (B) by striking ``gift'' in subsection (a)(2) and inserting 
     ``conveyance'';
       (C) by striking ``giving'' in subsection (b) and inserting 
     ``conveying'';
       (D) by striking ``gift'' in subsection (b) and inserting 
     ``conveyance''; and
       (E) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(d) Priority for Public Airports.--Except for requests 
     from another Federal agency, a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the Executive Branch of the United States 
     Government shall give priority to a request by a public 
     agency (as defined in section 47102 of this title) for 
     surplus property described in subsection (a) of this section 
     for use at a public airport.''.
       (2) Section 47152 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``gifts'' in the section caption and 
     inserting ``conveyances''; and
       (B) by striking ``gift'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``conveyance''.
       (3) The chapter analysis for chapter 471 is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 47152 and inserting the 
     following:

``47152. Terms of conveyances.''.

       (4) Section 47153(a) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``gift'' in paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``conveyance'';

[[Page S2291]]

       (B) by striking ``given'' in paragraph (1)(A) and inserting 
     ``conveyed''; and
       (C) by striking ``gift'' in paragraph (1)(B) and inserting 
     ``conveyance''.
       (k) Apportionment for Cargo Only Airports.--Section 
     47114(c)(2)(A) is amended by striking ``2.5 percent'' and 
     inserting ``3 percent''.
       (l) Flexibility in Pavement Design Standards.--Section 
     47114(d) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(4) The Secretary may permit the use of State highway 
     specifications for airfield pavement construction using funds 
     made available under this subsection at nonprimary airports 
     with runways of 5,000 feet or shorter serving aircraft that 
     do not exceed 60,000 pounds gross weight, if the Secretary 
     determines that--
       ``(A) safety will not be negatively affected; and
       ``(B) the life of the pavement will not be shorter than it 
     would be if constructed using Administration standards.
     An airport may not seek funds under this subchapter for 
     runway rehabilitation or reconstruction of any such airfield 
     pavement constructed using State highway specifications for a 
     period of 10 years after construction is completed.''.

     SEC. 206. REPEAL OF PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY.

       Section 125 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 
     1996 (49 U.S.C. 47114 note) is repealed.

     SEC. 207. REPORT ON EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT CAPACITY 
                   ENHANCEMENTS.

       Within 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall report to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives on efforts by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to implement capacity enhancements and 
     improvements, such as precision runway monitoring systems, 
     and the time frame for implementation of such enhancements 
     and improvements.

     SEC. 208. PRIORITIZATION OF DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS.

       Section 47120 is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Discretionary Funding To Be Used for Higher Priority 
     Projects.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall discourage airport sponsors and airports 
     from using entitlement funds for lower priority projects by 
     giving lower priority to discretionary projects submitted by 
     airport sponsors and airports that have used entitlement 
     funds for projects that have a lower priority than the 
     projects for which discretionary funds are being 
     requested.''.

     SEC. 209. PUBLIC NOTICE BEFORE GRANT ASSURANCE REQUIREMENT 
                   WAIVED.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     to the contrary, the Secretary of Transportation may not 
     waive any assurance required under section 47107 of title 49, 
     United States Code, that requires property to be used for 
     aeronautical purposes unless the Secretary provides notice to 
     the public not less than 30 days before issuing any such 
     waiver. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     authorize the Secretary to issue a waiver of any assurance 
     required under that section.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section applies to any request 
     filed on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 210. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AIRCRAFT.

       Section 40102(a)(37)(B)(ii) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
       (2) by striking the ``States.'' in subclause (II) and 
     inserting ``States; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:

       ``(III) transporting persons aboard the aircraft if the 
     aircraft is operated for the purpose of prisoner 
     transport.''.

     SEC. 211. TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS.

       Section 40117 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(j) Shell of Terminal Building.--In order to enable 
     additional air service by an air carrier with less than 50 
     percent of the scheduled passenger traffic at an airport, the 
     Secretary may consider the shell of a terminal building 
     (including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) and 
     aircraft fueling facilities adjacent to an airport terminal 
     building to be an eligible airport-related project under 
     subsection (a)(3)(E).''.

     SEC. 212. AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONDITIONS.

       (a) Evaluation of Options.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall evaluate options for 
     improving the quality of information available to the 
     Administration on airfield pavement conditions for airports 
     that are part of the national air transportation system, 
     including--
       (1) improving the existing runway condition information 
     contained in the Airport Safety Data Program by reviewing and 
     revising rating criteria and providing increased training for 
     inspectors;
       (2) requiring such airports to submit pavement condition 
     index information as part of their airport master plan or as 
     support in applications for airport improvement grants; and
       (3) requiring all such airports to submit pavement 
     condition index information on a regular basis and using this 
     information to create a pavement condition database that 
     could be used in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of project 
     applications and forecasting anticipated pavement needs.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Administrator shall transmit a 
     report, containing an evaluation of such options, to the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 213. DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.

       Notwithstanding any limitation on the amount of funds that 
     may be expended for grants for noise abatement, if any funds 
     made available under section 48103 of title 49, United States 
     Code, remain available at the end of the fiscal year for 
     which those funds were made available, and are not allocated 
     under section 47115 of that title, or under any other 
     provision relating to the awarding of discretionary grants 
     from unobligated funds made available under section 48103 of 
     that title, the Secretary of Transportation may use those 
     funds to make discretionary grants for noise abatement 
     activities.
                 TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO AVIATION LAW

     SEC. 301. SEVERABLE SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR PERIODS CROSSING 
                   FISCAL YEARS.

       (a) Chapter 401 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 40125. Severable services contracts for periods 
       crossing fiscal years

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration may enter into a contract for 
     procurement of severable services for a period that begins in 
     one fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year if (without 
     regard to any option to extend the period of the contract) 
     the contract period does not exceed one year.
       ``(b) Obligation of Funds.--Funds made available for a 
     fiscal year may be obligated for the total amount of a 
     contract entered into under the authority of subsection (a) 
     of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     401 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``40125. Severable services contracts for periods crossing fiscal 
              years.''.

     SEC. 302. FOREIGN CARRIERS ELIGIBLE FOR WAIVER UNDER AIRPORT 
                   NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT.

       The first sentence of section 47528(b)(1) is amended by 
     inserting ``or foreign air carrier'' after ``air carrier'' 
     the first place it appears and after ``carrier'' the first 
     place it appears.

     SEC. 303. GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY CONSORTIA.

       Section 44903 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(f) Government and Industry Consortia.--The Administrator 
     may establish at airports such consortia of government and 
     aviation industry representatives as the Administrator may 
     designate to provide advice on matters related to aviation 
     security and safety. Such consortia shall not be considered 
     federal advisory committees for purposes of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).''.

     SEC. 304. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 83 BIS OF THE CHICAGO 
                   CONVENTION.

       Section 44701 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Bilateral Exchanges of Safety Oversight 
     Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, and 
     pursuant to Article 83 bis of the Convention on International 
     Civil Aviation, the Administrator may, by a bilateral 
     agreement with the aeronautical authorities of another 
     country, exchange with that country all or part of their 
     respective functions and duties with respect to aircraft 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), under the following 
     articles of the Convention:
       ``(A) Article 12 (Rules of the Air).
       ``(B) Article 31 (Certificates of Airworthiness).
       ``(C) Article 32a (Licenses of Personnel).
     ``(2) The agreement under paragraph (1) may apply to--
       ``(A) aircraft registered in the United States operated 
     pursuant to an agreement for the lease, charter, or 
     interchange of the aircraft or any similar arrangement by an 
     operator that has its principal place of business, or, if it 
     has no such place of business, its permanent residence, in 
     another country; or
       ``(B) aircraft registered in a foreign country operated 
     under an agreement for the lease, charter, or interchange of 
     the aircraft or any similar arrangement by an operator that 
     has its principal place of business, or, if it has no such 
     place of business, its permanent residence, in the United 
     States.
       ``(3) The Administrator relinquishes responsibility with 
     respect to the functions and duties transferred by the 
     Administrator as specified in the bilateral agreement, under 
     the Articles listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection for 
     United States-registered aircraft transferred abroad as 
     described in subparagraph (A) of that paragraph, and accepts 
     responsibility with respect to the functions and duties under 
     those Articles for aircraft registered abroad that are 
     transferred to the United States as described in subparagraph 
     (B) of that paragraph.
       ``(4) The Administrator may, in the agreement under 
     paragraph (1), predicate the transfer of these functions and 
     duties on any conditions the Administrator deems necessary 
     and prudent.''.

[[Page S2292]]

     SEC. 305. FOREIGN AVIATION SERVICES AUTHORITY.

       Section 45301 is amended by striking ``government.'' in 
     subsection (a)(2) and inserting ``government or to any entity 
     obtaining services outside the United States.''.

     SEC. 306. FLEXIBILITY TO PERFORM CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD 
                   CHECKS; TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO PILOT RECORDS 
                   IMPROVEMENT ACT.

       Section 44936 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``subparagraph (C))'' in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B) and inserting ``subparagraph (C), or in the case of 
     passenger, baggage, or property screening at airports, the 
     Administrator decides it is necessary to ensure air 
     transportation security)'';
       (2) by striking ``individual'' in subsection (f)(1)(B)(ii) 
     and inserting ``individual's performance as a pilot''; and
       (3) by inserting ``or from a foreign government or entity 
     that employed the individual,'' in subsection (f)(14)(B) 
     after ``exists,''.

     SEC. 307. AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Reimbursement of Insured Party's Subrogee.--Subsection 
     (a) of 44309 is amended--
       (1) by striking the subsection caption and the first 
     sentence, and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Losses.--
       ``(1) A person may bring a civil action in a district court 
     of the United States or in the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims against the United States Government when--
       ``(A) a loss insured under this chapter is in dispute; or
       ``(B)(i) the person is subrogated to the rights against the 
     United States Government of a party insured under this 
     chapter (other than under subsection 44305(b) of this title), 
     under a contract between the person and such insured party; 
     and
       ``(ii) the person has paid to such insured party, with the 
     approval of the Secretary of Transportation, an amount for a 
     physical damage loss that the Secretary of Transportation has 
     determined is a loss covered under insurance issued under 
     this chapter (other than insurance issued under subsection 
     44305(b) of this title).''; and
       (2) by resetting the remainder of the subsection as a new 
     paragraph and inserting ``(2)'' before ``A civil action''.
       (b) Extension of Aviation Insurance Program.--Section 44310 
     is amended by striking ``1998.'' and inserting ``2003.''.

     SEC. 308. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO CIVIL PENALTY PROVISIONS.

       Section 46301 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``46302, 46303, or'' in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A);
       (2) by striking ``individual'' the first time it appears in 
     subsection (d)(7)(A) and inserting ``person''; and
       (3) by inserting ``or the Administrator'' in subsection (g) 
     after ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 309. CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR PILOTS OPERATING IN AIR 
                   TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT AN AIRMAN'S CERTIFICATE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 463 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air 
       transportation without an airman's certificate

       ``(a) Application.--This section applies only to aircraft 
     used to provide air transportation.
       ``(b) General Criminal Penalty.--An individual shall be 
     fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 3 years, 
     or both, if that individual--
       ``(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve 
     in any capacity as an airman without an airman's certificate 
     authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or
       ``(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses 
     in any capacity as an airman an individual who does not have 
     an airman's certificate authorizing the individual to serve 
     in that capacity.
       ``(c) Controlled Substance Criminal Penalty.--(1) In this 
     subsection, the term `controlled substance' has the same 
     meaning given that term in section 102 of the Comprehensive 
     Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 
     802).
       ``(2) An individual violating subsection (b) shall be fined 
     under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
     both, if the violation is related to transporting a 
     controlled substance by aircraft or aiding or facilitating a 
     controlled substance violation and that transporting, aiding, 
     or facilitating--
       ``(A) is punishable by death or imprisonment of more than 1 
     year under a Federal or State law; or
       ``(B) is related to an act punishable by death or 
     imprisonment for more than 1 year under a Federal or State 
     law related to a controlled substance (except a law related 
     to simple possession (as that term is used in section 
     46306(c)) of a controlled substance).
       ``(3) A term of imprisonment imposed under paragraph (2) 
     shall be served in addition to, and not concurrently with, 
     any other term of imprisonment imposed on the individual 
     subject to the imprisonment.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 463 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``46317. Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation 
              without an airman's certificate.''.

     SEC. 310. NONDISCRIMINATORY INTERLINE INTERCONNECTION 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 41716. Interline agreements for domestic 
       transportation

       ``(a) Nondiscriminatory Requirements.--If a major air 
     carrier that provides air service to an essential airport 
     facility has any agreement involving ticketing, baggage and 
     ground handling, and terminal and gate access with another 
     carrier, it shall provide the same services to any requesting 
     air carrier that offers service to a community selected for 
     participation in the program under section 41743 under 
     similar terms and conditions and on a nondiscriminatory basis 
     within 30 days after receiving the request, as long as the 
     requesting air carrier meets such safety, service, financial, 
     and maintenance requirements, if any, as the Secretary may by 
     regulation establish consistent with public convenience and 
     necessity. The Secretary must review any proposed agreement 
     to determine if the requesting carrier meets operational 
     requirements consistent with the rules, procedures, and 
     policies of the major carrier. This agreement may be 
     terminated by either party in the event of failure to meet 
     the standards and conditions outlined in the agreement.''.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section the term `essential 
     airport facility' means a large hub airport (as defined in 
     section 41731(a)(3)) in the contiguous 48 States in which one 
     carrier has more than 50 percent of such airport's total 
     annual enplanements.''.
       (b) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 41715 the following:

``41716. Interline agreements for domestic transportation.''.
                TITLE IV--TITLE 49 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

     SEC. 401. RESTATEMENT OF 49 U.S.C. 106(G).

       (a) In General.--Section 106(g) is amended by striking 
     ``40113(a), (c), and (d), 40114(a), 40119, 44501(a) and (c), 
     44502(a)(1), (b) and (c), 44504, 44505, 44507, 44508, 44511-
     44513, 44701-44716, 44718(c), 44721(a), 44901, 44902, 
     44903(a)-(c) and (e), 44906, 44912, 44935-44937, and 44938(a) 
     and (b), chapter 451, sections 45302-45304,'' and inserting 
     ``40113(a), (c)-(e), 40114(a), and 40119, and chapter 445 
     (except sections 44501(b), 44502(a)(2)-(4), 44503, 44506, 
     44509, 44510, 44514, and 44515), chapter 447 (except sections 
     44717, 44718(a) and (b), 44719, 44720, 44721(b), 44722, and 
     44723), chapter 449 (except sections 44903(d), 44904, 44905, 
     44907-44911, 44913, 44915, and 44931-44934), chapter 451, 
     chapter 453, sections''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--The amendment made by this 
     section may not be construed as making a substantive change 
     in the language replaced.

     SEC. 402. RESTATEMENT OF 49 U.S.C. 44909.

       Section 44909(a)(2) is amended by striking ``shall'' and 
     inserting ``should''.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. OVERSIGHT OF FAA RESPONSE TO YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure every 3 months, in oral or written form, 
     on electronic data processing problems associated with the 
     year 2000 within the Administration.

     SEC. 502. CARGO COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS DEADLINE.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall require by regulation that, not later 
     than December 31, 2002, collision avoidance equipment be 
     installed on each cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 
     15,000 kilograms or more.
       (b) Extension.--The Administrator may extend the deadline 
     imposed by subsection (a) for not more than 2 years if the 
     Administrator finds that the extension is needed to promote--
       (1) a safe and orderly transition to the operation of a 
     fleet of cargo aircraft equipped with collision avoidance 
     equipment; or
       (2) other safety or public interest objectives.
       (c) Collision Avoidance Equipment.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``collision avoidance equipment'' means 
     TCAS II equipment (as defined by the Administrator), or any 
     other similar system approved by the Administration for 
     collision avoidance purposes.

     SEC. 503. RUNWAY SAFETY AREAS; PRECISION APPROACH PATH 
                   INDICATORS.

       Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall solicit comments on the need for--
       (1) the improvement of runway safety areas; and
       (2) the installation of precision approach path indicators.

     SEC. 504. AIRPLANE EMERGENCY LOCATORS.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 44712(b) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Nonapplication.--Subsection (a) does not apply to 
     aircraft when used in--
       ``(1) scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers holding 
     certificates issued by the Secretary of Transportation under 
     subpart II of this part;
       ``(2) training operations conducted entirely within a 50-
     mile radius of the airport from which the training operations 
     begin;

[[Page S2293]]

       ``(3) flight operations related to the design and testing, 
     manufacture, preparation, and delivery of aircraft;
       ``(4) showing compliance with regulations, exhibition, or 
     air racing; or
       ``(5) the aerial application of a substance for an 
     agricultural purpose.''.
       (b) Compliance.--Section 44712 is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (c) as subsection (d), and by inserting after 
     subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Compliance.--An aircraft is deemed to meet the 
     requirement of subsection (a) if it is equipped with an 
     emergency locator transmitter that transmits on the 121.5/243 
     megahertz frequency or the 406 megahertz frequency, or with 
     other equipment approved by the Secretary for meeting the 
     requirement of subsection (a).''.
       (c) Effective Date; Regulations.--
       (1) Regulations.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     promulgate regulations under section 44712(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, as amended by this section not later than 
     January 1, 2002.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2002.

     SEC. 505. COUNTERFEIT AIRCRAFT PARTS.

       (a) Denial; Revocation; Amendment of Certificate.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 447 is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 44725. Denial and revocation of certificate for 
       counterfeit parts violations

       ``(a) Denial of Certificate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection and subsection (e)(2) of this section, the 
     Administrator may not issue a certificate under this chapter 
     to any person--
       ``(A) convicted of a violation of a law of the United 
     States or of a State relating to the installation, 
     production, repair, or sale of a counterfeit or falsely-
     represented aviation part or material; or
       ``(B) subject to a controlling or ownership interest of an 
     individual convicted of such a violation.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator may issue a certificate under this chapter to a 
     person described in paragraph (1) if issuance of the 
     certificate will facilitate law enforcement efforts.
       ``(b) Revocation of Certificate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsections (f) 
     and (g) of this section, the Administrator shall issue an 
     order revoking a certificate issued under this chapter if the 
     Administrator finds that the holder of the certificate, or an 
     individual who has a controlling or ownership interest in the 
     holder--
       ``(A) was convicted of a violation of a law of the United 
     States or of a State relating to the installation, 
     production, repair, or sale of a counterfeit or falsely-
     represented aviation part or material; or
       ``(B) knowingly carried out or facilitated an activity 
     punishable under such a law.
       ``(2) No authority to review violation.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator may not 
     review whether a person violated such a law.
       ``(c) Notice Requirement.--Before the Administrator revokes 
     a certificate under subsection (b), the Administrator shall--
       ``(1) advise the holder of the certificate of the reason 
     for the revocation; and
       ``(2) provide the holder of the certificate an opportunity 
     to be heard on why the certificate should not be revoked.
       ``(d) Appeal.--The provisions of section 44710(d) apply to 
     the appeal of a revocation order under subsection (b). For 
     the purpose of applying that section to such an appeal, 
     `person' shall be substituted for `individual' each place it 
     appears.
       ``(e) Aquittal or Reversal.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator may not revoke, and 
     the Board may not affirm a revocation of, a certificate under 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section if the holder of the 
     certificate, or the individual, is acquitted of all charges 
     related to the violation.
       ``(2) Reissuance.--The Administrator may reissue a 
     certificate revoked under subsection (b) of this section to 
     the former holder if--
       ``(A) the former holder otherwise satisfies the 
     requirements of this chapter for the certificate;
       ``(B) the former holder, or individual, is acquitted of all 
     charges related to the violation on which the revocation was 
     based; or
       ``(C) the conviction of the former holder, or individual, 
     of the violation on which the revocation was based is 
     reversed.
       ``(f) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive revocation of a 
     certificate under subsection (b) of this section if--
       ``(1) a law enforcement official of the United States 
     Government, or of a State (with respect to violations of 
     State law), requests a waiver; or
       ``(2) the waiver will facilitate law enforcement efforts.
       ``(g) Amendment of Certificate.--If the holder of a 
     certificate issued under this chapter is other than an 
     individual and the Administrator finds that--
       ``(1) an individual who had a controlling or ownership 
     interest in the holder committed a violation of a law for the 
     violation of which a certificate may be revoked under this 
     section, or knowingly carried out or facilitated an activity 
     punishable under such a law; and
       ``(2) the holder satisfies the requirements for the 
     certificate without regard to that individual,

     then the Administrator may amend the certificate to impose a 
     limitation that the certificate will not be valid if that 
     individual has a controlling or ownership interest in the 
     holder. A decision by the Administrator under this subsection 
     is not reviewable by the Board.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     447 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``44725. Denial and revocation of certificate for counterfeit parts 
              violations''.

       (b) Prohibition on Employment.--Section 44711 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Employment of Convicted Counterfeit 
     Part Dealers.--No person subject to this chapter may employ 
     anyone to perform a function related to the procurement, 
     sale, production, or repair of a part or material, or the 
     installation of a part into a civil aircraft, who has been 
     convicted of a violation of any Federal or State law relating 
     to the installation, production, repair, or sale of a 
     counterfeit or falsely-represented aviation part or 
     material.''.

     SEC. 506. FAA MAY FINE UNRULY PASSENGERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 463 is amended by redesignating 
     section 46316 as section 46317, and by inserting after 
     section 46315 the following:

     ``Sec. 46316. Interference with cabin or flight crew

       ``(a) In General.--An individual who interferes with the 
     duties or responsibilities of the flight crew or cabin crew 
     of a civil aircraft, or who poses an imminent threat to the 
     safety of the aircraft or other individuals on the aircraft, 
     is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty 
     of not more than $10,000, which shall be paid to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and deposited in the account 
     established by section 45303(c).
       ``(b) Compromise and Setoff.--
       ``(1) The Secretary of Transportation or the Administrator 
     may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) The Government may deduct the amount of a civil 
     penalty imposed or compromised under this section from 
     amounts it owes the individual liable for the penalty.''.
       (b) Conforming Change.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     463 is amended by striking the item relating to section 46316 
     and inserting after the item relating to section 46315 the 
     following:

``46316. Interference with cabin or flight crew.
``46317. General criminal penalty when specific penalty not 
              provided.''.

     SEC. 507. HIGHER STANDARDS FOR HANDICAPPED ACCESS.

       (a) Establishment of Higher International Standards.--The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall work with appropriate 
     international organizations and the aviation authorities of 
     other nations to bring about their establishment of higher 
     standards for accommodating handicapped passengers in air 
     transportation, particularly with respect to foreign air 
     carriers that code-share with domestic air carriers.
       (b) Increased Civil Penalties.--Section 46301(a) is amended 
     by--
       (1) inserting ``41705,'' after ``41704,'' in paragraph 
     (1)(A); and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(7) Unless an air carrier that violates section 41705 
     with respect to an individual provides that individual a 
     credit or voucher for the purchase of a ticket on that air 
     carrier or any affiliated air carrier in an amount 
     (determined by the Secretary) of--
       ``(A) not less than $500 and not more than $2,500 for the 
     first violation; or
       ``(B) not less than $2,500 and not more than $5,000 for any 
     subsequent violation, then that air carrier is liable to the 
     United States Government for a civil penalty, determined by 
     the Secretary, of not more than 100 percent of the amount of 
     the credit or voucher so determined. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, each act of discrimination prohibited by section 
     41705 constitutes a separate violation of that section.''.

     SEC. 508. CONVEYANCES OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LAND.

       (a) In General.--Section 47125(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Conveyances to Public Agencies.--
       ``(1) Request for conveyance.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       ``(A) shall request the head of the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government owning or 
     controlling land or airspace to convey a property interest in 
     the land or airspace to the public agency sponsoring the 
     project or owning or controlling the airport when necessary 
     to carry out a project under this subchapter at a public 
     airport, to operate a public airport, or for the future 
     development of an airport under the national plan of 
     integrated airport systems; and
       ``(B) may request the head of such a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality to convey a property interest in the land or 
     airspace to such a public agency for a use that will 
     complement, facilitate, or augment airport development, 
     including the development of additional revenue from both 
     aviation and nonaviation sources.
       ``(2) Response to request for certain conveyances.--Within 
     4 months after receiving a request from the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the head of the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality shall--

[[Page S2294]]

       ``(A) decide whether the requested conveyance is consistent 
     with the needs of the department, agency, or instrumentality;
       ``(B) notify the Secretary of the decision; and
       ``(C) make the requested conveyance if--
       ``(i) the requested conveyance is consistent with the needs 
     of the department, agency, or instrumentality;
       ``(ii) the Attorney General approves the conveyance; and
       ``(iii) the conveyance can be made without cost to the 
     United States Government.
       ``(3) Reversion.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     conveyance under this subsection may only be made on the 
     condition that the property interest conveyed reverts to the 
     Government, at the option of the Secretary, to the extent it 
     is not developed for an airport purpose or used consistently 
     with the conveyance.''.
       (b) Release of Certain Conditions.--Section 47125 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting the following after subsection (a):
       ``(b) Release of Certain Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     grant a release from any term, condition, reservation, or 
     restriction contained in any conveyance executed under this 
     section, section 16 of the Federal Airport Act, section 23 of 
     the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, or section 
     516 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, to 
     facilitate the development of additional revenue from 
     aeronautical and nonaeronautical sources if the Secretary--
       ``(1) determines that the property is no longer needed for 
     aeronautical purposes;
       ``(2) determines that the property will be used solely to 
     generate revenue for the public airport;
       ``(3) provides preliminary notice to the head of the 
     department, agency, or instrumentality that conveyed the 
     property interest at least 30 days before executing the 
     release;
       ``(4) provides notice to the public of the requested 
     release;
       ``(5) includes in the release a written justification for 
     the release of the property; and
       ``(6) determines that release of the property will advance 
     civil aviation in the United States.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Section 47125(b) of title 49, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (b) of this section, 
     applies to property interests conveyed before, on, or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Iditarod Area School District.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law (including section 47125 of title 49, 
     United States Code, as amended by this section), the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, or the 
     Administrator of the General Services Administration, may 
     convey to the Iditarod Area School District without 
     reimbursement all right, title, and interest in 12 acres of 
     property at Lake Minchumina, Alaska, identified by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     including the structures known as housing units 100 through 
     105 and as utility building 301.

     SEC. 509. FLIGHT OPERATIONS QUALITY ASSURANCE RULES.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall issue a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking to develop procedures to protect air carriers and 
     their employees from civil enforcement action under the 
     program known as Flight Operations Quality Assurance. Not 
     later than 1 year after the last day of the period for public 
     comment provided for in the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
     the Administrator shall issue a final rule establishing those 
     procedures.

     SEC. 510. WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Plan.--The Administrator shall identify or develop a 
     plan to implement WAAS to provide navigation and landing 
     approach capabilities for civilian use and make a 
     determination as to whether a backup system is necessary. 
     Until the Administrator determines that WAAS is the sole 
     means of navigation, the Administration shall continue to 
     develop and maintain a backup system.
       (b) Report.--Within 6 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall--
       (1) report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure, on the plan developed 
     under subsection (a);
       (2) submit a timetable for implementing WAAS; and
       (3) make a determination as to whether WAAS will ultimately 
     become a primary or sole means of navigation and landing 
     approach capabilities.
       (c) WAAS Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``WAAS'' means wide area augmentation system.
       (d) Funding Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out this section.

     SEC. 511. REGULATION OF ALASKA AIR GUIDES.

       The Administrator shall reissue the notice to operators 
     originally published in the Federal Register on January 2, 
     1998, which advised Alaska guide pilots of the applicability 
     of part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to 
     guide pilot operations. In reissuing the notice, the 
     Administrator shall provide for not less than 60 days of 
     public comment on the Federal Aviation Administration action. 
     If, notwithstanding the public comments, the Administrator 
     decides to proceed with the action, the Administrator shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a notice justifying the 
     Administrator's decision and providing at least 90 days for 
     compliance.

     SEC. 512. APPLICATION OF FAA REGULATIONS.

       Section 40113 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(f) Application of Certain Regulations to Alaska.--In 
     amending title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, in a manner 
     affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration shall consider the extent 
     to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other 
     than aviation, and shall establish such regulatory 
     distinctions as the Administrator considers appropriate.''.

     SEC. 513. HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 445 is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 44516. Human factors program

       ``(a) Oversight Committee.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall establish an advanced 
     qualification program oversight committee to advise the 
     Administrator on the development and execution of Advanced 
     Qualification Programs for air carriers under this section, 
     and to encourage their adoption and implementation.
       ``(b) Human Factors Training.--
       ``(1) Air traffic controllers.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(A) address the problems and concerns raised by the 
     National Research Council in its report `The Future of Air 
     Traffic Control' on air traffic control automation; and
       ``(B) respond to the recommendations made by the National 
     Research Council.
       ``(2) Pilots and flight crews.--The Administrator shall 
     work with the aviation industry to develop specific training 
     curricula, within 12 months after the date of enactment of 
     the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System 
     Improvement Act of 1998, to address critical safety problems, 
     including problems of pilots--
       ``(A) in recovering from loss of control of the aircraft, 
     including handling unusual attitudes and mechanical 
     malfunctions;
       ``(B) in deviating from standard operating procedures, 
     including inappropriate responses to emergencies and 
     hazardous weather;
       ``(C) in awareness of altitude and location relative to 
     terrain to prevent controlled flight into terrain; and
       ``(D) in landing and approaches, including nonprecision 
     approaches and go-around procedures.
       ``(c) Accident Investigations.--The Administrator, working 
     with the National Transportation Safety Board and 
     representatives of the aviation industry, shall establish a 
     process to assess human factors training as part of accident 
     and incident investigations.
       ``(d) Test Program.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     test program in cooperation with United States air carriers 
     to use model Jeppesen approach plates or other similar tools 
     to improve nonprecision landing approaches for aircraft.
       ``(e) Advanced Qualification Program Defined.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `advanced qualification program' 
     means an alternative method for qualifying, training, 
     certifying, and ensuring the competency of flight crews and 
     other commercial aviation operations personnel subject to the 
     training and evaluation requirements of Parts 121 and 135 of 
     title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (b) Automation and Associated Training.--The Administrator 
     shall complete the Administration's updating of training 
     practices for automation and associated training requirements 
     within 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     445 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``44516. Human factors program.''.

     SEC. 514. INDEPENDENT VALIDATION OF FAA COSTS AND 
                   ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Independent Assessment.--
       (1) Initiation.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Transportation shall initiate the analyses 
     described in paragraph (2). In conducting the analyses, the 
     Inspector General shall ensure that the analyses are carried 
     out by 1 or more entities that are independent of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration. The Inspector General may use the 
     staff and resources of the Inspector General or may contract 
     with independent entities to conduct the analyses.
       (2) Assessment of adequacy and accuracy of faa cost data 
     and attributions.--To ensure that the method for capturing 
     and distributing the overall costs of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration is appropriate and reasonable, the Inspector 
     General shall conduct an assessment that includes the 
     following:
       (A)(i) Validation of Federal Aviation Administration cost 
     input data, including an audit of the reliability of Federal 
     Aviation Administration source documents and the integrity 
     and reliability of the Federal Aviation Administration's data 
     collection process.
       (ii) An assessment of the reliability of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration's system for tracking assets.
       (iii) An assessment of the reasonableness of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration's bases for establishing asset values 
     and depreciation rates.

[[Page S2295]]

       (iv) An assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     system of internal controls for ensuring the consistency and 
     reliability of reported data to begin immediately after full 
     operational capability of the cost accounting system.
       (B) A review and validation of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's definition of the services to which the 
     Federal Aviation Administration ultimately attributes its 
     costs, and the methods used to identify direct costs 
     associated with the services.
       (C) An assessment and validation of the general cost pools 
     used by the Federal Aviation Administration, including the 
     rationale for and reliability of the bases on which the 
     Federal Aviation Administration proposes to allocate costs of 
     services to users and the integrity of the cost pools as well 
     as any other factors considered important by the Inspector 
     General. Appropriate statistical tests shall be performed to 
     assess relationships between costs in the various cost pools 
     and activities and services to which the costs are attributed 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration.
       (b) Deadline.--The independent analyses described in this 
     section shall be completed no later than 270 days after the 
     contracts are awarded to the outside independent contractors. 
     The Inspector General shall submit a final report combining 
     the analyses done by its staff with those of the outside 
     independent contractors to the Secretary of Transportation, 
     the Administrator, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives. The final report shall be submitted by the 
     Inspector General not later than 300 days after the award of 
     contracts.
       (c) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary for the cost of the contracted audit 
     services authorized by this section.

     SEC. 515. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR FAA EMPLOYEES.

       Section 347(b)(1) of Public Law 104-50 (49 U.S.C. 106, 
     note) is amended by striking ``protection;'' and inserting 
     ``protection, including the provisions for investigations and 
     enforcement as provided in chapter 12 of title 5, United 
     States Code;''.

     SEC. 516. REPORT ON MODERNIZATION OF OCEANIC ATC SYSTEM.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall report to the Congress on plans to modernize the 
     oceanic air traffic control system, including a budget for 
     the program, a determination of the requirements for 
     modernization, and, if necessary, a proposal to fund the 
     program.

     SEC. 517. REPORT ON AIR TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT SYSTEM.

       Beginning in 1999, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall report biannually to the 
     Congress on the air transportation oversight system program 
     announced by the Administration on May 13, 1998, in detail on 
     the training of inspectors, the number of inspectors using 
     the system, air carriers subject to the system, and the 
     budget for the system.

     SEC. 518. RECYCLING OF EIS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, 
     the Secretary of Transportation may authorize the use, in 
     whole or in part, of a completed environmental assessment or 
     environmental impact study for a new airport construction 
     project on the air operations area, that is substantially 
     similar in nature to one previously constructed pursuant to 
     the completed environmental assessment or environmental 
     impact study in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
     expense and effort, and any such authorized use shall meet 
     all requirements of Federal law for the completion of such an 
     assessment or study.

     SEC. 519. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDING AIR SAFETY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) General Rule.--Chapter 421 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subchapter:

           ``SUBCHAPTER III--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM

     ``Sec. 42121. Protection of employees providing air safety 
       information

       ``(a) Discrimination Against Airline Employees.--No air 
     carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier may 
     discharge an employee of the air carrier or the contractor or 
     subcontractor of an air carrier or otherwise discriminate 
     against any such employee with respect to compensation, 
     terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the 
     employee (or any person acting pursuant to a request of the 
     employee)--
       ``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to 
     provide or cause to be provided to the Federal Government 
     information relating to any violation or alleged violation of 
     any order, regulation, or standard of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration or any other provision of Federal law relating 
     to air carrier safety under this subtitle or any other law of 
     the United States;
       ``(2) has filed, caused to be filed, or is about to file or 
     cause to be filed a proceeding relating to any violation or 
     alleged violation of any order, regulation, or standard of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration or any other provision of 
     Federal law relating to air carrier safety under this 
     subtitle or any other law of the United States;
       ``(3) testified or will testify in such a proceeding; or
       ``(4) assisted or participated or is about to assist or 
     participate in such a proceeding.
       ``(b) Department of Labor Complaint Procedure.--
       ``(1) Filing and notification.--
       ``(A) In general.--In accordance with this paragraph, a 
     person may file (or have a person file on behalf of that 
     person) a complaint with the Secretary of Labor if that 
     person believes that an air carrier or contractor or 
     subcontractor of an air carrier discharged or otherwise 
     discriminated against that person in violation of subsection 
     (a).
       ``(B) Requirements for filing complaints.--A complaint 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) may be filed not later than 
     90 days after an alleged violation occurs. The complaint 
     shall state the alleged violation.
       ``(C) Notification.--Upon receipt of a complaint submitted 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Labor shall notify 
     the air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor named in the 
     complaint and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration of the--
       ``(i) filing of the complaint;
       ``(ii) allegations contained in the complaint;
       ``(iii) substance of evidence supporting the complaint; and
       ``(iv) opportunities that are afforded to the air carrier, 
     contractor, or subcontractor under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Investigation; preliminary order.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Investigation.--Not later than 60 days after receipt 
     of a complaint filed under paragraph (1) and after affording 
     the person named in the complaint an opportunity to submit to 
     the Secretary of Labor a written response to the complaint 
     and an opportunity to meet with a representative of the 
     Secretary to present statements from witnesses, the Secretary 
     of Labor shall conduct an investigation and determine whether 
     there is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint has 
     merit and notify in writing the complainant and the person 
     alleged to have committed a violation of subsection (a) of 
     the Secretary's findings.
       ``(ii) Order.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if 
     the Secretary of Labor concludes that there is reasonable 
     cause to believe that a violation of subsection (a) has 
     occurred, the Secretary shall accompany the findings referred 
     to in clause (i) with a preliminary order providing the 
     relief prescribed under paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(iii) Objections.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of notification of findings under this paragraph, the person 
     alleged to have committed the violation or the complainant 
     may file objections to the findings or preliminary order and 
     request a hearing on the record.
       ``(iv) Effect of filing.--The filing of objections under 
     clause (iii) shall not operate to stay any reinstatement 
     remedy contained in the preliminary order.
       ``(v) Hearings.--Hearings conducted pursuant to a request 
     made under clause (iii) shall be conducted expeditiously. If 
     a hearing is not requested during the 30-day period 
     prescribed in clause (iii), the preliminary order shall be 
     deemed a final order that is not subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Requirements.--
       ``(i) Required showing by complainant.--The Secretary of 
     Labor shall dismiss a complaint filed under this subsection 
     and shall not conduct an investigation otherwise required 
     under subparagraph (A) unless the complainant makes a prima 
     facie showing that any behavior described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of subsection (a) was a contributing factor in 
     the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(ii) Showing by employer.--Notwithstanding a finding by 
     the Secretary that the complainant has made the showing 
     required under clause (i), no investigation otherwise 
     required under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted if the 
     employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that 
     the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel 
     action in the absence of that behavior.
       ``(iii) Criteria for determination by Secretary.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a violation of subsection (a) 
     has occurred only if the complainant demonstrates that any 
     behavior described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of 
     subsection (a) was a contributing factor in the unfavorable 
     personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(iv) Prohibition.--Relief may not be ordered under 
     subparagraph (A) if the employer demonstrates by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the 
     same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that 
     behavior.
       ``(3) Final order.--
       ``(A) Deadline for issuance; settlement agreements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 120 days after conclusion 
     of a hearing under paragraph (2), the Secretary of Labor 
     shall issue a final order that--

       ``(I) provides relief in accordance with this paragraph; or
       ``(II) denies the complaint.

       ``(ii) Settlement agreement.--At any time before issuance 
     of a final order under this paragraph, a proceeding under 
     this subsection may be terminated on the basis of a 
     settlement agreement entered into by the Secretary of Labor, 
     the complainant, and the air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor alleged to have committed the violation.
       ``(B) Remedy.--If, in response to a complaint filed under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary of Labor determines that a 
     violation of subsection (a) has occurred, the Secretary of 
     Labor shall order the air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor that the Secretary of

[[Page S2296]]

     Labor determines to have committed the violation to--
       ``(i) take action to abate the violation;
       ``(ii) reinstate the complainant to the former position of 
     the complainant and ensure the payment of compensation 
     (including back pay) and the restoration of terms, 
     conditions, and privileges associated with the employment; 
     and
       ``(iii) provide compensatory damages to the complainant.
       ``(C) Costs of complaint.--If the Secretary of Labor issues 
     a final order that provides for relief in accordance with 
     this paragraph, the Secretary of Labor, at the request of the 
     complainant, shall assess against the air carrier, 
     contractor, or subcontractor named in the order an amount 
     equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses 
     (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably 
     incurred by the complainant (as determined by the Secretary 
     of Labor) for, or in connection with, the bringing of the 
     complaint that resulted in the issuance of the order.
       ``(4) Review.--
       ``(A) Appeal to court of appeals.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 60 days after a final 
     order is issued under paragraph (3), a person adversely 
     affected or aggrieved by that order may obtain review of the 
     order in the United States court of appeals for the circuit 
     in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in 
     which the complainant resided on the date of that violation.
       ``(ii) Requirements for judicial review.--A review 
     conducted under this paragraph shall be conducted in 
     accordance with chapter 7 of title 5. The commencement of 
     proceedings under this subparagraph shall not, unless ordered 
     by the court, operate as a stay of the order that is the 
     subject of the review.
       ``(B) Limitation on collateral attack.--An order referred 
     to in subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to judicial 
     review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
       ``(5) Enforcement of order by secretary of labor.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an air carrier, contractor, or 
     subcontractor named in an order issued under paragraph (3) 
     fails to comply with the order, the Secretary of Labor may 
     file a civil action in the United States district court for 
     the district in which the violation occurred to enforce that 
     order.
       ``(B) Relief.--In any action brought under this paragraph, 
     the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant any 
     appropriate form of relief, including injunctive relief and 
     compensatory damages.
       ``(6) Enforcement of order by parties.--
       ``(A) Commencement of action.--A person on whose behalf an 
     order is issued under paragraph (3) may commence a civil 
     action against the air carrier, contractor, or subcontractor 
     named in the order to require compliance with the order. The 
     appropriate United States district court shall have 
     jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or 
     the citizenship of the parties, to enforce the order.
       ``(B) Attorney fees.--In issuing any final order under this 
     paragraph, the court may award costs of litigation (including 
     reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party if 
     the court determines that the awarding of those costs is 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Mandamus.--Any nondiscretionary duty imposed by this 
     section shall be enforceable in a mandamus proceeding brought 
     under section 1361 of title 28.
       ``(d) Nonapplicability To Deliberate Violations.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an employee of 
     an air carrier, or contractor or subcontractor of an air 
     carrier who, acting without direction from the air carrier 
     (or an agent, contractor, or subcontractor of the air 
     carrier), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement 
     relating to air carrier safety under this subtitle or any 
     other law of the United States.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     421 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

           ``SUBCHAPTER III--WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM

``42121. Protection of employees providing air safety information.''.

       (c) Civil Penalty.--Section 46301(a)(1)(A) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``subchapter II of 
     chapter 421,'' and inserting ``subchapter II or III of 
     chapter 421,''.

     SEC. 520. IMPROVEMENTS TO AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES.

       Section 44502(a) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(5) The Administrator may improve real property leased 
     for air navigation facilities without regard to the costs of 
     the improvements in relation to the cost of the lease if--
       ``(A) the improvements primarily benefit the government;
       ``(B) are essential for mission accomplishment; and
       ``(C) the government's interest in the improvements is 
     protected.''.

     SEC. 521. DENIAL OF AIRPORT ACCESS TO CERTAIN AIR CARRIERS.

       Section 47107 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(q) Denial of Access.--
       ``(1) Effect of denial.--If an owner or operator of an 
     airport described in paragraph (2) denies access to an air 
     carrier described in paragraph (3), that denial shall not be 
     considered to be unreasonable or unjust discrimination or a 
     violation of this section.
       ``(2) Airports to which subsection applies.--An airport is 
     described in this paragraph if it--
       ``(A) is designated as a reliever airport by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration;
       ``(B) does not have an operating certificate issued under 
     part 139 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any 
     subsequent similar regulations); and
       ``(C) is located within a 35-mile radius of an airport that 
     has--
       ``(i) at least 0.05 percent of the total annual boardings 
     in the United States; and
       ``(ii) current gate capacity to handle the demands of a 
     public charter operation.
       ``(3) Air carriers described.--An air carrier is described 
     in this paragraph if it conducts operations as a public 
     charter under part 380 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or any subsequent similar regulations) with 
     aircraft that is designed to carry more than 9 passengers per 
     flight.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Air carrier; air transportation; aircraft; airport.--
     The terms `air carrier', `air transportation', `aircraft', 
     and `airport' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     40102 of this title.
       ``(B) Public charter.--The term `public charter' means 
     charter air transportation for which the general public is 
     provided in advance a schedule containing the departure 
     location, departure time, and arrival location of the 
     flights.''.

     SEC. 522. TOURISM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) through an effective public-private partnership, 
     Federal, State, and local governments and the travel and 
     tourism industry can successfully market the United States as 
     the premiere international tourist destination in the world;
       (2) in 1997, the travel and tourism industry made a 
     substantial contribution to the health of the Nation's 
     economy, as follows:
       (A) The industry is one of the Nation's largest employers, 
     directly employing 7,000,000 Americans, throughout every 
     region of the country, heavily concentrated among small 
     businesses, and indirectly employing an additional 9,200,000 
     Americans, for a total of 16,200,000 jobs.
       (B) The industry ranks as the first, second, or third 
     largest employer in 32 States and the District of Columbia, 
     generating a total tourism-related annual payroll of 
     $127,900,000,000.
       (C) The industry has become the Nation's third-largest 
     retail sales industry, generating a total of $489,000,000,000 
     in total expenditures.
       (D) The industry generated $71,700,000,000 in tax revenues 
     for Federal, State, and local governments;
       (3) the more than $98,000,000,000 spent by foreign visitors 
     in the United States in 1997 generated a trade services 
     surplus of more than $26,000,000,000;
       (4) the private sector, States, and cities currently spend 
     more than $1,000,000,000 annually to promote particular 
     destinations within the United States to international 
     visitors;
       (5) because other nations are spending hundreds of millions 
     of dollars annually to promote the visits of international 
     tourists to their countries, the United States will miss a 
     major marketing opportunity if it fails to aggressively 
     compete for an increased share of international tourism 
     expenditures as they continue to increase over the next 
     decade;
       (6) a well-funded, well-coordinated international marketing 
     effort--combined with additional public and private sector 
     efforts--would help small and large businesses, as well as 
     State and local governments, share in the anticipated 
     phenomenal growth of the international travel and tourism 
     market in the 21st century;
       (7) by making permanent the successful visa waiver pilot 
     program, Congress can facilitate the increased flow of 
     international visitors to the United States;
       (8) Congress can increase the opportunities for attracting 
     international visitors and enhancing their stay in the United 
     States by--
       (A) improving international signage at airports, seaports, 
     land border crossings, highways, and bus, train, and other 
     public transit stations in the United States;
       (B) increasing the availability of multilingual tourist 
     information; and
       (C) creating a toll-free, private-sector operated, 
     telephone number, staffed by multilingual operators, to 
     provide assistance to international tourists coping with an 
     emergency;
       (9) by establishing a satellite system of accounting for 
     travel and tourism, the Secretary of Commerce could provide 
     Congress and the President with objective, thorough data that 
     would help policymakers more accurately gauge the size and 
     scope of the domestic travel and tourism industry and its 
     significant impact on the health of the Nation's economy; and
       (10) having established the United States National Tourism 
     Organization under the United States National Tourism 
     Organization Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 2141 et seq.) to increase 
     the United States share of the international tourism market 
     by developing a national travel and tourism strategy, 
     Congress should support a long-term marketing effort and 
     other important regulatory reform initiatives to promote 
     increased travel to the United States for the benefit of 
     every sector of the economy.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to provide 
     international visitor initiatives and an international 
     marketing program to enable the United States travel and

[[Page S2297]]

     tourism industry and every level of government to benefit 
     from a successful effort to make the United States the 
     premiere travel destination in the world.
       (c) International Visitor Assistance Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 9 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     establish an Intergovernmental Task Force for International 
     Visitor Assistance (hereafter in this subsection referred to 
     as the ``Task Force'').
       (2) Duties.--The Task Force shall examine--
       (A) signage at facilities in the United States, including 
     airports, seaports, land border crossings, highways, and bus, 
     train, and other public transit stations, and shall identify 
     existing inadequacies and suggest solutions for such 
     inadequacies, such as the adoption of uniform standards on 
     international signage for use throughout the United States in 
     order to facilitate international visitors' travel in the 
     United States;
       (B) the availability of multilingual travel and tourism 
     information and means of disseminating, at no or minimal cost 
     to the Government, of such information; and
       (C) facilitating the establishment of a toll-free, private-
     sector operated, telephone number, staffed by multilingual 
     operators, to provide assistance to international tourists 
     coping with an emergency.
       (3) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of the 
     following members:
       (A) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (B) The Secretary of State.
       (C) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (D) The Chair of the Board of Directors of the United 
     States National Tourism Organization.
       (E) Such other representatives of other Federal agencies 
     and private-sector entities as may be determined to be 
     appropriate to the mission of the Task Force by the Chairman.
       (4) Chairman.--The Secretary of Commerce shall be Chairman 
     of the Task Force. The Task Force shall meet at least twice 
     each year. Each member of the Task Force shall furnish 
     necessary assistance to the Task Force.
       (5) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Task Force shall 
     submit to the President and to Congress a report on the 
     results of the review, including proposed amendments to 
     existing laws or regulations as may be appropriate to 
     implement such recommendations.
       (d) Travel and Tourism Industry Satellite System of 
     Accounting.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall complete, 
     as soon as may be practicable, a satellite system of 
     accounting for the travel and tourism industry.
       (2) Funding.--To the extent any costs or expenditures are 
     incurred under this subsection, they shall be covered to the 
     extent funds are available to the Department of Commerce for 
     such purpose.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Authorization.--Subject to paragraph (2), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for the purpose of funding international promotional 
     activities by the United States National Tourism Organization 
     to help brand, position, and promote the United States as the 
     premiere travel and tourism destination in the world.
       (2) Restrictions on use of funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under paragraph (1) may be used for purposes 
     other than marketing, research, outreach, or any other 
     activity designed to promote the United States as the 
     premiere travel and tourism destination in the world, except 
     that the general and administrative expenses of operating the 
     United States National Tourism Organization shall be borne by 
     the private sector through such means as the Board of 
     Directors of the Organization shall determine.
       (3) Report to congress.--Not later than March 30 of each 
     year in which funds are made available under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a detailed report 
     setting forth--
       (A) the manner in which appropriated funds were expended;
       (B) changes in the United States market share of 
     international tourism in general and as measured against 
     specific countries and regions;
       (C) an analysis of the impact of international tourism on 
     the United States economy, including, as specifically as 
     practicable, an analysis of the impact of expenditures made 
     pursuant to this section;
       (D) an analysis of the impact of international tourism on 
     the United States trade balance and, as specifically as 
     practicable, an analysis of the impact on the trade balance 
     of expenditures made pursuant to this section; and
       (E) an analysis of other relevant economic impacts as a 
     result of expenditures made pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 523. EQUIVALENCY OF FAA AND EU SAFETY STANDARDS.

       The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall determine whether the Administration's safety 
     regulations are equivalent to the safety standards set forth 
     in European Union Directive 89/336EEC. If the Administrator 
     determines that the standards are equivalent, the 
     Administrator shall work with the Secretary of Commerce to 
     gain acceptance of that determination pursuant to the Mutual 
     Recognition Agreement between the United States and the 
     European Union of May 18, 1998, in order to ensure that 
     aviation products approved by the Administration are 
     acceptable under that Directive.

     SEC. 524. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROPERTY TAXES ON PUBLIC-USE 
                   AIRPORTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) property taxes on public-use airports should be 
     assessed fairly and equitably, regardless of the location of 
     the owner of the airport; and
       (2) the property tax recently assessed on the City of The 
     Dalles, Oregon, as the owner and operator of the Columbia 
     Gorge Regional/The Dalles Municipal Airport, located in the 
     State of Washington, should be repealed.

     SEC. 525. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL 
                   MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Applicability of Merit Systems Protection Board 
     Provisions.--Section 347(b) of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
     (109 Stat. 460) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting a semicolon and ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(8) sections 1204, 1211-1218, 1221, and 7701-7703, 
     relating to the Merit Systems Protection Board.''.
       (b) Appeals to Merit Systems Protection Board.--Section 
     347(c) of the Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Appeals to Merit Systems Protection Board.--Under the 
     new personnel management system developed and implemented 
     under subsection (a), an employee of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board and may seek judicial review of any 
     resulting final orders or decisions of the Board from any 
     action that was appealable to the Board under any law, rule, 
     or regulation as of March 31, 1996.''.

     SEC 526. AIRCRAFT AND AVIATION COMPONENT REPAIR AND 
                   MAINTENANCE ADVISORY PANEL.

       (a) Establishment of Panel.--The Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration--
       (1) shall establish an Aircraft Repair and Maintenance 
     Advisory Panel to review issues related to the use and 
     oversight of aircraft and aviation component repair and 
     maintenance facilities located within, or outside of, the 
     United States; and
       (2) may seek the advice of the panel on any issue related 
     to methods to improve the safety of domestic or foreign 
     contract aircraft and aviation component repair facilities.
       (b) Membership.--The panel shall consist of--
       (1) 8 members, appointed by the Administrator as follows:
       (A) 3 representatives of labor organizations representing 
     aviation mechanics;
       (B) 1 representative of cargo air carriers;
       (C) 1 representative of passenger air carriers;
       (D) 1 representative of aircraft and aviation component 
     repair stations;
       (E) 1 representative of aircraft manufacturers; and
       (F) 1 representative of the aviation industry not described 
     in the preceding subparagraphs;
       (2) 1 representative from the Department of Transportation, 
     designated by the Secretary of Transportation;
       (3) 1 representative from the Department of State, 
     designated by the Secretary of State; and
       (4) 1 representative from the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, designated by the Administrator.
       (c) Responsibilities.--The panel shall--
       (1) determine how much aircraft and aviation component 
     repair work and what type of aircraft and aviation component 
     repair work is being performed by aircraft and aviation 
     component repair stations located within, and outside of, the 
     United States to better understand and analyze methods to 
     improve the safety and oversight of such facilities; and
       (2) provide advice and counsel to the Administrator with 
     respect to aircraft and aviation component repair work 
     performed by those stations, staffing needs, and any safety 
     issues associated with that work.
       (d) FAA To Request Information From Foreign Aircraft Repair 
     Stations.--
       (1) Collection of information.--The Administrator shall by 
     regulation request aircraft and aviation component repair 
     stations located outside the United States to submit such 
     information as the Administrator may require in order to 
     assess safety issues and enforcement actions with respect to 
     the work performed at those stations on aircraft used by 
     United States air carriers.
       (2) Drug and alcohol testing information.--Included in the 
     information the Administrator requests under paragraph (1) 
     shall be information on the existence and administration of 
     employee drug and alcohol testing programs in place at such 
     stations, if applicable.
       (3) Description of work done.--Included in the information 
     the Administrator requests under paragraph (1) shall be 
     information on

[[Page S2298]]

     the amount and type of aircraft and aviation component repair 
     work performed at those stations on aircraft registered in 
     the United States.
       (e) FAA To Request Information About Domestic Aircraft 
     Repair Stations.--If the Administrator determines that 
     information on the volume of the use of domestic aircraft and 
     aviation component repair stations is needed in order to 
     better utilize Federal Aviation Administration resources, the 
     Administrator may--
       (1) require United States air carriers to submit the 
     information described in subsection (d) with respect to their 
     use of contract and noncontract aircraft and aviation 
     component repair facilities located in the United States; and
       (2) obtain information from such stations about work 
     performed for foreign air carriers.
       (f) FAA To Make Information Available to Public.--The 
     Administrator shall make any information received under 
     subsection (d) or (e) available to the public.
       (g) Termination.--The panel established under subsection 
     (a) shall terminate on the earlier of--
       (1) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; or
       (2) December 31, 2000.
       (h) Annual Report to Congress.--The Administrator shall 
     report annually to the Congress on the number and location of 
     air agency certificates that were revoked, suspended, or not 
     renewed during the preceding year.
       (i) Definitions.--Any term used in this section that is 
     defined in subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, has 
     the meaning given that term in that subtitle.

     SEC. 527. REPORT ON ENHANCED DOMESTIC AIRLINE COMPETITION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There has been a reduction in the level of competition 
     in the domestic airline business brought about by mergers, 
     consolidations, and proposed domestic alliances.
       (2) Foreign citizens and foreign air carriers may be 
     willing to invest in existing or start-up airlines if they 
     are permitted to acquire a larger equity share of a United 
     States airline.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation, after 
     consulting the appropriate Federal agencies, shall study and 
     report to the Congress not later than December 31, 1998, on 
     the desirability and implications of--
       (1) decreasing the foreign ownership provision in section 
     40102(a)(15) of title 49, United States Code, to 51 percent 
     from 75 percent; and
       (2) changing the definition of air carrier in section 
     40102(a)(2) of such title by substituting ``a company whose 
     principal place of business is in the United States'' for ``a 
     citizen of the United States''.

     SEC. 528. AIRCRAFT SITUATIONAL DISPLAY DATA.

       (a) In General.--A memorandum of agreement between the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and any 
     person directly that obtains aircraft situational display 
     data from the Administration shall require that--
       (1) the person demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     Administrator that such person is capable of selectively 
     blocking the display of any aircraft-situation-display-to-
     industry derived data related to any identified aircraft 
     registration number; and
       (2) the person agree to block selectively the aircraft 
     registration numbers of any aircraft owner or operator upon 
     the Administration's request.
       (b) Existing Memoranda To Be Conformed.--The Administrator 
     shall conform any memoranda of agreement, in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, between the Administration and 
     a person under which that person obtains such data to 
     incorporate the requirements of subsection (a) within 30 days 
     after that date.

     SEC. 529. TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A 
                   BILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
                   AND THE UNITED KINGDOM REGARDING CHARLOTTE-
                   LONDON ROUTE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Bermuda ii agreement.--The term ``Bermuda II 
     Agreement'' means the Agreement Between the United States of 
     America and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
     Ireland Concerning Air Services, signed at Bermuda on July 
     23, 1977 (TIAS 8641).
       (3) Charlotte-london (gatwick) route.--The term 
     ``Charlotte-London (Gatwick) route'' means the route between 
     Charlotte, North Carolina, and the Gatwick Airport in London, 
     England.
       (4) Foreign air carrier.--The term ``foreign air carrier'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Bermuda II Agreement, the United States has a 
     right to designate an air carrier of the United States to 
     serve the Charlotte-London (Gatwick) route;
       (2) the Secretary awarded the Charlotte-London (Gatwick) 
     route to US Airways on September 12, 1997, and on May 7, 
     1998, US Airways announced plans to launch nonstop service in 
     competition with the monopoly held by British Airways on the 
     route and to provide convenient single-carrier one-stop 
     service to the United Kingdom from dozens of cities in North 
     Carolina and South Carolina and the surrounding region;
       (3) US Airways was forced to cancel service for the 
     Charlotte-London (Gatwick) route for the summer of 1998 and 
     the following winter because the Government of the United 
     Kingdom refused to provide commercially viable access to 
     Gatwick Airport;
       (4) British Airways continues to operate monopoly service 
     on the Charlotte-London (Gatwick) route and recently upgraded 
     the aircraft for that route to B-777 aircraft;
       (5) British Airways had been awarded an additional monopoly 
     route between London England and Denver, Colorado, resulting 
     in a total of 10 monopoly routes operated by British Airways 
     between the United Kingdom and points in the United States;
       (6) monopoly service results in higher fares to passengers; 
     and
       (7) US Airways is prepared, and officials of the air 
     carrier are eager, to initiate competitive air service on the 
     Charlotte-London (Gatwick) route as soon as the Government of 
     the United Kingdom provides commercially viable access to the 
     Gatwick Airport.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary should--
       (1) act vigorously to ensure the enforcement of the rights 
     of the United States under the Bermuda II Agreement;
       (2) intensify efforts to obtain the necessary assurances 
     from the Government of the United Kingdom to allow an air 
     carrier of the United States to operate commercially viable, 
     competitive service for the Charlotte-London (Gatwick) route; 
     and
       (3) ensure that the rights of the Government of the United 
     States and citizens and air carriers of the United States are 
     enforced under the Bermuda II Agreement before seeking to 
     renegotiate a broader bilateral agreement to establish 
     additional rights for air carriers of the United States and 
     foreign air carriers of the United Kingdom.

     SEC. 530. TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A 
                   BILATERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
                   AND THE UNITED KINGDOM REGARDING CLEVELAND-
                   LONDON ROUTE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Aircraft.--The term ``aircraft'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code.
       (3) Air transportation.--The term ``air transportation'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Bermuda ii agreement.--The term ``Bermuda II 
     Agreement'' means the Agreement Between the United States of 
     America and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
     Ireland Concerning Air Services, signed at Bermuda on July 
     23, 1977 (TIAS 8641).
       (5) Cleveland-london (gatwick) route.--The term 
     ``Cleveland-London (Gatwick) route'' means the route between 
     Cleveland, Ohio, and the Gatwick Airport in London, England.
       (6) Foreign air carrier.--The term ``foreign air carrier'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (8) Slot.--The term ``slot'' means a reservation for an 
     instrument flight rule takeoff or landing by an air carrier 
     of an aircraft in air transportation.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) under the Bermuda II Agreement, the United States has a 
     right to designate an air carrier of the United States to 
     serve the Cleveland-London (Gatwick) route;
       (2)(A) on December 3, 1996, the Secretary awarded the 
     Cleveland-London (Gatwick) route to Continental Airlines;
       (B) on June 15, 1998, Continental Airlines announced plans 
     to launch nonstop service on that route on February 19, 1999, 
     and to provide single-carrier one-stop service between 
     London, England (from Gatwick Airport) and dozens of cities 
     in Ohio and the surrounding region; and
       (C) on August 4, 1998, the Secretary tentatively renewed 
     the authority of Continental Airlines to carry out the 
     nonstop service referred to in subparagraph (B) and selected 
     Cleveland, Ohio, as a new gateway under the Bermuda II 
     Agreement;
       (3) unless the Government of the United Kingdom provides 
     Continental Airlines commercially viable access to Gatwick 
     Airport, Continental Airlines will not be able to initiate 
     service on the Cleveland-London (Gatwick) route; and
       (4) Continental Airlines is prepared to initiate 
     competitive air service on the Cleveland-London (Gatwick) 
     route when the Government of the United Kingdom provides 
     commercially viable access to the Gatwick Airport.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary should--
       (1) act vigorously to ensure the enforcement of the rights 
     of the United States under the Bermuda II Agreement;
       (2) intensify efforts to obtain the necessary assurances 
     from the Government of the United Kingdom to allow an air 
     carrier of the United States to operate commercially viable, 
     competitive service for the Cleveland-London (Gatwick) route; 
     and
       (3) ensure that the rights of the Government of the United 
     States and citizens and

[[Page S2299]]

     air carriers of the United States are enforced under the 
     Bermuda II Agreement before seeking to renegotiate a broader 
     bilateral agreement to establish additional rights for air 
     carriers of the United States and foreign air carriers of the 
     United Kingdom, including the right to commercially viable 
     competitive slots at Gatwick Airport and Heathrow Airport in 
     London, England, for air carriers of the United States.

     SEC. 531. ALLOCATION OF TRUST FUND FUNDING.

        (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term ``Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund'' means the trust fund established under 
     section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the States, 
     the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico.
       (4) State dollar contribution to the airport and airway 
     trust fund.--The term ``State dollar contribution to the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund'', with respect to a State and 
     fiscal year, means the amount of funds equal to the amounts 
     transferred to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under 
     section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are 
     equivalent to the taxes described in section 9502(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are collected in that 
     State.
       (b) Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall report to the Secretary the amount 
     equal to the amount of taxes collected in each State during 
     the preceding fiscal year that were transferred to the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
       (2) Report by secretary.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a report that 
     provides, for each State, for the preceding fiscal year--
       (A) the State dollar contribution to the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund; and
       (B) the amount of funds (from funds made available under 
     section 48103 of title 49, United States Code) that were made 
     available to the State (including any political subdivision 
     thereof) under chapter 471 of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 532. TAOS PUEBLO AND BLUE LAKES WILDERNESS AREA 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall work with the Taos Pueblo to study the feasibility of 
     conducting a demonstration project to require all aircraft 
     that fly over Taos Pueblo and the Blue Lake Wilderness Area 
     of Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, to maintain a mandatory minimum 
     altitude of at least 5,000 feet above ground level.

     SEC. 533. AIRLINE MARKETING DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Air transportation.--The term ``air transportation'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Final Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall promulgate final regulations to provide 
     for improved oral and written disclosure to each consumer of 
     air transportation concerning the corporate name of the air 
     carrier that provides the air transportation purchased by 
     that consumer. In issuing the regulations issued under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall take into account the 
     proposed regulations issued by the Secretary on January 17, 
     1995, published at page 3359, volume 60, Federal Register.

     SEC. 534. CERTAIN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, 
     intergovernmental circular advisories or other process, or 
     any judicial proceeding or ruling to the contrary, the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall use such funds as 
     necessary to contract for the operation of air traffic 
     control towers, located in Salisbury, Maryland; Bozeman, 
     Montana; and Boca Raton, Florida: Provided, That the Federal 
     Aviation Administration has made a prior determination of 
     eligibility for such towers to be included in the contract 
     tower program.

     SEC. 535. COMPENSATION UNDER THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Death on the High Seas 
     Act (46 U.S.C. App. 762) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     recovery''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Commercial Aviation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the death was caused during 
     commercial aviation, additional compensation for nonpecuniary 
     damages for wrongful death of a decedent is recoverable in a 
     total amount, for all beneficiaries of that decedent, that 
     shall not exceed the greater of the pecuniary loss sustained 
     or a sum total of $750,000 from all defendants for all 
     claims. Punitive damages are not recoverable.
       ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--The $750,000 amount shall be 
     adjusted, beginning in calendar year 2000 by the increase, if 
     any, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for 
     the prior year over the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers for the calendar year 1998.
       ``(3) Nonpecuniary damages.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `nonpecuniary damages' means damages for 
     loss of care, comfort, and companionship.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to any death caused during commercial aviation 
     occurring after July 16, 1996.
                TITLE VI--AVIATION COMPETITION PROMOTION

     SEC. 601. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to facilitate, through a 4-
     year pilot program, incentives and projects that will help up 
     to 40 communities or consortia of communities to improve 
     their access to the essential airport facilities of the 
     national air transportation system through public-private 
     partnerships and to identify and establish ways to overcome 
     the unique policy, economic, geographic, and marketplace 
     factors that may inhibit the availability of quality, 
     affordable air service to small communities.

     SEC. 602. ESTABLISHMENT OF SMALL COMMUNITY AVIATION 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       Section 102 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(g) Small Community Air Service Development Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 4-
     year pilot aviation development program to be administered by 
     a program director designated by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Functions.--The program director shall--
       ``(A) function as a facilitator between small communities 
     and air carriers;
       ``(B) carry out section 41743 of this title;
       ``(C) carry out the airline service restoration program 
     under sections 41744, 41745, and 41746 of this title;
       ``(D) ensure that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 
     collects data on passenger information to assess the service 
     needs of small communities;
       ``(E) work with and coordinate efforts with other Federal, 
     State, and local agencies to increase the viability of 
     service to small communities and the creation of aviation 
     development zones; and
       ``(F) provide policy recommendations to the Secretary and 
     the Congress that will ensure that small communities have 
     access to quality, affordable air transportation services.
       ``(3) Reports.--The program director shall provide an 
     annual report to the Secretary and the Congress beginning in 
     1999 that--
       ``(A) analyzes the availability of air transportation 
     services in small communities, including, but not limited to, 
     an assessment of the air fares charged for air transportation 
     services in small communities compared to air fares charged 
     for air transportation services in larger metropolitan areas 
     and an assessment of the levels of service, measured by types 
     of aircraft used, the availability of seats, and scheduling 
     of flights, provided to small communities;
       ``(B) identifies the policy, economic, geographic and 
     marketplace factors that inhibit the availability of quality, 
     affordable air transportation services to small communities; 
     and
       ``(C) provides policy recommendations to address the 
     policy, economic, geographic, and marketplace factors 
     inhibiting the availability of quality, affordable air 
     transportation services to small communities.''.

     SEC. 603. COMMUNITY-CARRIER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 41743. Air service program for small communities

       ``(a) Communities Program.--Under advisory guidelines 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation, a small 
     community or a consortia of small communities or a State may 
     develop an assessment of its air service requirements, in 
     such form as the program director designated by the Secretary 
     under section 102(g) may require, and submit the assessment 
     and service proposal to the program director.
       ``(b) Selection of Participants.--In selecting community 
     programs for participation in the communities program under 
     subsection (a), the program director shall apply criteria, 
     including geographical diversity and the presentation of 
     unique circumstances, that will demonstrate the feasibility 
     of the program. For purposes of this subsection, the 
     application of geographical diversity criteria means criteria 
     that--
       ``(1) will promote the development of a national air 
     transportation system; and
       ``(2) will involve the participation of communities in all 
     regions of the country.
       ``(c) Carriers Program.--The program director shall invite 
     part 121 air carriers and regional/commuter carriers (as such 
     terms are defined in section 41715(d) of this title) to offer 
     service proposals in response to, or in conjunction with, 
     community aircraft service assessments submitted to the 
     office under subsection (a). A service proposal under this 
     paragraph shall include--
       ``(1) an assessment of potential daily passenger traffic, 
     revenues, and costs necessary for the carrier to offer the 
     service;
       ``(2) a forecast of the minimum percentage of that traffic 
     the carrier would require the community to garner in order 
     for the carrier to start up and maintain the service; and

[[Page S2300]]

       ``(3) the costs and benefits of providing jet service by 
     regional or other jet aircraft.
       ``(d) Program Support Function.--The program director shall 
     work with small communities and air carriers, taking into 
     account their proposals and needs, to facilitate the 
     initiation of service. The program director--
       ``(1) may work with communities to develop innovative means 
     and incentives for the initiation of service;
       ``(2) may obligate funds appropriated under section 604 of 
     the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System 
     Improvement Act of 1998 to carry out this section;
       ``(3) shall continue to work with both the carriers and the 
     communities to develop a combination of community incentives 
     and carrier service levels that--
       ``(A) are acceptable to communities and carriers; and
       ``(B) do not conflict with other Federal or State programs 
     to facilitate air transportation to the communities;
       ``(4) designate an airport in the program as an Air Service 
     Development Zone and work with the community on means to 
     attract business to the area surrounding the airport, to 
     develop land use options for the area, and provide data, 
     working with the Department of Commerce and other agencies;
       ``(5) take such other action under this chapter as may be 
     appropriate.
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Community support.--The program director may not 
     provide financial assistance under subsection (c)(2) to any 
     community unless the program director determines that--
       ``(A) a public-private partnership exists at the community 
     level to carry out the community's proposal;
       ``(B) the community will make a substantial financial 
     contribution that is appropriate for that community's 
     resources, but of not less than 25 percent of the cost of the 
     project in any event;
       ``(C) the community has established an open process for 
     soliciting air service proposals; and
       ``(D) the community will accord similar benefits to air 
     carriers that are similarly situated.
       ``(2) Amount.--The program director may not obligate more 
     than $30,000,000 of the amounts appropriated under 604 of the 
     Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System 
     Improvement Act of 1998 over the 4 years of the program.
       ``(3) Number of participants.--The program established 
     under subsection (a) shall not involve more than 40 
     communities or consortia of communities.
       ``(f) Report.--The program director shall report through 
     the Secretary to the Congress annually on the progress made 
     under this section during the preceding year in expanding 
     commercial aviation service to smaller communities.

     ``Sec. 41744. Pilot program project authority

       ``(a) In General.--The program director designated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation under section 102(g)(1) shall 
     establish a 4-year pilot program--
       ``(1) to assist communities and States with inadequate 
     access to the national transportation system to improve their 
     access to that system; and
       ``(2) to facilitate better air service link-ups to support 
     the improved access.
       ``(b) Project Authority.--Under the pilot program 
     established pursuant to subsection (a), the program director 
     may--
       ``(1) out of amounts appropriated under section 604 of the 
     Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System 
     Improvement Act of 1998, provide financial assistance by way 
     of grants to small communities or consortia of small 
     communities under section 41743 of up to $500,000 per year; 
     and
       ``(2) take such other action as may be appropriate.
       ``(c) Other Action.--Under the pilot program established 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the program director may 
     facilitate service by--
       ``(1) working with airports and air carriers to ensure that 
     appropriate facilities are made available at essential 
     airports;
       ``(2) collecting data on air carrier service to small 
     communities; and
       ``(3) providing policy recommendations to the Secretary to 
     stimulate air service and competition to small communities.
       ``(d) Additional Action.--Under the pilot program 
     established pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     work with air carriers providing service to participating 
     communities and major air carriers serving large hub airports 
     (as defined in section 41731(a)(3)) to facilitate joint fare 
     arrangements consistent with normal industry practice.

     ``Sec. 41745. Assistance to communities for service

       ``(a) In General.--Financial assistance provided under 
     section 41743 during any fiscal year as part of the pilot 
     program established under section 41744(a) shall be 
     implemented for not more than--
       ``(1) 4 communities within any State at any given time; and
       ``(2) 40 communities in the entire program at any time.
     For purposes of this subsection, a consortium of communities 
     shall be treated as a single community.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--In order to participate in a pilot 
     project under this subchapter, a State, community, or group 
     of communities shall apply to the Secretary in such form and 
     at such time, and shall supply such information, as the 
     Secretary may require, and shall demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that--
       ``(1) the applicant has an identifiable need for access, or 
     improved access, to the national air transportation system 
     that would benefit the public;
       ``(2) the pilot project will provide material benefits to a 
     broad section of the travelling public, businesses, 
     educational institutions, and other enterprises whose access 
     to the national air transportation system is limited;
       ``(3) the pilot project will not impede competition; and
       ``(4) the applicant has established, or will establish, 
     public-private partnerships in connection with the pilot 
     project to facilitate service to the public.
       ``(c) Coordination With Other Provisions of Subchapter.--
     The Secretary shall carry out the 4-year pilot program 
     authorized by this subchapter in such a manner as to 
     complement action taken under the other provisions of this 
     subchapter. To the extent the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate, the Secretary may adopt criteria for 
     implementation of the 4-year pilot program that are the same 
     as, or similar to, the criteria developed under the preceding 
     sections of this subchapter for determining which airports 
     are eligible under those sections. The Secretary shall also, 
     to the extent possible, provide incentives where no direct, 
     viable, and feasible alternative service exists, taking into 
     account geographical diversity and appropriate market 
     definitions.
       ``(d) Maximization of Participation.--The Secretary shall 
     structure the program established pursuant to section 
     41744(a) in a way designed to--
       ``(1) permit the participation of the maximum feasible 
     number of communities and States over a 4-year period by 
     limiting the number of years of participation or otherwise; 
     and
       ``(2) obtain the greatest possible leverage from the 
     financial resources available to the Secretary and the 
     applicant by--
       ``(A) progressively decreasing, on a project-by-project 
     basis, any Federal financial incentives provided under this 
     chapter over the 4-year period; and
       ``(B) terminating as early as feasible Federal financial 
     incentives for any project determined by the Secretary after 
     its implementation to be--
       ``(i) viable without further support under this subchapter; 
     or
       ``(ii) failing to meet the purposes of this chapter or 
     criteria established by the Secretary under the pilot 
     program.
       ``(e) Success Bonus.--If Federal financial incentives to a 
     community are terminated under subsection (d)(2)(B) because 
     of the success of the program in that community, then that 
     community may receive a one-time incentive grant to ensure 
     the continued success of that program.
       ``(f) Program To Terminate in 4 Years.--No new financial 
     assistance may be provided under this subchapter for any 
     fiscal year beginning more than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation 
     System Improvement Act of 1998.

     ``Sec. 41746. Additional authority

       ``In carrying out this chapter, the Secretary--
       ``(1) may provide assistance to States and communities in 
     the design and application phase of any project under this 
     chapter, and oversee the implementation of any such project;
       ``(2) may assist States and communities in putting together 
     projects under this chapter to utilize private sector 
     resources, other Federal resources, or a combination of 
     public and private resources;
       ``(3) may accord priority to service by jet aircraft;
       ``(4) take such action as may be necessary to ensure that 
     financial resources, facilities, and administrative 
     arrangements made under this chapter are used to carry out 
     the purposes of title VI of the Wendell H. Ford National Air 
     Transportation System Improvement Act of 1998; and
       ``(5) shall work with the Federal Aviation Administration 
     on airport and air traffic control needs of communities in 
     the program.

     ``Sec. 41747. Air traffic control services pilot program

       ``(a) In General.--To further facilitate the use of, and 
     improve the safety at, small airports, the Administrator of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a pilot 
     program to contract for Level I air traffic control services 
     at 20 facilities not eligible for participation in the 
     Federal Contract Tower Program.
       ``(b) Program Components.--In carrying out the pilot 
     program established under subsection (a), the Administrator 
     may--
       ``(1) utilize current, actual, site-specific data, forecast 
     estimates, or airport system plan data provided by a facility 
     owner or operator;
       ``(2) take into consideration unique aviation safety, 
     weather, strategic national interest, disaster relief, 
     medical and other emergency management relief services, 
     status of regional airline service, and related factors at 
     the facility;
       ``(3) approve for participation any facility willing to 
     fund a pro rata share of the operating costs used by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to calculate, and, as 
     necessary, a 1:1 benefit-to-cost ratio, as required for 
     eligibility under the Federal Contract Tower Program; and

[[Page S2301]]

       ``(4) approve for participation no more than 3 facilities 
     willing to fund a pro rata share of construction costs for an 
     air traffic control tower so as to achieve, at a minimum, a 
     1:1 benefit-to-cost ratio, as required for eligibility under 
     the Federal Contract Tower Program, and for each of such 
     facilities the Federal share of construction costs does not 
     exceed $1,000,000.
       ``(c) Report.--One year before the pilot program 
     established under subsection (a) terminates, the 
     Administrator shall report to the Congress on the 
     effectiveness of the program, with particular emphasis on the 
     safety and economic benefits provided to program participants 
     and the national air transportation system.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     417 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 41742 the following:

``41743. Air service program for small communities.
``41744. Pilot program project authority.
``41745. Assistance to communities for service.
``41746. Additional authority.
``41747. Air traffic control services pilot program.''.

       (c) Waiver of Local Contribution.--Section 41736(b) is 
     amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
     ``Paragraph (4) does not apply to any community approved for 
     service under this section during the period beginning 
     October 1, 1991, and ending December 31, 1997.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out section 41747 of title 
     49, United States Code.

     SEC. 604. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       To carry out sections 41743 through 41746 of title 49, 
     United States Code, for the 4 fiscal-year period beginning 
     with fiscal year 1999--
       (1) there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of Transportation not more than $10,000,000; and
       (2) not more than $20,000,000 shall be made available, if 
     available, to the Secretary for obligation and expenditure 
     out of the account established under section 45303(a) of 
     title 49, United States Code.
     To the extent that amounts are not available in such account, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to provide the amount authorized to be obligated 
     under paragraph (2) to carry out those sections for that 4 
     fiscal-year period.

     SEC. 605. MARKETING PRACTICES.

       Section 41712 is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``On''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Marketing Practices That Adversely Affect Service to 
     Small or Medium Communities.--Within 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Wendell H. Ford National Air 
     Transportation System Improvement Act of 1998, the Secretary 
     shall review the marketing practices of air carriers that may 
     inhibit the availability of quality, affordable air 
     transportation services to small and medium-sized 
     communities, including--
       ``(1) marketing arrangements between airlines and travel 
     agents;
       ``(2) code-sharing partnerships;
       ``(3) computer reservation system displays;
       ``(4) gate arrangements at airports;
       ``(5) exclusive dealing arrangments; and
       ``(6) any other marketing practice that may have the same 
     effect.
       ``(c) Regulations.--If the Secretary finds, after 
     conducting the review required by subsection (b), that 
     marketing practices inhibit the availability of such service 
     to such communities, then, after public notice and an 
     opportunity for comment, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that address the problem.''.

     SEC. 606. SLOT EXEMPTIONS FOR NONSTOP REGIONAL JET SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 is amended 
     by--
       (1) redesignating section 41715 as 41716; and
       (2) inserting after section 41714 the following:

     ``Sec. 41715. Slot exemptions for nonstop regional jet 
       service.

       ``(a) In General.--Within 90 days after receiving an 
     application for an exemption to provide nonstop regional jet 
     air service between--
       ``(1) an airport with fewer than 2,000,000 annual 
     enplanements; and
       ``(2) a high density airport subject to the exemption 
     authority under section 41714(a),

     the Secretary of Transportation shall grant or deny the 
     exemption in accordance with established principles of safety 
     and the promotion of competition.
       ``(b) Existing Slots Taken Into Account.--In deciding to 
     grant or deny an exemption under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may take into consideration the slots and slot 
     exemptions already used by the applicant.
       ``(c) Conditions.--The Secretary may grant an exemption to 
     an air carrier under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) for a period of not less than 12 months;
       ``(2) for a minimum of 2 daily roundtrip flights; and
       ``(3) for a maximum of 3 daily roundtrip flights.
       ``(d) Change of Nonhub, Small Hub, or Medium Hub Airport; 
     Jet Aircraft.--The Secretary may, upon application made by an 
     air carrier operating under an exemption granted under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(1) authorize the air carrier or an affiliated air 
     carrier to upgrade service under the exemption to a larger 
     jet aircraft; or
       ``(2) authorize an air carrier operating under such an 
     exemption to change the nonhub airport or small hub airport 
     for which the exemption was granted to provide the same 
     service to a different airport that is smaller than a large 
     hub airport (as defined in section 47134(d)(2)) if--
       ``(A) the air carrier has been operating under the 
     exemption for a period of not less than 12 months; and
       ``(B) the air carrier can demonstrate unmitigatable losses.
       ``(e) Forefeiture for Misuse.--Any exemption granted under 
     subsection (a) shall be terminated immediately by the 
     Secretary if the air carrier to which it was granted uses the 
     slot for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was 
     granted or in violation of the conditions under which it was 
     granted.
       ``(f) Restoration of Air Service.--To the extent that--
       ``(1) slots were withdrawn from an air carrier under 
     section 41714(b);
       ``(2) the withdrawal of slots under that section resulted 
     in a net loss of slots; and
       ``(3) the net loss of slots and slot exemptions resulting 
     from the withdrawal had an adverse effect on service to 
     nonhub airports and in other domestic markets,

     the Secretary shall give priority consideration to the 
     request of any air carrier from which slots were withdrawn 
     under that section for an equivalent number of slots at the 
     airport where the slots were withdrawn. No priority 
     consideration shall be given under this subsection to an air 
     carrier described in paragraph (1) when the net loss of slots 
     and slot exemptions is eliminated.
       ``(g) Priority to New Entrants and Limited Incumbent 
     Carriers.--
       ``(1) In general.--In granting slot exemptions under this 
     section the Secretary shall give priority consideration to an 
     application from an air carrier that, as of July 1, 1998, 
     operated or held fewer than 20 slots or slot exemptions at 
     the high density airport for which it filed an exemption 
     application.
       ``(2) Limitation.--No priority may be given under paragraph 
     (1) to an air carrier that, at the time of application, 
     operates or holds 20 or more slots and slot exemptions at the 
     airport for which the exemption application is filed.
       ``(3) Affiliated carriers.--The Secretary shall treat all 
     commuter air carriers that have cooperative agreements, 
     including code-share agreements, with other air carriers 
     equally for determining eligibility for exemptions under this 
     section regardless of the form of the corporate relationship 
     between the commuter air carrier and the other air carrier.
       ``(h) Stage 3 Aircraft Required.--An exemption may not be 
     granted under this section with respect to any aircraft that 
     is not a Stage 3 aircraft (as defined by the Secretary).
       ``(i) Regional Jet Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `regional jet' means a passenger, turbofan-powered aircraft 
     carrying not fewer than 30 and not more than 50 
     passengers.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 40102 is amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (28) the following:
       ``(28A) Limited incumbent air carrier.--The term `limited 
     incumbent air carrier' has the meaning given that term in 
     subpart S of part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, except that `20' shall be substituted for `12' 
     in sections 93.213(a)(5), 93.223(c)(3), and 93.226(h) as such 
     sections were in effect on August 1, 1998.''.
       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 417 is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 41716 and inserting the 
     following:

``41715. Slot exemptions for nonstop regional jet service.
``41716. Air service termination notice.''.

     SEC. 607. EXEMPTIONS TO PERIMETER RULE AT RONALD REAGAN 
                   WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417, as amended by 
     section 606, is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 41716 as 41717; and
       (2) inserting after section 41715 the following:

     ``Sec. 41716. Special Rules for Ronald Reagan Washington 
       National Airport

       ``(a) Beyond-Perimeter Exemptions.--The Secretary shall by 
     order grant exemptions from the application of sections 
     49104(a)(5), 49109, 49111(e), and 41714 of this title to air 
     carriers to operate limited frequencies and aircraft on 
     select routes between Ronald Reagan Washington National 
     Airport and domestic hub airports of such carriers and 
     exemptions from the requirements of subparts K and S of part 
     93, Code of Federal Regulations, if the Secretary finds that 
     the exemptions will--
       ``(1) provide air transportation service with domestic 
     network benefits in areas beyond the perimeter described in 
     that section;
       ``(2) increase competition in multiple markets;
       ``(3) not reduce travel options for communities served by 
     small hub airports and medium hub airports within the 
     perimeter described in section 49109 of title 49, United 
     States Code; and
       ``(4) not result in meaningfully increased travel delays.
       ``(b) Within-Perimeter Exemptions.--The Secretary shall by 
     order grant exemptions from the requirements of sections 
     49104(a)(5),

[[Page S2302]]

     49111(e), and 41714 of this title and subparts K and S of 
     part 93 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to commuter 
     air carriers for service to airports with fewer than 
     2,000,000 annual enplanements within the perimeter 
     established for civil aircraft operations at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport under section 49109. The 
     Secretary shall develop criteria for distributing slot 
     exemptions for flights within the perimeter to such airports 
     under this paragraph in a manner consistent with the 
     promotion of air transportation.
       ``(c) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Stage 3 aircraft required.--An exemption may not be 
     granted under this section with respect to any aircraft that 
     is not a Stage 3 aircraft (as defined by the Secretary).
       ``(2) General exemptions.--The exemptions granted under 
     subsections (a) and (b) may not increase the number of 
     operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in 
     any 1-hour period during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 
     p.m. by more than 2 operations.''.
       ``(3) Additional exemptions.--The Secretary shall grant 
     exemptions under subsections (a) and (b) that--
       ``(A) will result in 12 additional daily air carrier slot 
     exemptions at such airport for long-haul service beyond the 
     perimeter;
       ``(B) will result in 12 additional daily commuter slot 
     exemptions at such airport; and
       ``(C) will not result in additional daily commuter slot 
     exemptions for service to any within-the-perimeter airport 
     that is not smaller than a large hub airport (as defined in 
     section 47134(d)(2)).
       ``(4) Assessment of safety, noise and environmental 
     impacts.--The Secretary shall assess the impact of granting 
     exemptions, including the impacts of the additional slots and 
     flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport provided 
     under subsections (a) and (b) on safety, noise levels and the 
     environment within 90 days of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. The environmental assessment shall be carried out 
     in accordance with parts 1500-1508 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations. Such environmental assessment shall 
     include a public meeting.
       ``(5) Applicability with exemption 5133.--Nothing in this 
     section affects Exemption No. 5133, as from time-to-time 
     amended and extended.''.
       (b) Override of MWAA Restriction.--Section 49104(a)(5) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(D) Subparagraph (C) does not apply to any increase in 
     the number of instrument flight rule takeoffs and landings 
     necessary to implement exemptions granted by the Secretary 
     under section 41716.''.
       (c) MWAA Noise-Related Grant Assurances.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any condition for approval 
     of an airport development project that is the subject of a 
     grant application submitted to the Secretary of 
     Transportation under chapter 471 of title 49, United States 
     Code, by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the 
     Authority shall be required to submit a written assurance 
     that, for each such grant made to the Authority for fiscal 
     year 1999 or any subsequent fiscal year--
       (A) the Authority will make available for that fiscal year 
     funds for noise compatibility planning and programs that are 
     eligible to receive funding under chapter 471 of title 49, 
     United States Code, in an amount not less than 10 percent of 
     the aggregate annual amount of financial assistance provided 
     to the Authority by the Secretary as grants under chapter 471 
     of title 49, United States Code; and
       (B) the Authority will not divert funds from a high 
     priority safety project in order to make funds available for 
     noise compatibility planning and programs.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary of Transportation may waive the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) for any fiscal year for which 
     the Secretary determines that the Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports Authority is in full compliance with applicable 
     airport noise compatibility planning and program requirements 
     under part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be in effect 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, if on that 
     date the Secretary of Transportation certifies that the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has achieved full 
     compliance with applicable noise compatibility planning and 
     program requirements under part 150 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       (d) Noise Compatibility Planning and Programs.--Section 
     47117(e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall give priority in making grants 
     under paragraph (1)(A) to applications for airport noise 
     compatibility planning and programs at and around airports 
     where operations increase under title VI of the Wendell H. 
     Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act of 
     1998 and the amendments made by that title.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 49111 is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 417, as amended by 
     section 606(b) of this Act, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 41716 and inserting the following:

``41716. Special Rules for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
``41717. Air service termination notice.''.

       (f) Report.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and biannually thereafter, the Secretary shall 
     certify to the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation, the United States House of 
     Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, the Governments of Maryland, Virginia, and 
     West Virginia and the metropolitan planning organization for 
     Washington D.C. that noise standards, air traffic congestion, 
     airport-related vehicular congestion, safety standards, and 
     adequate air service to communities served by small hub 
     airports and medium hub airports within the perimeter 
     described in section 49109 of title 49, United States Code, 
     have been maintained at appropriate levels.

     SEC. 608. ADDITIONAL SLOT EXEMPTIONS AT CHICAGO O'HARE 
                   INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 417, as amended by section 607, is 
     amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 41717 as 41718; and
       (2) inserting after section 41716 the following:

     ``Sec. 41717. Special Rules for Chicago O'Hare International 
       Airport

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     grant 30 slot exemptions over a 3-year period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of the Wendell H. Ford National Air 
     Transportation System Improvement Act of 1998 at Chicago 
     O'Hare International Airport.
       ``(b) Equipment and Service Requirements.--
       ``(1) Stage 3 aircraft required.--An exemption may not be 
     granted under this section with respect to any aircraft that 
     is not a Stage 3 aircraft (as defined by the Secretary).
       ``(2) Service provided.--Of the exemptions granted under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(A) 18 shall be used only for service to underserved 
     markets, of which no fewer than 6 shall be designated as 
     commuter slot exemptions; and
       ``(B) 12 shall be air carrier slot exemptions.
       ``(c) Procedural Requirements.--Before granting exemptions 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) conduct an environmental review, taking noise into 
     account, and determine that the granting of the exemptions 
     will not cause a significant increase in noise;
       ``(2) determine whether capacity is available and can be 
     used safely and, if the Secretary so determines then so 
     certify;
       ``(3) give 30 days notice to the public through publication 
     in the Federal Register of the Secretary's intent to grant 
     the exemptions; and
       ``(4) consult with appropriate officers of the State and 
     local government on any related noise and environmental 
     issues.
       ``(d) Underserved Market Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `service to underserved markets' means passenger air 
     transportation service to an airport that is a nonhub airport 
     or a small hub airport (as defined in paragraphs (4) and (5), 
     respectively, of section 41731(a)).''.
       (b) Studies.--
       (1) 3-year report.--The Secretary shall study and submit a 
     report 3 years after the first exemption granted under 
     section 41717(a) of title 49, United States Code, is first 
     used on the impact of the additional slots on the safety, 
     environment, noise, access to underserved markets, and 
     competition at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
       (2) DOT study in 2000.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     shall study community noise levels in the areas surrounding 
     the 4 high-density airports after the 100 percent Stage 3 
     fleet requirements are in place, and compare those levels 
     with the levels in such areas before 1991.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     417, as amended by section 607(b) of this Act, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 41717 and inserting the 
     following:

``41717. Special Rules for Chicago O'Hare International Airport.
``41718. Air service termination notice.''.

     SEC. 609. CONSUMER NOTIFICATION OF E-TICKET EXPIRATION DATES.

       Section 41712, as amended by section 605 of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(d) E-Ticket Expiration Notice.--It shall be an unfair or 
     deceptive practice under subsection (a) for any air carrier 
     utilizing electronically transmitted tickets to fail to 
     notify the purchaser of such a ticket of its expiration date, 
     if any.''.

     SEC. 610. JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417, as amended by 
     section 608, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 41719. Joint venture agreements

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) Joint venture agreement.--The term `joint venture 
     agreement' means an agreement entered into by a major air 
     carrier on or after January 1, 1998, with regard to (A) code-
     sharing, blocked-space arrangements, long-term wet leases (as 
     defined in section 207.1 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations) of a substantial number (as defined by the 
     Secretary by regulation) of aircraft, or frequent flyer 
     programs, or (B) any other cooperative working arrangement 
     (as defined by the Secretary by regulation) between 2 or more 
     major air carriers that affects more than 15 percent of the 
     total number of available seat miles offered by the major air 
     carriers.

[[Page S2303]]

       ``(2) Major air carrier.--The term `major air carrier' 
     means a passenger air carrier that is certificated under 
     chapter 411 of this title and included in Carrier Group III 
     under criteria contained in section 04 of part 241 of title 
     14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(b) Submission of Joint Venture Agreement.--At least 30 
     days before a joint venture agreement may take effect, each 
     of the major air carriers that entered into the agreement 
     shall submit to the Secretary--
       ``(1) a complete copy of the joint venture agreement and 
     all related agreements; and
       ``(2) other information and documentary material that the 
     Secretary may require by regulation.
       ``(c) Extension of Waiting Period.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may extend the 30-day 
     period referred to in subsection (b) until--
       ``(A) in the case of a joint venture agreement with regard 
     to code-sharing, the 150th day following the last day of such 
     period; and
       ``(B) in the case of any other joint venture agreement, the 
     60th day following the last day of such period.
       ``(2) Publication of reasons for extension.--If the 
     Secretary extends the 30-day period referred to in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     reasons of the Secretary for making the extension.
       ``(d) Termination of Waiting Period.--At any time after the 
     date of submission of a joint venture agreement under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary may terminate the waiting 
     periods referred to in subsections (b) and (c) with respect 
     to the agreement.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The effectiveness of a joint venture 
     agreement may not be delayed due to any failure of the 
     Secretary to issue regulations to carry out this subsection.
       ``(f) Memorandum To Prevent Duplicative Reviews.--Promptly 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General of the 
     Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in order to 
     establish, through a written memorandum of understanding, 
     preclearance procedures to prevent unnecessary duplication of 
     effort by the Secretary and the Assistant Attorney General 
     under this section and the United States antitrust laws, 
     respectively.
       ``(g) Prior Agreements.--With respect to a joint venture 
     agreement entered into before the date of enactment of this 
     section as to which the Secretary finds that--
       ``(1) the parties have submitted the agreement to the 
     Secretary before such date of enactment; and
       ``(2) the parties have submitted any information on the 
     agreement requested by the Secretary,

     the waiting period described in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall 
     begin on the date, as determined by the Secretary, on which 
     all such information was submitted and end on the last day to 
     which the period could be extended under this section.
       ``(h) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--The authority 
     granted to the Secretary under this subsection shall not in 
     any way limit the authority of the Attorney General to 
     enforce the antitrust laws as defined in the first section of 
     the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for subchapter I of 
     such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``41716. Joint venture agreements.''.

     SEC. 611. REGIONAL AIR SERVICE INCENTIVE OPTIONS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide the 
     Congress with an analysis of means to improve service by jet 
     aircraft to underserved markets by authorizing a review of 
     different programs of Federal financial assistance, including 
     loan guarantees like those that would have been provided for 
     by section 2 of S. 1353, 105th Congress, as introduced, to 
     commuter air carriers that would purchase regional jet 
     aircraft for use in serving those markets.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall study the 
     efficacy of a program of Federal loan guarantees for the 
     purchase of regional jets by commuter air carriers. The 
     Secretary shall include in the study a review of options for 
     funding, including alternatives to Federal funding. In the 
     study, the Secretary shall analyze--
       (1) the need for such a program;
       (2) its potential benefit to small communities;
       (3) the trade implications of such a program;
       (4) market implications of such a program for the sale of 
     regional jets;
       (5) the types of markets that would benefit the most from 
     such a program;
       (6) the competititve implications of such a program; and
       (7) the cost of such a program.
       (c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report of the 
     results of the study to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure not later than 
     24 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 612. GAO STUDY OF AIR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS.

       The General Accounting Office shall conduct a study of the 
     current state of the national airport network and its ability 
     to meet the air transportation needs of the United States 
     over the next 15 years. The study shall include airports 
     located in remote communities and reliever airports. In 
     assessing the effectiveness of the system the Comptroller 
     General may consider airport runway length of 5,500 feet or 
     the equivalent altitude-adjusted length, air traffic control 
     facilities, and navigational aids.
                 TITLE VII--NATIONAL PARKS OVERFLIGHTS

     SEC. 701. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Federal Aviation Administration has sole authority 
     to control airspace over the United States;
       (2) the Federal Aviation Administration has the authority 
     to preserve, protect, and enhance the environment by 
     minimizing, mitigating, or preventing the adverse effects of 
     aircraft overflights on the public and tribal lands;
       (3) the National Park Service has the responsibility of 
     conserving the scenery and natural and historic objects and 
     wildlife in national parks and of providing for the enjoyment 
     of the national parks in ways that leave the national parks 
     unimpaired for future generations;
       (4) the protection of tribal lands from aircraft 
     overflights is consistent with protecting the public health 
     and welfare and is essential to the maintenance of the 
     natural and cultural resources of Indian tribes;
       (5) the National Parks Overflights Working Group, composed 
     of general aviation, air tour, environmental, and Native 
     American representatives, recommended that the Congress enact 
     legislation based on its consensus work product; and
       (6) this title reflects the recommendations made by that 
     Group.

     SEC. 702. AIR TOUR MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR NATIONAL PARKS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 401, as amended by section 301 of 
     this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 40126. Overflights of national parks

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) General requirements.--A commercial air tour operator 
     may not conduct commercial air tour operations over a 
     national park or tribal lands except--
       ``(A) in accordance with this section;
       ``(B) in accordance with conditions and limitations 
     prescribed for that operator by the Administrator; and
       ``(C) in accordance with any effective air tour management 
     plan for that park or those tribal lands.
       ``(2) Application for operating authority.--
       ``(A) Application required.--Before commencing commercial 
     air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, a 
     commercial air tour operator shall apply to the Administrator 
     for authority to conduct the operations over that park or 
     those tribal lands.
       ``(B) Competitive bidding for limited capacity parks.--
     Whenever a commercial air tour management plan limits the 
     number of commercial air tour flights over a national park 
     area during a specified time frame, the Administrator, in 
     cooperation with the Director, shall authorize commercial air 
     tour operators to provide such service. The authorization 
     shall specify such terms and conditions as the Administrator 
     and the Director find necessary for management of commercial 
     air tour operations over the national park. The 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the Director, shall 
     develop an open competitive process for evaluating proposals 
     from persons interested in providing commercial air tour 
     services over the national park. In making a selection from 
     among various proposals submitted, the Administrator, in 
     cooperation with the Director, shall consider relevant 
     factors, including--
       ``(i) the safety record of the company or pilots;
       ``(ii) any quiet aircraft technology proposed for use;
       ``(iii) the experience in commercial air tour operations 
     over other national parks or scenic areas;
       ``(iv) the financial capability of the company;
       ``(v) any training programs for pilots; and
       ``(vi) responsiveness to any criteria developed by the 
     National Park Service or the affected national park.
       ``(C) Number of operations authorized.--In determining the 
     number of authorizations to issue to provide commercial air 
     tour service over a national park, the Administrator, in 
     cooperation with the Director, shall take into consideration 
     the provisions of the air tour management plan, the number of 
     existing commercial air tour operators and current level of 
     service and equipment provided by any such companies, and the 
     financial viability of each commercial air tour operation.
       ``(D) Cooperation with nps.--Before granting an application 
     under this paragraph, the Administrator shall, in cooperation 
     with the Director, develop an air tour management plan in 
     accordance with subsection (b) and implement such plan.
       ``(E) Time limit on response to ATMP applications.--The 
     Administrator shall act on any such application and issue a 
     decision on the application not later than 24 months after it 
     is received or amended.
       ``(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), commercial 
     air tour operators may conduct commercial air tour operations 
     over a national park under part 91 of the Federal Aviation 
     Regulations (14 CFR 91.1 et seq.) if--
       ``(A) such activity is permitted under part 119 (14 CFR 
     119.1(e)(2));

[[Page S2304]]

       ``(B) the operator secures a letter of agreement from the 
     Administrator and the national park superintendent for that 
     national park describing the conditions under which the 
     flight operations will be conducted; and
       ``(C) the total number of operations under this exception 
     is limited to not more than 5 flights in any 30-day period 
     over a particular park.
       ``(4) Special rule for safety requirements.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (c), an existing commercial air 
     tour operator shall, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation 
     System Improvement Act of 1998, apply for operating authority 
     under part 119, 121, or 135 of the Federal Aviation 
     Regulations (14 CFR Pt. 119, 121, or 135). A new entrant 
     commercial air tour operator shall apply for such authority 
     before conducting commercial air tour operations over a 
     national park or tribal lands.
       ``(b) Air Tour Management Plans.--
       ``(1) Establishment of atmps.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall, in cooperation 
     with the Director, establish an air tour management plan for 
     any national park or tribal land for which such a plan is not 
     already in effect whenever a person applies for authority to 
     operate a commercial air tour over the park. The development 
     of the air tour management plan is to be a cooperative 
     undertaking between the Federal Aviation Administration and 
     the National Park Service. The air tour management plan shall 
     be developed by means of a public process, and the agencies 
     shall develop information and analysis that explains the 
     conclusions that the agencies make in the application of the 
     respective criteria. Such explanations shall be included in 
     the Record of Decision and may be subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Objective.--The objective of any air tour management 
     plan shall be to develop acceptable and effective measures to 
     mitigate or prevent the significant adverse impacts, if any, 
     of commercial air tours upon the natural and cultural 
     resources and visitor experiences and tribal lands.
       ``(2) Environmental determination.--In establishing an air 
     tour management plan under this subsection, the Administrator 
     and the Director shall each sign the environmental decision 
     document required by section 102 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) which may 
     include a finding of no significant impact, an environmental 
     assessment, or an environmental impact statement, and the 
     Record of Decision for the air tour management plan.
       ``(3) Contents.--An air tour management plan for a national 
     park--
       ``(A) may prohibit commercial air tour operations in whole 
     or in part;
       ``(B) may establish conditions for the conduct of 
     commercial air tour operations, including commercial air tour 
     routes, maximum or minimum altitudes, time-of-day 
     restrictions, restrictions for particular events, maximum 
     number of flights per unit of time, intrusions on privacy on 
     tribal lands, and mitigation of noise, visual, or other 
     impacts;
       ``(C) shall apply to all commercial air tours within \1/2\ 
     mile outside the boundary of a national park;
       ``(D) shall include incentives (such as preferred 
     commercial air tour routes and altitudes, relief from caps 
     and curfews) for the adoption of quiet aircraft technology by 
     commercial air tour operators conducting commercial air tour 
     operations at the park;
       ``(E) shall provide for the initial allocation of 
     opportunities to conduct commercial air tours if the plan 
     includes a limitation on the number of commercial air tour 
     flights for any time period; and
       ``(F) shall justify and document the need for measures 
     taken pursuant to subparagraphs (A) through (E).
       ``(4) Procedure.--In establishing a commercial air tour 
     management plan for a national park, the Administrator and 
     the Director shall--
       ``(A) initiate at least one public meeting with interested 
     parties to develop a commercial air tour management plan for 
     the park;
       ``(B) publish the proposed plan in the Federal Register for 
     notice and comment and make copies of the proposed plan 
     available to the public;
       ``(C) comply with the regulations set forth in sections 
     1501.3 and 1501.5 through 1501.8 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (for purposes of complying with those 
     regulations, the Federal Aviation Administration is the lead 
     agency and the National Park Service is a cooperating 
     agency); and
       ``(D) solicit the participation of any Indian tribe whose 
     tribal lands are, or may be, overflown by aircraft involved 
     in commercial air tour operations over a national park or 
     tribal lands, as a cooperating agency under the regulations 
     referred to in paragraph (4)(C).
       ``(5) Amendments.--Any amendment of an air tour management 
     plan shall be published in the Federal Register for notice 
     and comment. A request for amendment of an air tour 
     management plan shall be made in such form and manner as the 
     Administrator may prescribe.
       ``(c) Interim Operating Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon application for operating 
     authority, the Administrator shall grant interim operating 
     authority under this paragraph to a commercial air tour 
     operator for a national park or tribal lands for which the 
     operator is an existing commercial air tour operator.
       ``(2) Requirements and limitations.--Interim operating 
     authority granted under this subsection--
       ``(A) shall provide annual authorization only for the 
     greater of--
       ``(i) the number of flights used by the operator to provide 
     such tours within the 12-month period prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation 
     System Improvement Act of 1998; or
       ``(ii) the average number of flights per 12-month period 
     used by the operator to provide such tours within the 36-
     month period prior to such date of enactment, and, for 
     seasonal operations, the number of flights so used during the 
     season or seasons covered by that 12-month period;
       ``(B) may not provide for an increase in the number of 
     operations conducted during any time period by the commercial 
     air tour operator to which it is granted unless the increase 
     is agreed to by the Administrator and the Director;
       ``(C) shall be published in the Federal Register to provide 
     notice and opportunity for comment;
       ``(D) may be revoked by the Administrator for cause;
       ``(E) shall terminate 180 days after the date on which an 
     air tour management plan is established for that park or 
     those tribal lands; and
       ``(F) shall--
       ``(i) promote protection of national park resources, 
     visitor experiences, and tribal lands;
       ``(ii) promote safe operations of the commercial air tour;
       ``(iii) promote the adoption of quiet technology, as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(iv) allow for modifications of the operation based on 
     experience if the modification improves protection of 
     national park resources and values and of tribal lands.
       ``(3) New entrant air tour operators.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator, in cooperation with 
     the Director, may grant interim operating authority under 
     this paragraph to an air tour operator for a national park 
     for which that operator is a new entrant air tour operator if 
     the Administrator determines the authority is necessary to 
     ensure competition in the provision of commercial air tours 
     over that national park or those tribal lands.
       ``(B) Safety limitation.--The Administrator may not grant 
     interim operating authority under subparagraph (A) if the 
     Administrator determines that it would create a safety 
     problem at that park or on tribal lands, or the Director 
     determines that it would create a noise problem at that park 
     or on tribal lands.
       ``(C) ATMP limitation.--The Administrator may grant interim 
     operating authority under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph 
     only if the air tour management plan for the park or tribal 
     lands to which the application relates has not been developed 
     within 24 months after the date of enactment of the Wendell 
     H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act of 
     1998.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Commercial air tour.--The term `commercial air tour' 
     means any flight conducted for compensation or hire in a 
     powered aircraft where a purpose of the flight is 
     sightseeing. If the operator of a flight asserts that the 
     flight is not a commercial air tour, factors that can be 
     considered by the Administrator in making a determination of 
     whether the flight is a commercial air tour, include, but are 
     not limited to--
       ``(A) whether there was a holding out to the public of 
     willingness to conduct a sightseeing flight for compensation 
     or hire;
       ``(B) whether a narrative was provided that referred to 
     areas or points of interest on the surface;
       ``(C) the area of operation;
       ``(D) the frequency of flights;
       ``(E) the route of flight;
       ``(F) the inclusion of sightseeing flights as part of any 
     travel arrangement package; or
       ``(G) whether the flight or flights in question would or 
     would not have been canceled based on poor visibility of the 
     surface.
       ``(2) Commercial air tour operator.--The term `commercial 
     air tour operator' means any person who conducts a commercial 
     air tour.
       ``(3) Existing commercial air tour operator.--The term 
     `existing commercial air tour operator' means a commercial 
     air tour operator that was actively engaged in the business 
     of providing commercial air tours over a national park at any 
     time during the 12-month period ending on the date of 
     enactment of the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation 
     System Improvement Act of 1998.
       ``(4) New entrant commercial air tour operator.--The term 
     `new entrant commercial air tour operator' means a commercial 
     air tour operator that--
       ``(A) applies for operating authority as a commercial air 
     tour operator for a national park; and
       ``(B) has not engaged in the business of providing 
     commercial air tours over that national park or those tribal 
     lands in the 12-month period preceding the application.
       ``(5) Commercial air tour operations.--The term `commercial 
     air tour operations' means commercial air tour flight 
     operations conducted--
       ``(A) over a national park or within \1/2\ mile outside the 
     boundary of any national park;
       ``(B) below a minimum altitude, determined by the 
     Administrator in cooperation with the Director, above ground 
     level (except

[[Page S2305]]

     solely for purposes of takeoff or landing, or necessary for 
     safe operation of an aircraft as determined under the rules 
     and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     requiring the pilot-in-command to take action to ensure the 
     safe operation of the aircraft); and
       ``(C) less than 1 mile laterally from any geographic 
     feature within the park (unless more than \1/2\ mile outside 
     the boundary).
       ``(6) National park.--The term `national park' means any 
     unit of the National Park System.
       ``(7) Tribal lands.--The term `tribal lands' means `Indian 
     country', as defined by section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code, that is within or abutting a national park.
       ``(8) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
       ``(9) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the National Park Service.''.
       (b) Exemptions.--
       (1) Grand canyon.--Section 40126 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), does not apply to--
       (A) the Grand Canyon National Park; or
       (B) Indian country within or abutting the Grand Canyon 
     National Park.
       (2) Alaska.--The provisions of this title and section 40126 
     of title 49, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), 
     do not apply to any land or waters located in Alaska.
       (3) Compliance with other regulations.--For purposes of 
     section 40126 of title 49, United States Code--
       (A) regulations issued by the Secretary of Transportation 
     and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     under section 3 of Public Law 100-91 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1, note); 
     and
       (B) commercial air tour operations carried out in 
     compliance with the requirements of those regulations,
     shall be deemed to meet the requirements of such section 
     40126.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     401 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``40126. Overflights of national parks.''.

     SEC. 703. ADVISORY GROUP.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and the Director of the National Park 
     Service shall jointly establish an advisory group to provide 
     continuing advice and counsel with respect to the operation 
     of commercial air tours over and near national parks.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The advisory group shall be composed of--
       (A) a balanced group of --
       (i) representatives of general aviation;
       (ii) representatives of commercial air tour operators;
       (iii) representatives of environmental concerns; and
       (iv) representatives of Indian tribes;
       (B) a representative of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration; and
       (C) a representative of the National Park Service.
       (2) Ex-officio members.--The Administrator and the Director 
     shall serve as ex-officio members.
       (3) Chairperson.--The representative of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration and the representative of the 
     National Park Service shall serve alternating 1-year terms as 
     chairman of the advisory group, with the representative of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration serving initially until 
     the end of the calendar year following the year in which the 
     advisory group is first appointed.
       (c) Duties.--The advisory group shall provide advice, 
     information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the 
     Director--
       (1) on the implementation of this title;
       (2) on the designation of appropriate and feasible quiet 
     aircraft technology standards for quiet aircraft technologies 
     under development for commercial purposes, which will receive 
     preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan;
       (3) on other measures that might be taken to accommodate 
     the interests of visitors to national parks; and
       (4) on such other national park or tribal lands-related 
     safety, environmental, and air touring issues as the 
     Administrator and the Director may request.
       (d) Compensation; Support; FACA.--
       (1) Compensation and travel.--Members of the advisory group 
     who are not officers or employees of the United States, while 
     attending conferences or meetings of the group or otherwise 
     engaged in its business, or while serving away from their 
     homes or regular places of business, each member may be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for persons in the Government service employed 
     intermittently.
       (2) Administrative support.--The Federal Aviation 
     Administration and the National Park Service shall jointly 
     furnish to the advisory group clerical and other assistance.
       (3) Nonapplication of faca.--Section 14 of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to the 
     advisory group.
       (e) Report.--The Administrator and the Director shall 
     jointly report to the Congress within 24 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act on the success of this title in 
     providing incentives for quiet aircraft technology.

     SEC. 704. OVERFLIGHT FEE REPORT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
     shall transmit to Congress a report on the effects proposed 
     overflight fees are likely to have on the commercial air tour 
     industry. The report shall include, but shall not be limited 
     to--
       (1) the viability of a tax credit for the commercial air 
     tour operators equal to the amount of the proposed fee 
     charged by the National Park Service; and
       (2) the financial effects proposed offsets are likely to 
     have on Federal Aviation Administration budgets and 
     appropriations.

     SEC. 705. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL AIR TOURS OVER THE ROCKY 
                   MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK.

       Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     no commercial air tour may be operated in the airspace over 
     the Rocky Mountain National Park notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act or section 40126 of title 49, United 
     States Code, as added by this Act.
             TITLE VIII--CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT COMMEMORATION

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Centennial of Flight 
     Commemoration Act''.

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) December 17, 2003, is the 100th anniversary of the 
     first successful manned, free, controlled, and sustained 
     flight by a power-driven, heavier-than-air machine;
       (2) the first flight by Orville and Wilbur Wright 
     represents the fulfillment of the age-old dream of flying;
       (3) the airplane has dramatically changed the course of 
     transportation, commerce, communication, and warfare 
     throughout the world;
       (4) the achievement by the Wright brothers stands as a 
     triumph of American ingenuity, inventiveness, and diligence 
     in developing new technologies, and remains an inspiration 
     for all Americans;
       (5) it is appropriate to remember and renew the legacy of 
     the Wright brothers at a time when the values of creativity 
     and daring represented by the Wright brothers are critical to 
     the future of the Nation; and
       (6) as the Nation approaches the 100th anniversary of 
     powered flight, it is appropriate to celebrate and 
     commemorate the centennial year through local, national, and 
     international observances and activities.

     SEC. 803. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     Centennial of Flight Commission.

     SEC. 804. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 6 members, as follows:
       (1) The Director of the National Air and Space Museum of 
     the Smithsonian Institution or his designee.
       (2) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration or his designee.
       (3) The chairman of the First Flight Centennial Foundation 
     of North Carolina, or his designee.
       (4) The chairman of the 2003 Committee of Ohio, or his 
     designee.
       (5) As chosen by the Commission, the president or head of a 
     United States aeronautical society, foundation, or 
     organization of national stature or prominence who will be a 
     person from a State other than Ohio or North Carolina.
       (6) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, or his designee.
       (b) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall be 
     filled in the same manner in which the original designation 
     was made.
       (c) Compensation.--
       (1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), members of the Commission shall serve without pay or 
     compensation.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The Commission may adopt a policy, 
     only by unanimous vote, for members of the Commission and 
     related advisory panels to receive travel expenses, including 
     per diem in lieu of subsistence. The policy may not exceed 
     the levels established under sections 5702 and 5703 of title 
     5, United States Code. Members who are Federal employees 
     shall not receive travel expenses if otherwise reimbursed by 
     the Federal Government.
       (d) Quorum.--Three members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum.
       (e) Chairperson.--The Commission shall select a Chairperson 
     of the Commission from the members designated under 
     subsection (a) (1), (2), or (5). The Chairperson may not vote 
     on matters before the Commission except in the case of a tie 
     vote. The Chairperson may be removed by a vote of a majority 
     of the Commission's members.
       (f) Organization.--No later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall meet and select a 
     Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Executive Director.

     SEC. 805. DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) represent the United States and take a leadership role 
     with other nations in recognizing the importance of aviation 
     history in general and the centennial of powered flight in 
     particular, and promote participation by the United States in 
     such activities;
       (2) encourage and promote national and international 
     participation and sponsorships in commemoration of the 
     centennial of powered flight by persons and entities such 
     as--

[[Page S2306]]

       (A) aerospace manufacturing companies;
       (B) aerospace-related military organizations;
       (C) workers employed in aerospace-related industries;
       (D) commercial aviation companies;
       (E) general aviation owners and pilots;
       (F) aerospace researchers, instructors, and enthusiasts;
       (G) elementary, secondary, and higher educational 
     institutions;
       (H) civil, patriotic, educational, sporting, arts, 
     cultural, and historical organizations and technical 
     societies;
       (I) aerospace-related museums; and
       (J) State and local governments;
       (3) plan and develop, in coordination with the First Flight 
     Centennial Commission, the First Flight Centennial Foundation 
     of North Carolina, and the 2003 Committee of Ohio, programs 
     and activities that are appropriate to commemorate the 100th 
     anniversary of powered flight;
       (4) maintain, publish, and distribute a calendar or 
     register of national and international programs and projects 
     concerning, and provide a central clearinghouse for, 
     information and coordination regarding, dates, events, and 
     places of historical and commemorative significance regarding 
     aviation history in general and the centennial of powered 
     flight in particular;
       (5) provide national coordination for celebration dates to 
     take place throughout the United States during the centennial 
     year;
       (6) assist in conducting educational, civic, and 
     commemorative activities relating to the centennial of 
     powered flight throughout the United States, especially 
     activities that occur in the States of North Carolina and 
     Ohio and that highlight the activities of the Wright brothers 
     in such States; and
       (7) encourage the publication of popular and scholarly 
     works related to the history of aviation or the anniversary 
     of the centennial of powered flight.
       (b) Nonduplication of Activities.--The Commission shall 
     attempt to plan and conduct its activities in such a manner 
     that activities conducted pursuant to this title enhance, but 
     do not duplicate, traditional and established activities of 
     Ohio's 2003 Committee, North Carolina's First Flight 
     Centennial Commission, the First Flight Centennial 
     Foundation, or any other organization of national stature or 
     prominence.

     SEC. 806. POWERS.

       (a) Advisory Committees and Task Forces.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may appoint any advisory 
     committee or task force from among the membership of the 
     Advisory Board in section 812.
       (2) Federal cooperation.--To ensure the overall success of 
     the Commission's efforts, the Commission may call upon 
     various Federal departments and agencies to assist in and 
     give support to the programs of the Commission. The head of 
     the Federal department or agency, where appropriate, shall 
     furnish the information or assistance requested by the 
     Commission, unless prohibited by law.
       (3) Prohibition of pay other than travel expenses.--Members 
     of an advisory committee or task force authorized under 
     paragraph (1) shall not receive pay, but may receive travel 
     expenses pursuant to the policy adopted by the Commission 
     under section 804(c)(2).
       (b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action that the Commission is authorized to take under this 
     title.
       (c) Authority To Procure and To Make Legal Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision in 
     this title, only the Commission may procure supplies, 
     services, and property, and make or enter into leases and 
     other legal agreements in order to carry out this title.
       (2) Restriction.--
       (A) In general.--A contract, lease, or other legal 
     agreement made or entered into by the Commission may not 
     extend beyond the date of the termination of the Commission.
       (B) Federal support.--The Commission shall obtain property, 
     equipment, and office space from the General Services 
     Administration or the Smithsonian Institution, unless other 
     office space, property, or equipment is less costly.
       (3) Supplies and property possessed by commission at 
     termination.--Any supplies and property, except historically 
     significant items, that are acquired by the Commission under 
     this title and remain in the possession of the Commission on 
     the date of the termination of the Commission shall become 
     the property of the General Services Administration upon the 
     date of termination.
       (d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other 
     Federal agency.

     SEC. 807. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.

       (a) Executive Director.--There shall be an Executive 
     Director appointed by the Commission and chosen from among 
     detailees from the agencies and organizations represented on 
     the Commission. The Executive Director may be paid at a rate 
     not to exceed the maximum rate of basic pay payable for the 
     Senior Executive Service.
       (b) Staff.--The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of 
     any additional personnel that it considers appropriate, 
     except that an individual appointed under this subsection may 
     not receive pay in excess of the maximum rate of basic pay 
     payable for GS-14 of the General Schedule.
       (c) Inapplicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The 
     Executive Director and 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 such title, 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except as provided under subsections (a) and (b) of this 
     section.
       (d) Merit System Principles.--The appointment of the 
     Executive Director or any personnel of the Commission under 
     subsection (a) or (b) shall be made consistent with the merit 
     system principles under section 2301 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (e) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal 
     department or agency may detail, on either a nonreimbursable 
     or reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of the department 
     or agency to the Commission to assist the Commission to carry 
     out its duties under this title.
       (f) Administrative Support Services.--
       (1) Reimbursable services.--The Secretary of the 
     Smithsonian Institution may provide to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis any administrative support services that 
     are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this 
     title.
       (2) Nonreimbursable services.--The Secretary may provide 
     administrative support services to the Commission on a 
     nonreimbursable basis when, in the opinion of the Secretary, 
     the value of such services is insignificant or not practical 
     to determine.
       (g) Cooperative Agreements.--The Commission may enter into 
     cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies, State and 
     local governments, and private interests and organizations 
     that will contribute to public awareness of and interest in 
     the centennial of powered flight and toward furthering the 
     goals and purposes of this title.
       (h) Program Support.--The Commission may receive program 
     support from the nonprofit sector.

     SEC. 808. CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) Donations.--The Commission may accept donations of 
     personal services and historic materials relating to the 
     implementation of its responsibilities under the provisions 
     of this title.
       (b) Volunteer Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and 
     use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission 
     determines necessary.
       (c) Remaining Funds.--Any funds (including funds received 
     from licensing royalties) remaining with the Commission on 
     the date of the termination of the Commission may be used to 
     ensure proper disposition, as specified in the final report 
     required under section 810(b), of historically significant 
     property which was donated to or acquired by the Commission. 
     Any funds remaining after such disposition shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into 
     the general fund of the Treasury of the United States.

     SEC. 809. EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NAME, LOGOS, EMBLEMS, SEALS, AND 
                   MARKS.

       (a) In General.--The Commission may devise any logo, 
     emblem, seal, or descriptive or designating mark that is 
     required to carry out its duties or that it determines is 
     appropriate for use in connection with the commemoration of 
     the centennial of powered flight.
       (b) Licensing.--The Commission shall have the sole and 
     exclusive right to use, or to allow or refuse the use of, the 
     name ``Centennial of Flight Commission'' on any logo, emblem, 
     seal, or descriptive or designating mark that the Commission 
     lawfully adopts.
       (c) Effect on Other Rights.--No provision of this section 
     may be construed to conflict or interfere with established or 
     vested rights.
       (d) Use of Funds.--Funds from licensing royalties received 
     pursuant to this section shall be used by the Commission to 
     carry out the duties of the Commission specified by this 
     title.
       (e) Licensing Rights.--All exclusive licensing rights, 
     unless otherwise specified, shall revert to the Air and Space 
     Museum of the Smithsonian Institution upon termination of the 
     Commission.

     SEC. 810. REPORTS.

       (a) Annual Report.--In each fiscal year in which the 
     Commission is in existence, the Commission shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report describing the activities of the 
     Commission during the fiscal year. Each annual report shall 
     also include--
       (1) recommendations regarding appropriate activities to 
     commemorate the centennial of powered flight, including--
       (A) the production, publication, and distribution of books, 
     pamphlets, films, and other educational materials;
       (B) bibliographical and documentary projects and 
     publications;
       (C) conferences, convocations, lectures, seminars, and 
     other similar programs;
       (D) the development of exhibits for libraries, museums, and 
     other appropriate institutions;
       (E) ceremonies and celebrations commemorating specific 
     events that relate to the history of aviation;
       (F) programs focusing on the history of aviation and its 
     benefits to the United States and humankind; and
       (G) competitions, commissions, and awards regarding 
     historical, scholarly, artistic, literary, musical, and other 
     works, programs,

[[Page S2307]]

     and projects related to the centennial of powered flight;
       (2) recommendations to appropriate agencies or advisory 
     bodies regarding the issuance of commemorative coins, medals, 
     and stamps by the United States relating to aviation or the 
     centennial of powered flight;
       (3) recommendations for any legislation or administrative 
     action that the Commission determines to be appropriate 
     regarding the commemoration of the centennial of powered 
     flight;
       (4) an accounting of funds received and expended by the 
     Commission in the fiscal year that the report concerns, 
     including a detailed description of the source and amount of 
     any funds donated to the Commission in the fiscal year; and
       (5) an accounting of any cooperative agreements and 
     contract agreements entered into by the Commission.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than June 30, 2004, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final 
     report. The final report shall contain--
       (1) a summary of the activities of the Commission;
       (2) a final accounting of funds received and expended by 
     the Commission;
       (3) any findings and conclusions of the Commission; and
       (4) specific recommendations concerning the final 
     disposition of any historically significant items acquired by 
     the Commission, including items donated to the Commission 
     under section 808(a)(1).

     SEC. 811. AUDIT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall audit on an annual basis the financial transactions of 
     the Commission, including financial transactions involving 
     donated funds, in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
     standards.
       (2) Access.--In conducting an audit under this section, the 
     Comptroller General--
       (A) shall have access to all books, accounts, financial 
     records, reports, files, and other papers, items, or property 
     in use by the Commission, as necessary to facilitate the 
     audit; and
       (B) shall be afforded full facilities for verifying the 
     financial transactions of the Commission, including access to 
     any financial records or securities held for the Commission 
     by depositories, fiscal agents, or custodians.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than September 30, 2004, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     President and to Congress a report detailing the results of 
     any audit of the financial transactions of the Commission 
     conducted by the Comptroller General.

     SEC. 812. ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a First Flight 
     Centennial Federal Advisory Board.
       (b) Number and Appointment.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall be composed of 19 members 
     as follows:
       (A) The Secretary of the Interior, or the designee of the 
     Secretary.
       (B) The Librarian of Congress, or the designee of the 
     Librarian.
       (C) The Secretary of the Air Force, or the designee of the 
     Secretary.
       (D) The Secretary of the Navy, or the designee of the 
     Secretary.
       (E) The Secretary of Transportation, or the designee of the 
     Secretary.
       (F) Six citizens of the United States, appointed by the 
     President, who--
       (i) are not officers or employees of any government (except 
     membership on the Board shall not be construed to apply to 
     the limitation under this clause); and
       (ii) shall be selected based on their experience in the 
     fields of aerospace history, science, or education, or their 
     ability to represent the entities enumerated under section 
     805(a)(2).
       (G) Four citizens of the United States, appointed by the 
     majority leader of the Senate in consultation with the 
     minority leader of the Senate.
       (H) Four citizens of the United States, appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with 
     the minority leader of the House of Representatives. Of the 
     individuals appointed under this subparagraph--
       (i) one shall be selected from among individuals 
     recommended by the representative whose district encompasses 
     the Wright Brothers National Memorial; and
       (ii) one shall be selected from among individuals 
     recommended by the representatives whose districts encompass 
     any part of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 
     Park.
       (c) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Advisory Board shall be 
     filled in the same manner in which the original designation 
     was made.
       (d) Meetings.--Seven members of the Advisory Board shall 
     constitute a quorum for a meeting. All meetings shall be open 
     to the public.
       (e) Chairperson.--The President shall designate 1 member 
     appointed under subsection (b)(1)(F) as chairperson of the 
     Advisory Board.
       (f) Mails.--The Advisory Board may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as a 
     Federal agency.
       (g) Duties.--The Advisory Board shall advise the Commission 
     on matters related to this title.
       (h) Prohibition of Compensation Other Than Travel 
     Expenses.--Members of the Advisory Board shall not receive 
     pay, but may receive travel expenses pursuant to the policy 
     adopted by the Commission under section 804(e).
       (i) Termination.--The Advisory Board shall terminate upon 
     the termination of the Commission.

     SEC. 813. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Advisory board.--The term ``Advisory Board'' means the 
     Centennial of Flight Federal Advisory Board.
       (2) Centennial of powered flight.--The term ``centennial of 
     powered flight'' means the anniversary year, from December 
     2002 to December 2003, commemorating the 100-year history of 
     aviation beginning with the First Flight and highlighting the 
     achievements of the Wright brothers in developing the 
     technologies which have led to the development of aviation as 
     it is known today.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Centennial of Flight Commission.
       (4) Designee.--The term ``designee'' means a person from 
     the respective entity of each entity represented on the 
     Commission or Advisory Board.
       (5) First flight.--The term ``First Flight'' means the 
     first four successful manned, free, controlled, and sustained 
     flights by a power-driven, heavier-than-air machine, which 
     were accomplished by Orville and Wilbur Wright of Dayton, 
     Ohio on December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

     SEC. 814. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate not later than 60 days after 
     the submission of the final report required by section 810(b) 
     and shall transfer all documents and material to the National 
     Archives or other appropriate Federal entity.

     SEC. 815. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title--
       (1) $250,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       (2) $600,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (3) $750,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       (4) $900,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (5) $900,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (6) $600,000 for fiscal year 2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 537. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust 
the exemption amounts used to calculate the individual alternative 
minimum tax for inflation since 1993; to the Committee on Finance.


            Indexation of Alternative Minimum Tax Exemptions

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill to address 
what has become an increasingly heavy burden for middle-income 
taxpayers: the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT. My bill would 
retroactively index to inflation the exemptions used to calculate an 
individual taxpayer's AMT liability. The indexation would begin in 
1993--the last time these exemptions were raised. The AMT is 
conspicuous for its lack of indexation. Under the regular income tax, 
the tax rate structure, the standard deductions, the personal 
exemptions, and certain other structural components are indexed so that 
taxpayers are not pushed into higher income tax brackets just because 
their income has kept pace with the cost of living.
  The Joint Tax Committee estimates that in 1997, 605,000 taxpayers 
were subject to the AMT. According to these same estimates, which take 
into account the changes in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, taxpayers 
subject to the AMT could total 12 million by 2007. This is an increase 
of more than 1,800 percent in the number of taxpayers paying this 
particular tax. According to the Joint Tax Committee, this dramatic 
expansion of the AMT's reach can largely be attributed to the lack of 
indexation of the AMT exemptions.
  The AMT was created in 1969 after a Treasury Department study 
revealed that 155 individuals who had annual incomes in excess of 
$200,000 had avoided paying taxes because of loopholes in the tax code. 
We can all agree that upper-income individuals should pay their fair 
share of taxes. The AMT was created effectively to be a tax on the use 
of incentives and preferences to reduce an individual's income tax 
liability. However, since its implementation, the AMT has inadvertently 
created larger tax burdens for the middle-class, who were never meant 
to be subject to the AMT.
  Of the more than two million taxpayers who this year will be subject 
to the AMT, about half will have incomes between $30,000 and $100,000. 
Some are single working parents; and some are people who make as little 
as $527 a week, according to a recent article by David Cay Johnston in 
the January 10, 1999 New York Times. Mr. President, I will submit this 
article for the Record. Overall, the number of people affected by this 
tax is expected to grow 26 percent a year for the next decade.

[[Page S2308]]

  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 accelerated the growth of the AMT. 
Under this law, even more middle-income families may be subject to the 
AMT because they cannot take the full value of their child and 
education tax credits without reaching the AMT limits for deductions.
  Even if Congress were to exempt the child and education tax credits 
from the AMT calculation, it would only slow the spread of the AMT 
slightly if the tax is not indexed for inflation, according to a study 
by two Treasury Department economists, Robert Rebelein and Jerry 
Tempalski. I will also submit their study for the Record.
  I believe that indexing the AMT exemptions is the best way to 
restrain the unintended reach of the AMT. The AMT exemptions have only 
been raised once, in 1993, by 12.5 percent, from $40,000 to $45,000. 
Since 1986, when the tax code was last overhauled, the cost of living 
has risen 43 percent. Indexing would bring the AMT into line with the 
rest of our tax structure. It would also avoid adding any complexity to 
the already burdensome task of taxpaying Americans.
  Let me give you a real life example of how the AMT has crept up on 
middle-income taxpayers. The New York Times article provided a stark 
picture of the AMT. David and Margaret Klaassen of Marquette, Kansas, 
are a couple with 13 children. Mr. Klaassen works at home as a lawyer. 
In 1997, Mr. Klaassen earned $89,751 and paid $5,989 in Federal income 
tax. The IRS sent the Klaassens a notice in December 1998 demanding an 
additional payment of $3,761 under the AMT, including a penalty. The 
Klaassens' tax bill was higher because the AMT, a tax mechanism aimed 
at wealthy individuals who would otherwise pay no taxes, applied to 
them.
  The Klaassens are subject to the AMT because medical expenses for 
their 13 children, which include costs of battling their son's 
leukemia, resulted in exemptions and deductions totaling more than 
$45,000. Certainly the Congress did not intend for the AMT to create an 
extra burden for families like the Klaassens.
  Mr. President, there is agreement from both the Administration and 
Congress that the AMT is a growing problem for the middle class and 
that something must be done. In this new era of budget surpluses, the 
time has come for us to act to restore some measure of fairness and 
simplicity to our income tax code. This is why I advocate indexing the 
AMT, an approach that is supported by both the Tax Foundation and 
Citizens for Tax Justice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my bill to index the AMT 
exemptions for inflation as well as additional material be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 537

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

     SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT FOR INDIVIDUAL AMT EXEMPTION 
                   AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 55(d) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to exemption amount) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(4) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 1998, each of the dollar amounts contained in 
     paragraphs (1) and (3) shall be increased by an amount equal 
     to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any increase determined under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $50, such increase 
     shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1998.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 1999]

                  Funny, They Don't Look Like Fat Cats

                        (By David Cay Johnston)

       Three decades ago, Congress, embarrassed by the disclosure 
     that 155 wealthy Americans had paid no Federal income taxes, 
     enacted legislation aimed at preventing the very rich from 
     shielding their wealth in tax shelters.
       Today, that legislation, creating the alternative minimum 
     tax, is instead snaring a rapidly growing number of middle-
     class taxpayers, forcing them to pay additional tax or to 
     lose some of their tax breaks.
       Of the more than two million taxpayers who will be subject 
     this year to the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., about 
     half have incomes of $30,000 to $100,000. Some are single 
     parents with jobs; some are people making as little as $527 a 
     week. Over all, the number of people affected by the tax is 
     expected to grow 26 percent a year for the next decade.
       But many of the wealthy will not be among them. Even with 
     the A.M.T., the number of taxpayers making more than $200,000 
     who pay no taxes has risen to more than 2,000 each year.
       How a 1969 law aimed at the tax-shy rich became a growing 
     burden on moderate earners illustrates how tax policy in 
     Washington can be a hall of mirrors.
       While some Republican Congressmen favor eliminating the 
     tax, other lawmakers say such a move would be an expensive 
     tax break for the wealthy--or at least would be perceived 
     that way, and thus would be politically unpalatable. And any 
     overhaul of the system would need to compensate for the $6.6 
     billion that individuals now pay under the A.M.T. This year, 
     such payments will account for almost 1 percent of all 
     individual income tax revenue.
       ``This is a classic case of both Congress and the 
     Administration agreeing that the tax doesn't make much sense, 
     but not being able to agree on doing anything about it,'' 
     said C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist with the Urban 
     Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Washington.
       Mr. Steuerle was a Treasury Department tax official in 
     1986, when an overhaul of the tax code set the stage for 
     drawing the middle class into the A.M.T.
       In eliminating most tax shelters for the wealthy, Congress 
     decided to treat exemptions for children and deductions for 
     medical expenses just like special credits for investors in 
     oil wells, if they cut too deeply into a household's taxable 
     income.
       Congress decided that once these ``tax preferences'' 
     exceeded certain amounts--$40,000 for a married couple, for 
     example--people would be moved out of the regular income tax 
     and into the alternative minimum tax. At the time, the 
     threshold was high enough to affect virtually no one but the 
     rich. But it has since been raised only once--by 12.5 
     percent, to $45,000 for a married couple--while the cost of 
     living has risen 43 percent. And so the limits have sneaked 
     up on growing numbers of taxpayers of more modest means.
       ``Everyone knew back then that it had problems that had to 
     be fixed,'' Mr. Steuerle recalled. ``They just said, `next 
     year.' ''
       But ``next year'' has never come--and it is unlikely to 
     arrive in 1999, either. While tax policy experts have known 
     for years that the middle class would be drawn into the 
     A.M.T., few taxpayers have been clamoring for change.
       Among those few, however, are David and Margaret Klaassen 
     of Marquette, Kan. Mr. Klaassen, a lawyer who lives in and 
     works out of a farmhouse, made $89,751.07 in 1997 and paid 
     $5,989 in Federal income taxes. Four weeks ago, the Internal 
     Revenue Service sent the Klaassens a notice demanding $3,761 
     more under the alternative minimum tax, including a penalty 
     because the I.R.S. said the Klaassens knew they owed the 
     A.M.T.
       Mr. Klaassen acknowledges that he knew the I.R.S. would 
     assert that he was subject to the A.M.T., but he says the law 
     was not meant to apply to his family. ``I've never invested 
     in a tax shelter,'' he said. ``I don't even have municipal 
     bonds.''
       The Klaassens do, however, have 13 children and their 
     attendant medical expenses--including the costs of caring for 
     their second son, Aaron, 17, who has battled leukemia for 
     years. It was those exemptions and deductions that subjected 
     them to the A.M.T.
       ``What kind of policy taxes you for spending money to save 
     your child's life?'' Mr. Klaassen asked.
       The tax affects taxpayers in three ways. Some, like the 
     Klaassens, pay the tax at either a 26 percent or a 28 percent 
     rate because they have more than $45,000 in exemptions and 
     deductions. Others do not pay the A.M.T. itself, but they 
     cannot take the full tax breaks they would have received 
     under the regular income tax system without running up 
     against limits set by the A.M.T. The A.M.T. can also convert 
     tax-exempt income from certain bonds and from exercising 
     incentive stock options into taxable income.
       It may be useful to think of the alternative minimum tax as 
     a parallel universe to the regular income tax system, similar 
     in some ways but more complex and with its own 
     classifications of deductions, its own rates and its own 
     paperwork. The idea was that taxpayers who had escaped the 
     regular tax universe by piling on credits and deductions 
     would enter this new universe to pay their fair share. 
     (Likewise, there is a corporate A.M.T. that parallels the 
     corporate income tax.)
       At first, the burden of the A.M.T. fell mainly on the 
     shoulders of business owners and investors, said Robert S. 
     McIntyre, executive director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a 
     nonprofit group in Washington that says the tax system favors 
     the rich. Based on I.R.S. data, Mr. McIntyre said he found 
     that 37 percent of A.M.T. revenue in 1990 was a result of 
     business owners using losses from previous years to reduce 
     their regular income taxes; an additional 18 percent was 
     because of big deductions for state and local taxes.
       But that has begun to shift, largely as a result of the 
     1986 changes, which eliminated most tax shelters and lowered 
     tax rates.
       When President Reagan and Congress were overhauling the tax 
     code, they could not make the projected revene under the new

[[Page S2309]]

     rules equal those under the old system. Huge, and growing, 
     budget deficits made it politically essential for the 
     official estimates to show that after tax reform, the same 
     amount of money would flow to Washington.
       One solution, said Mr. Steuerle, the former Treasury 
     official, was to count personal and dependent exemptions and 
     some medical expenses as preferences to be reduced or ignored 
     under the A.M.T. just as special credits for petroleum 
     investments and other tax shelters are.
       Mortgage interest and charitable gifts were not counted as 
     preferences, according to tax policy experts who worked on 
     the legislation, because they generated more money than was 
     needed.
       But the A.M.T. has not stayed ``revenue neutral,'' in 
     Washington parlance.
       The regular income tax was indexed for inflation in 1984, 
     so that taxpayers would not get pushed into higher tax 
     brackets simply because their income kept pace with the cost 
     of living.
       The A.M.T. limits, however, have not been indexed. The 
     total allowable exemptions before the tax kicks in have been 
     fixed since 1993 at $45,000 for a married couple filing 
     jointly. For unmarried people, the total amount is now 
     $33,750, and for married people filing separately, it is 
     $22,500.
       If the limit has been indexed since 1986, when the A.M.T. 
     was overhauled, it would be about $57,000 for married couples 
     filing jointly--and most middle-income households would still 
     be exempt.
       Mr. Steuerle said he warned at the time that including 
     ``normal, routine deductions and exemptions that everyone 
     takes'' in the list of preferences would eventually turn the 
     A.M.T. into a tax on the middle class.
       That appears to be exactly what has happened.
       For example, a married person who makes just $527 a week 
     and files her tax return separately can be subject to the 
     tax, said David S. Hulse, an assistant professor of 
     accounting at the University of Kentucky.
       And the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which allows a $500-a-
     child tax credit as well as education credits, may make even 
     more middle-class families subject to the A.M.T. by reducing 
     the value of those credits.
       Two Treasury Department economists recently calculated that 
     largely because of the new credits, the number of households 
     making $30,000 to $50,000 who must pay the alternative 
     minimum tax will more than triple in the coming decade. The 
     economists, Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski, also 
     calculated that for households making $15,000 to $30,000 
     annually, A.M.T. payments will grow 25-fold, to $1.2 billion, 
     by 2008.
       Last year, many more people would have been subject to the 
     A.M.T. if Congress had not made a last-minute fix pushed by 
     Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, 
     that--for 1998 only--exempted the new child and education 
     credits. The move came after I.R.S. officials told Congress 
     that the credits added enormous complexity to calculating tax 
     liability. Figuring out how much the A.M.T. would reduce the 
     credits was beyond the capacity of most taxpayers and even 
     many paid tax preparers, the I.R.S. officials said.
       Even if Congress makes a permanent fix to the problems 
     created by the child and education credits, it will put only 
     a minor drag on the spread of the A.M.T. as long as the tax 
     is not indexed for inflation. The two Treasury economists 
     calculated that revenue from the tax would climb to $25 
     billion in 2008 without a fix, or to $21.9 billion with one.
       In 1999, if there is no exemption for the credits, a single 
     parent who does not itemize deductions but who makes $50,000 
     and takes a credit for the costs of caring for two children 
     while he works, will be subject to the A.M.T. estimated 
     Jeffrey Pretsfelder, an editor at RIA Group, a publisher of 
     tax information for professionals.
       If the tax laws are not changed, 8.8 million taxpayers will 
     have to pay the A.M.T. a decade from now, the Congressional 
     Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last month. Add in the 
     taxpayers who will not receive the full value of their 
     deductions because they run up against the limits set by the 
     A.M.T., and the total grows to 11.6 million taxpayers--92 
     percent of whom have incomes of less than $200,000, the two 
     Treasury economists estimated.
       While many lawmakers and Treasury officials have criticized 
     the impact of the tax on middle-class taxpayers, there are 
     few signs of change, as Republicans and the Administration 
     talk past each other.
       Representative Bill Archer, the Texas Republican who as the 
     chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is the chief 
     tax writer, said the A.M.T. should be eliminated in the next 
     budget.
       ``Unfortunately, the A.M.T. tax can penalize large 
     families, which is part of the reason why Republicans for 
     years have tried to eliminate it or at least reduce it,'' Mr. 
     Archer said. ``Unfortunately, President Clinton blocked our 
     efforts each time.''
       Lawrence H. Summers, the Deputy Treasury Secretary, said 
     the Administration was ``very concerned that the A.M.T. has a 
     growing impact on middle-class families, including by 
     diluting the child credit, education credits and other 
     crucial tax benefits, and we hope to address this issue in 
     the President's budget.
       ``Subject to budget constraints, we look forward to working 
     with Congress on this important issue,'' he continued.
       That revenue concerns have thwarted exempting the middle 
     class runs counter to the reason Congress initially imposed 
     the tax.
       ``You need an A.M.T. because people who make a lot of money 
     should pay some income taxes,'' said Mr. McIntyre, of 
     Citizens for Tax Justice. ``If you believe, like Mr. Archer 
     and a lot of Republicans do, that the more you make the less 
     in taxes you should pay, then of course you are against the 
     A.M.T. But somehow I don't think most people see it that 
     way.''
       The Klaassens, meanwhile, are challenging the A.M.T. in 
     Federal Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the 
     10th Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments in March on their 
     claim that the tax infringes their religious freedom. The 
     Klaassens, who are Presbyterians, say they believe children 
     ``are a blessing from God, and so we do not practice birth 
     control,'' Mr. Klaassen said.
       When Mr. Klaassen wrote to an I.R.S. official complaining 
     that a $1,085 bill for the A.M.T. for 1994 resulted from the 
     size of his family, he got back a curt letter saying that his 
     ``analysis of the alternative minimum tax's effect on large 
     families was interesting but inappropriate'' and advising him 
     that it was medical deductions, not family size, that 
     subjected him to the A.M.T.
       Under the regular tax system, medical expenses above 7.5 
     percent of adjusted gross income--the last line on the front 
     page of Form 1040--are deductible. Under the A.M.T., the 
     threshold is raised to 10 percent.
       Still doubting the I.R.S.'s math, Mr. Klaassen decided to 
     test what would have happened had he filed the same tax 
     return, changing only the number of children he claimed as 
     dependents. He found that if he had seven or fewer children, 
     the A.M.T. would not have applied in 1994.
       But the eighth child set off the A.M.T., at a cost of $223. 
     Having nine children raised the bill to $717. And 10 
     children, the number he had in 1994, increased that sum to 
     $1,085--the amount the I.R.S. said was due.
       ``We love this country and we believe in paying taxes,'' 
     Mr. Klaassen said. ``But we cannot believe that Congress ever 
     intended to apply this tax to our family solely because of 
     how many children we choose to have. And I have shown that we 
     are subject to the A.M.T solely because we have chosen not to 
     limit the size of our family.''
       The I.R.S., in papers opposing the Klaassens, noted that 
     tax deductions are not a right but a matter of ``legislative 
     grace.''
       Mr. Klaassen turned to the Federal courts after losing in 
     Tax Court. The opinion by Tax Court Judge Robert N. Armen, 
     Jr. was summed up this way by Tax Notes, a magazine that 
     critiques tax policy: ``Congress intended the alternative 
     minimum tax to affect large families when it made personal 
     exemptions a preference item.''
       Several tax experts said that Mr. Klaassen had little 
     chance of success in the courts because the statute treating 
     children as tax preferences was clear. They also said that 
     nothing in the A.M.T. laws was specifically aimed at his 
     religious beliefs.
       Meanwhile, for people who make $200,000 or more, the A.M.T. 
     will be less of a burden this year because of the Taxpayer 
     Relief Act of 1997, which included a provision lowering the 
     maximum tax rate on capital gains for both the regular tax 
     and the A.M.T. to 20 percent.
       Mr. Rebelein and Mr. Tempalski, the Treasury Department 
     economists, calculated recently that people making more than 
     $200,000 would pay a total of 4 percent less in A.M.T. for 
     1998 because of the 1997 law. By 2008, their savings will be 
     9 percent, largely as a result of lower capital gains rates 
     and changed accounting rules for business owners.
       ``This law was passed to catch people who use tax shelters 
     to avoid their obligations,'' Mr. Klaassen said. ``But 
     instead of catching them it hits people like me. This is just 
     nuts.''


                three ways to deal with a taxing problem

       President Clinton, his tax policy advisers and the 
     Republicans who control the tax writing committees in 
     Congress all agree that the alternative minimum tax is a 
     growing problem for the middle class. But there is no 
     agreement on what to do. Here are some options that have been 
     discussed:
       Raise the exemption--Representative Bill Archer, the Texas 
     Republican who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means 
     Committee, two years ago proposed raising the $45,000 A.M.T. 
     exemption for a married couple by $1,000. But that would 
     leave many middle-class families subject to the tax, because 
     it would not fully account for inflation. To do that would 
     require an exemption of about $57,000, followed by automatic 
     inflation adjustments. That is the most widely favored 
     approach, drawing support from people like J.D. Foster, 
     executive director of the Tax Foundation, a group supported 
     by corporations, and Robert S. McIntyre, executive director 
     of Citizens for Tax Justice, which is financed in part by 
     unions and contends that the tax system favors the rich.
       Exempt child and education credits--For 1998 only, Congress 
     exempted the child tax credit and the education tax credits 
     from the A.M.T. But millions of taxpayers will lose these 
     credits, or get only part of them, unless Congress makes a 
     fix each year or permanently exempts them.
       Eliminate it--Mr. Archer and other Republicans want to get 
     rid of the A.M.T. but have not proposed how to make up for 
     the lost revenue, which in a decade is expected to grow to 
     $25 billion annually. Recently, however, Mr. Archer has said 
     that in a period of

[[Page S2310]]

     Federal budget surpluses, it may be time to scrap the budget 
     rules that require paying for tax cuts with reduced spending 
     or tax increases elsewhere.

                    [From Tax Notes, Aug. 10, 1998]

                Effect of TRA '97 on the Individual AMT

                (By Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski)

       Robert Rebelein and Jerry Tempalski are financial 
     economists in the Office of Tax Analysis at the Treasury 
     Department.
       The authors believe that even without enactment of TRA '97, 
     the estimated number of individual AMT taxpayers would have 
     increased from 0.9 million in 1997 to 8.5 million in 2008 (a 
     23 percent annual growth rate). Primarily because of the new 
     child and education credits, TRA '97 increases the number of 
     AMT taxpayers in 2008 to 11.6 million, or 11 percent of all 
     individual taxpayers. They project that TRA '97 increases the 
     estimated amount of tax paid because of the individual AMT 
     from $20.8 billion in 2008 to $25 billion.
       The authors are grateful to Bob Carroll, Jim Cilke, Lowell 
     Dworin, Joel Platt, and Karl Scholz for their comments. The 
     views expressed in this report are those of the authors and 
     do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Treasury 
     Department.
                                 ______
                                 
       Even before the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA '97) was 
     enacted in August 1997, the individual alternative minimum 
     tax (AMT) had begun to receive considerable attention.\1\ The 
     reason for this attention was the increasing awareness that 
     both the number of tax-payers \2\ affected by the AMT and the 
     AMT taxes they pay would increase significantly over the next 
     10 years. Without TRA '97 the number of taxpayers affected by 
     the AMT would have grown from 0.9 million in 1997 to 8.5 
     million in 2008 (an annual growth rate of 23 percent); tax 
     liability from the AMT would have grown from $5.0 billion in 
     1997 to $20.8 billion in 2008 (an annual growth rate of 14 
     percent).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Since passage of TRA '97, the individual AMT has received 
     even more attention.\4\ The primary reason is that TRA '97 
     includes provisions that have a major effect on the 
     individual AMT. Although some of these provisions reduce the 
     effect of the AMT on taxpayers, the overall effect of TRA '97 
     is to increase significantly both the number of AMT taxpayers 
     and the taxes they pay because of the AMT.
       TRA '97 reduces overall tax liability by $27.0 billion in 
     2008 for individual taxpayers. The benefits of TRA '97 would 
     be even greater if not the AMT. TRA '97 increases AMT 
     liability by $4.2 billion in 2008. Nevertheless, taxpayers 
     whose AMT liability is affected by TRA '97 see their overall 
     tax liability fall by $4.5 billion in 2008.
       The first section of this report discusses how the 
     individual AMT works and why the effect of the AMT increases 
     so sharply over the next 10 years. The second section begins 
     by examining the overall effects of TRA '97 on the AMT and 
     follows with a detailed, provision-by-provision examination 
     of the effects of TRA '97 on the AMT.


                       i. alternative minimum tax

       The individual AMT is like a parallel income tax to the 
     regular individual tax. The AMT is structured similarly to 
     the regular tax, but the AMT uses a generally broader tax 
     base, lower tax rates, higher exemption, and fewer 
     allowable tax credits.
       The AMT was generally intended to apply only to the 
     relatively few high-income taxpayers who Congress believed 
     overused certain tax deductions, exclusions, or credits and 
     consequently were not paying their fair share of taxes. The 
     AMT, however, increasingly affects many taxpayers not 
     traditionally viewed as taking aggressive tax positions or 
     abusing the system. In addition, the AMT can also 
     significantly complicate filing a tax return for millions of 
     taxpayers, particularly those with personal tax credits, who 
     often are supposed to make tedious calculations only to 
     determine they have no AMT liability.
       The primary reason for the increase in the number of AMT 
     taxpayers is that, unlike regular income tax parameters, AMT 
     parameters (primarily the AMT exemption) are not indexed for 
     inflation.\5\ As nominal income rises each year, partially as 
     a result of inflation, more taxpayers become subject to the 
     AMT. In addition, the lack of AMT indexing exposes other 
     anomalies that also may not have been intended.\6\ For 
     example, the AMT does not allow deductions for personal 
     exemptions or state and local taxes paid. As a result, 
     taxpayers with large families are more likely to be affected 
     by the AMT than taxpayers with small families, and taxpayers 
     living in high-tax states are more likely to be affected by 
     the AMT than taxpayers living in low-tax states.
     A. Structure of the AMT
       A taxpayer's AMT liability is the difference between a 
     taxpayer's regular income tax liability (before any 
     interaction with the AMT) and the taxpayer's tentative AMT 
     (TAMT). TAMT is calculated using AMT income (AMTI), the AMT 
     exemption, AMT tax rates, and allowable AMT credits.\7\
       AMT is the sum of taxable income under the regular tax (as 
     calculated on Form 1040) plus the many AMT preferences.\8\ 
     AMT preferences are items excluded from taxable income under 
     the regular tax but included in AMTI. There were 28 AMT 
     preferences in 1995, with 4 items accounting for 86 percent 
     (in dollar terms) of total AMT preferences: state and local 
     tax deductions accounted for 46 percent, miscellaneous 
     deductions above the 2-percent floor for 19 percent, 
     personal exemptions for 13 percent, and post-1986 
     depreciation for 8 percent. With the possible exception of 
     the last item, these are not tax-shelter type preferences.
       The AMT exemption is $45,000 for joint returns ($33,750 for 
     singles and heads-of-household (HH)); the exemption is not 
     adjusted for inflation nor is it based on the number of 
     dependents. The exemption is phased out at the rate of $0.25 
     per $1 of AMTI above $150,000 for joint returns ($112,500 for 
     singles and HH). The AMT tax rate is 26 percent on the first 
     $175,000 of AMTI above the AMT exemption and 28 percent on 
     AMTI more than $175,000 above the exemption.\9\
       The AMT affects taxpayers primarily in two ways.\10\ First, 
     a taxpayer can be directly subject to the AMT by having AMT 
     liability as calculated on the AMT form (Form 6251). The 
     difference between a taxpayer's regular tax liability (before 
     other taxes and credits, except the foreign tax credit) and 
     his TAMT is the taxpayer's AMT liability from Form 6251.
       Second, a taxpayer can be indirectly subject to the AMT by 
     having the amount of usable tax credits reduced by the AMT. 
     The AMT can limit the ability of a taxpayer to use tax 
     credits, because the AMT disallows the use of most credits in 
     calculating TAMT. Put differently, most tax credits cannot be 
     used in calculating a taxpayer's regular tax liability if 
     they would push the taxpayer's regular tax liability below 
     his TAMT. The effect of credits ``lost'' because of this AMT 
     restriction is reflected on the credit forms themselves, 
     rather than on Form 6251.\11\ For example, if a taxpayer has 
     regular tax liability (before tax credits) of $1,000, $200 in 
     education credits, and $600 in TAMT, the taxpayer has a total 
     tax liability of $800 ($1,000 less $200), with no AMT 
     liability. If, instead, the taxpayer had a TAMT of $1,050, 
     the taxpayer would have a total tax liability of $1,050. This 
     taxpayer's AMT liability would be $250, $50 that would be 
     reported on the Form 6251 ($1,050 less $1,000) and $200 
     ($1,000 less $800) that would be reported on the education 
     credit form as reduced allowable credits.


                    ii. taxpayer relief act of 1997

       TRA '97 contains six provisions that can significantly 
     affect the individual AMT: \12\ Child credit; HOPE education 
     credit; lifetime Learning credit; conformation of AMT 
     depreciation lives with regular tax lives; kiddie tax 
     simplification; and capital gains rate cut.
       Three of these provisions generally increase the effect of 
     the AMT on taxpayers--the child credit, the HOPE education 
     credit, and the Lifetime Learning education credit. Two 
     provisions generally reduce the effect of the AMT on 
     taxpayers--conform AMT depreciation lives to regular tax 
     depreciation lives, and raise the minimum AMT exemption for 
     kiddie-tax tax payers and uncouple their AMT exemption from 
     their parents' AMT exemption.\13\ The capital gains rate cut 
     reduces AMT liability for some taxpayers but increases AMT 
     liability for others.
     A. Overall effect
       Relative to pre-TRA '97 law, TRA '97 increases the number 
     of taxpayers on the AMT by between 37 and 58 percent each 
     year from 1998 to 2008. (See Table 1.) This percentage is 
     generally lower at the end of the period when the number of 
     AMT taxpayers under pre-TRA '97 law is already relatively 
     high; TRA '97 increases the number of AMT taxpayers by 58 
     percent (0.7 million) in 1999, but only by 37 percent (3.2 
     million) in 2008.
       Although TRA '97 increases the overall number of AMT 
     taxpayers, it does eliminate the effect of the AMT on some 
     taxpayers. TRA '97 removes about 15 percent of the taxpayers 
     with AMT liability under pre-TRA '97 law from the AMT (0.2 
     million in 1999, 0.3 million in 2002, and 0.9 million in 
     2008). The majority of taxpayers removed from the AMT by TRA 
     '97 have AGIs of less than $15,000.
       Under pre-TRA '97 law the number of AMT taxpayers, as a 
     percentage of total taxpayers, grows from 1 percent in 1997, 
     to 2 percent in 2002, and to 8 percent in 2008, Under post-
     TRA '97 law this percentage grows to 3 percent in 2002 and to 
     11 percent in 2008.\14\
       TRA '97 significantly increases the percentage of AMT 
     taxpayers with AGIs between $15,000 and $100,000 of AGI (in 
     1999 dollars). (See Tables 2 and 3.) In 1999 taxpayers in 
     this income range account for 32 percent of all AMT 
     taxpayers under pre-TRA '97 law and 57 percent under post-
     TRA '97 law; in 2008 the pre-TRA '97 percentage is 45 
     percent and the post-TRA '97 percentage is 65 percent. The 
     percentage of taxpayers in this income range who are 
     subject to the AMT in 2008 is 5 percent under pre-TRA '97 
     law, but 10 percent under post-TRA '97 law. Taxpayers in 
     this income range are the primary beneficiaries of the 
     child and education credits, so it is not surprising that 
     they feel the pinch of the AMT most.
       For taxpayers in the other income groups, TRA '97 sometimes 
     reduces the effect of the AMT. Taxpayers with less than 
     $15,000 in real AGI are the primary beneficiaries of the 
     kiddie-tax provision and account for a significant amount of 
     the benefits from the depreciation provision. Most taxpayers 
     with real AGIs above $100,000 are ineligible for the new 
     credits, and many benefit from the depreciation provision.
       From 1998 to 2008, TRA '97 increases AMT liability by 
     between 5 percent and 20 percent each year relative to pre-
     TRA '97 law. (See

[[Page S2311]]

     Table 4.) AMT liability increases by $0.5 billion in 1998, by 
     $0.5 billion in 2002, and by $4.2 billion in 2008. The effect 
     of TRA '97 on AMT liability is smallest in 2000 and 2001, 
     when relatively few child and education credits are lost 
     because of the AMT and when the effect of the depreciation 
     provision is relatively large. In 2008, the effect of the TRA 
     '97 law on AMT liability is largest because the amount of TRA 
     '97 credits lost is relatively large.
       TRA '97 significantly changes the distribution of AMT 
     liability between lost credits (i.e., tax credits unusable 
     because of the AMT) and liability from the AMT form. (See 
     Table 4.) Under pre-TRA '97 law roughly three times as many 
     taxpayers have AMT liability from the AMT form than have lost 
     credits. Under post-TRA '97 law the number of taxpayers with 
     lost credits is actually greater (by roughly 20 percent) than 
     the number with AMT liability from the AMT form.\15\
     B. Effects of individual TRA '97 provisions
       1. Child and education credits. The TRA '97 provisions 
     having the greatest effect on the AMT are the child credit 
     and the two education credits. All three credits can reduce a 
     taxpayer's regular tax liability, but, like most tax credits, 
     their use can be limited (or even eliminated) by a taxpayer's 
     TAMT.\16\
       The number of taxpayers who benefit from the child credit 
     and education credits decreases in almost every year over the 
     1998-to-2008 period. (See Table 5.) There are two primary 
     reasons for these annual decreases. First, the income-
     eligibility thresholds for the child credit are not 
     indexed for inflation. As a taxpayer's income increases 
     each year, the amount of the child credit a taxpayer near 
     the thresholds can take is reduced. For example, a joint 
     taxpayer with one child who had $100,000 in modified AGI 
     in 1999 would be eligible for the full $500 child credit. 
     If that taxpayer's income increased each year by the 
     inflation rate, the taxpayer's modified AGI would be about 
     $122,000 in 2008 and the taxpayer would be ineligible for 
     the child credit. Second, because the individual AMT 
     parameters are not indexed for inflation, each year the 
     AMT completely eliminates the credits for an increasing 
     number of taxpayers. The number of taxpayers who 
     completely lose the credits because of the AMT is 0.3 
     million in 1999, 0.5 million in 2002, and 2.3 million in 
     2008.
       The following sections discuss the effect of the child 
     credit first, the two education credits second, and the 
     combined effect of the three credits third.
       a. Child credit. Effective January 1, 1998 the child credit 
     allows a $500 tax credit for each dependent child under age 
     17 at year-end.\17\ The credit is reduced by $50 for each 
     $1,000 of modified AGI for joint returns with modified AGI 
     above $110,000 ($75,000 for singles and HH).
       The number of taxpayers whose child credit is reduced or 
     eliminated by the AMT grows at a 25-percent annual rate, from 
     0.6 million in 1998 to 6.0 million in 2008 (See Table 3.) The 
     number of taxpayers added to the AMT because of the child 
     credit grows from 0.3 million in 1998 to 0.9 million in 2002 
     and to 2.5 million in 2008; the amount of child credits lost 
     because of the AMT grows from $0.3 billion in 1998 to $0.9 
     billion in 2002, and to $3.5 billion in 2008.
       b. Education credits.\18\ Effective January 1, 1998, the 
     $1,500 HOPE tax credit is available for college tuition and 
     certain fees incurred. For each student, the HOPE credit 
     covers the first $1,000 and 50 percent of the next $1,000 in 
     education expenses incurred in the first two years of 
     college. The credit is phased-out ratably for joint taxpayers 
     with modified AGI between $80,000 and $100,000 ($40,000 and 
     $50,000 for singles).\19\
       Beginning July 1, 1998, a taxpayer can elect to take a 
     lifetime learning (LL) credit rather than a HOPE credit for a 
     qualifying student. Through December 31, 2002, the LL credit 
     equals 20 percent of the first $5,000 in education expenses 
     ($1,000 maximum credit). After December 31, 2002, the 
     credit equals 20 percent of the first $10,000 in expenses 
     ($2,000 maximum credit). The credit is phased-out ratably 
     for joint taxpayers with modified AGI between $80,000 and 
     $100,000 ($40,000 and $50,000 for singles).\20\
       Because fewer taxpayers benefit from the education credits 
     than the child credit, the effect of the AMT on the education 
     credits is less than the effect on the child credit. (See 
     Table 5.) The number of taxpayers who have their education 
     credits reduced or eliminated because of the AMT grows from 
     0.4 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2008, a 20-percent 
     annual growth rate. The number of taxpayers added to the AMT 
     because of the education credits grows from 0.3 million in 
     1998 to 0.6 million in 2002 and to 1.3 million in 2008. The 
     amount of education credits lost because of the AMT grows 
     from $0.3 billion in 1998 to $0.6 billion in 2002 and to $2.1 
     billion in 2008.
       c. Child and education credits combined. Because double-
     counting is removed, the effect of the AMT on the child 
     credit and education credits combined is less than the sum of 
     the individual effects. The number of taxpayers with TRA '97 
     credits reduced or eliminated by the AMT grows from 0.8 
     million in 1998 to 6.7 million in 2008, a 23-percent annual 
     rate. The number of taxpayers added to the AMT because of 
     these credits grows from 0.6 million in 1998 to 1.3 million 
     in 2002 and to 3.8 million in 2008, and the amount of these 
     credits lost because of the AMT grows from $0.5 billion in 
     1998 to $1.2 billion in 2002 and to $5.1 billion in 2008.
       The increase in the percentage of taxpayers whose child and 
     education credits are reduced or eliminated by the AMT is 
     striking. In 1998 34.1 million taxpayers would be eligible 
     for the credits in the absence of the AMT; of these 
     taxpayers, 3 percent have their credits reduced or eliminated 
     by the AMT. In 2002 and 2008 the number of taxpayers eligible 
     for the credits in the absence of the AMT is almost the same 
     as in 1998, but the percentage whose credits are reduced or 
     eliminated by the AMT is 6 percent in 2002 and 20 percent in 
     2008.
       2. Other TRA '97 provisions. The effects of the three other 
     TRA '97 provisions on the AMT are much smaller than the 
     effects of the three credit provisions.
       a. Depreciation. The provision to conform AMT depreciation 
     lives to regular tax lives primarily affects corporate AMT 
     taxpayers. The provision affects some individual AMT 
     taxpayers (0.4 million in 2008), however, and the average 
     benefit from the provision per individual-tax taxpayer is 
     substantial, $2,300 in 2008. The total benefit to individual 
     tax taxpayers grows from $0.2 billion in 1999 to $0.7 billion 
     in 2002 and to $0.8 billion in 2008.
       b. Kiddie tax. The provision to raise the minimum AMT 
     exemption for kiddie-tax taxpayers from $1,000 to $5,000 and 
     uncouple a dependent's AMT exemption from his parents' (or 
     sibling's) AMT exemption is a simplification provision 
     designed to benefit a significant number of taxpayers at 
     relatively little cost to the government. The number of 
     taxpayers who benefit from the proposal (0.5 million in 
     2008) is about the same as the number of individual 
     taxpayers who benefit from the depreciation provision, but 
     the cost to the government is much lower--less than $100 
     per taxpayer. The total benefit of the kiddie tax 
     provision to taxpayers is $5 million in 1998 and grows to 
     $20 million in 2008.
       c. Capital gains. The capital gains provision limits the 
     AMT tax rate on capital gains to 20 percent (the limit is 10 
     percent for taxpayers in the 15-percent regular tax 
     bracket).\21\ The provision can lower the AMT liability for 
     taxpayers whose AMT tax rate on capital gains falls by more 
     than their regular tax rate on capital gains (i.e., those 
     whose TAMT falls by more than their regular tax liability). 
     Consider, for example, a taxpayer who faced a pre-TRA '97 
     regular tax capital gains rate of 28 percent and a pre-TRA 
     '97 AMT rate of 32.5 percent (combined effect of 26-percent 
     statutory AMT rate and phase-out of AMT exemption). TRA '97 
     decreases this taxpayer's regular-tax rate on capital gains 
     by 8 percentage points and her AMT rate on capital gains by 
     12.5 percentage points. This taxpayer's regular-tax liability 
     is reduced by less than her TAMT, so the capital gains 
     provision reduces the effect of the AMT on this taxpayer. On 
     the other hand, consider a taxpayer who faced a pre-TRA '97 
     regular tax capital gains rate of 28 percent and a pre-TRA 
     AMT rate of 26 percent. TRA '97 decreases this taxpayer's 
     regular-tax rate on capital gains by 8 percentage points and 
     her AMT rate on capital gains by 6 percentage points. This 
     taxpayer's regular-tax liability is reduced by more than her 
     TAMT, so the capital gains provision increases the effect of 
     the AMT on this taxpayer. In no case, however, can the 
     capital gains rate cut increase AMT liability so as to 
     completely offset the reduced regular tax liability.
       On net, the capital gains provision increases the number of 
     AMT taxpayers by 0.3 million in each year of the 1998-2008 
     period. The number of taxpayers added to the AMT because of 
     the capital gains provision is about 0.4 million in each 
     year, and the number of taxpayers removed from the AMT is 
     about 0.1 million each year.\22\
       The provision essentially does not change AMT liability 
     over the period. Taxpayers with increased AMT liability incur 
     between $0.5 billion and $0.8 billion in increased AMT 
     liability in each year of the period; this increased 
     liability is almost exactly offset each year by decreased AMT 
     liability for other tax-payers.


                            iii. conclusion

       Before TRA '97 was enacted, many tax experts were aware 
     that the individual AMT had serious long-run problems that 
     needed fixing. The number of taxpayers who would face the 
     potentially daunting task of filling out the AMT form and 
     paying AMT taxes would increase to such a high level within 
     the next several years that significant pressure to reform 
     the AMT would arise. Despite its generally beneficial effect 
     on taxpayers, TRA '97 exacerbated the AMT problem 
     considerably and probably increased the pressure for AMT 
     reform.
     \1\ See, e.g., Robert P. Harvey and Jerry Tempalski, ``The 
     Individual AMT: Why It Matters,'' National Tax Journal; Vol. 
     L, No. 3; September 1997, p. 453; Martin A. Sullivan, ``The 
     Individual AMT: Nowhere to Go But Up,'' Highlights & 
     Documents, October 24, 1996, p. 773.
     \2\ For estimates presented in this report, a couple filing a 
     joint return counts as one taxpayer.
     \3\ All post-1995 numbers in this report are estimates made 
     using the Treasury Department's Individual Tax Model and the 
     Clinton Administration's economic forecast from the FY99 
     Budget.
     \4\ Lee A. Sheppard, ``Tax Accounting for `No-Necked 
     Monsters','' Tax Notes, Aug. 3, 1998, p. 524. See, e.g., 
     Albert B. Crenshaw, ``Now You See It, Now You Don't: Tax Law 
     to Make Benefits Disappear.'' The Washington Post, September 
     17, 1997, p. C9, C11; Albert B. Crenshaw, ``More People Feel 
     the Pinch of the Alternative Minimum Tax,'' The Washington 
     Post, September 21, 1997, p. H1, H4;'' AMT, Cash Machine,'' 
     The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 1997, p. A22.
     \5\ Since 1985, regular income tax parameters have been 
     indexed for inflation.
     \6\ These other anomalies may not have been viewed as 
     significant when most taxpayers subject to the

[[Page S2312]]

     AMT had tax-shelter type preferences; the anomalies are more 
     troublesome when even taxpayers with no preferences of that 
     type are subject to the AMT.
     \7\ For a detailed discussion of how the AMT works, see 
     Harvey and Tempalski (1997).
     \8\ Personal exemptions are treated here as an AMT 
     preference.
     \9\ For taxpayers in the phase-out range of the AMT 
     exemption, the 26 percent AMT tax rate effectively becomes a 
     32.5 percent rate and the 28 percent rate becomes a 35 
     percent rate.
     \10\ For a small number of taxpayers, the AMT can affect 
     taxpayers in a third way. Because the AMT treats the standard 
     deduction as a preference item, some taxpayers with itemized 
     deductions less than the standard deduction can lower their 
     overall tax liability if they itemize deductions rather than 
     take the standard deduction. This tax-minimizing behavior 
     could occur if most itemized deductions are not AMT 
     preferences (e.g., charitable contributions). For these 
     taxpayers, itemizing increases regular tax liability but 
     lowers AMT liability even more, thus decreasing total tax 
     liability.
     \11\ A few of these ``lost'' credits, particularly general 
     business credits, can be carried back or carried forward, so 
     they may not be permanently lost.
     \12\ Except for some taxpayers who voluntarily increase their 
     capital gains realizations because of the capital gains rate 
     cut, nearly all taxpayers affected by the six provisions have 
     their overall tax liability reduced by the provisions.
     \13\ The kiddie-tax provision can increase the effect of the 
     AMT for a very small number of taxpayers, less than 3,000 in 
     2008. The additional AMT liability for these taxpayers totals 
     less than $1 million in 2008.
     \14\ TRA `97 affects the percentage of taxpayers on the AMT 
     in two ways. First, it increases the number of AMT taxpayers 
     by 3.2 million in 2008. Second, it decreases the total number 
     of taxpayers by 3.9 million in 2008, primarily because of the 
     child and education credits.
     \15\ This point is important in examining IRS data. IRS data 
     does not indicate the amount of tax credits lost because of 
     the AMT. IRS data only reports AMT liability from Form 6251. 
     Only researchers with access to a microsimulation computer 
     model using actual tax return data can determine the amount 
     of lost credits.
     \16\ For taxpayers with three or more children, the child 
     credit is not directly limited by TAMT. The credit is, 
     however, reduced by any final AMT liability reported on the 
     AMT form.
     \17\ The child credit is $400 in 1998.
     \18\ Because the two education credits are substitutes for 
     each other for many taxpayers, they are discussed together in 
     this section.
     \19\ The credit amount and the income limits for the credit 
     are indexed for inflation occurring after 2000.
     \20\ The income limits for the credit are indexed for 
     inflation occurring after 2000.
     \21\ Under pre-TRA `97 law, capital gains under the AMT were 
     taxed at the same rate as other AMTI.
     \22\ The numbers discussed here include the effects of 
     increased capital gains realizations resulting from the lower 
     capital gains tax rate. The effect of the increased 
     realizations on the AMT is very small.

                                                                                TABLE 1.--NUMBER OF AMT TAXPAYERS
                                                                                [By calendar years, in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                        Compound
                                                                                                                                                                                         annual
                                                                 1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      growth
                                                                                                                                                                                          rate
                                                                                                                                                                                       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of AMT taxpayers:
    Post-TRA '97:
        Number with only AMT liability from Form 6251........       0.6       0.5       0.6       0.7       0.8       1.0       1.3       1.6       1.9       2.4       3.1       4.0         19
        Number with only ``lost'' credits....................       0.1       0.8       1.0       1.2       1.4       1.6       2.1       2.5       3.1       3.7       4.1       4.7         42
        Number with both.....................................       0.2       0.3       0.4       0.5       0.6       0.7       0.9       1.1       1.4       1.8       2.4       2.9         28
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total \1\..........................................       0.9       1.6       2.0       2.4       2.8       3.3       4.3       5.2       6.4       8.0       9.5      11.6         26
                                                              ==================================================================================================================================
    Pre-TRA '97:
        Number with only AMT liability from Form 6251........       0.6       0.7       0.9       1.1       1.4       1.7       2.1       2.7       3.2       4.3       5.2       6.6         24
        Number with only ``lost'' credits....................       0.1       0.2       0.2       0.2       0.2       0.3       0.3       0.4       0.5       0.5       0.6       0.8         21
        Number with both.....................................       0.2       0.2       0.2       0.2       0.3       0.3       0.4       0.5       0.5       0.7       0.9       1.1         17
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total \1\..........................................       0.9       1.1       1.3       1.5       1.9       2.2       2.8       3.5       4.2       5.5       6.7       8.5         23
                                                              ==================================================================================================================================
    Change caused by TRA '97:
        Number with only AMT liability from Form 6251........       N/A      -0.2      -0.3      -0.4      -0.5      -0.6      -0.8      -1.1      -1.3      -1.8      -2.2      -2.6  .........
        Number with only ``lost'' credits....................       N/A       0.6       0.8       1.0       1.2       1.4       1.8       2.1       2.6       3.2       3.5       3.9  .........
        Number with both.....................................       N/A       0.1       0.2       0.3       0.3       0.4       0.5       0.7       0.9       1.2       1.5       1.9  .........
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total \1\..........................................       N/A       0.6       0.7       0.8       0.9       1.1       1.5       1.7       2.2       2.5       2.8       3.2  .........
        Number of returns added to AMT.......................       N/A       0.7       0.9       1.0       1.3       1.5       1.9       2.2       2.8       3.3       3.6       4.0  .........
        Number of returns removed from AMT...................       N/A       0.2       0.2       0.2       0.3       0.3       0.4       0.5       0.6       0.8       0.8       0.9  .........
    Percentage change caused by TRA '97:
        Number with only AMT liability from Form 6251........       N/A      -28%      -35%      -36%      -40%      -39%      -39%      -41%      -40%      -43%      -42%      -39%  .........
        Number with only ``lost '' credits...................       N/A      394%      469%      434%      491%      519%      560%      554%      565%      577%      575%      492%  .........
        Number with both.....................................       N/A       80%      101%      118%      117%      121%      139%      153%      157%      165%      166%      173%  .........
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total..............................................       N/A       51%       58%       54%       51%       50%       54%       49%       52%       45%       41%       37%  .........
Total number of taxpayers:
    Post-TRA '97.............................................      93.1      90.6      91.5      92.6      93.9      95.5      96.5      98.0      99.5     100.8     102.4     103.9  .........
        Percentage of taxpayers on AMT.......................        1%        2%        2%        3%        3%        3%        4%        5%        6%        8%        9%       11%  .........
    Pre-TRA '97..............................................      93.1      94.0      95.4      96.5      97.8      99.2     100.6     102.0     103.5     104.7     106.3     107.8  .........
        Percentage of taxpayers on AMT.......................        1%        1%        1%        2%        2%        2%        3%        3%        4%        5%        6%        8%  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Taxpayers affected by the AMT can have both ``lost'' credits and AMT liability from Form 6251.
 
Source: Treasury Department Individual Tax Model.


                                               TABLE 2.--AGI DISTRIBUTION OF TRA '97 EFFECT ON AMT IN 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AMT Liability\1\ ($ millions)             Number of AMT Taxpayers\2\ (thousands of returns)
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                AGI (in dollars)                    Post-TRA                              Percentage    Post-TRA                              Percentage
                                                      '97      Pre-TRA '97   Difference     change        '97      Pre-TRA '97   Difference     change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 0.....................................           66          129          -63          -49            4            6           -2          -33
0-15,000........................................           12           20           -8          -40           54          149          -95          -64
15,000-30,000...................................           48           14           34          243          143            8          135         1688
30,000-50,000...................................          128           46           82          178          205           59          146          247
50,000-75,000...................................          398          206          192           93          357          128          229          179
75,000-100,000..................................          652          388          264           68          445          207          238          115
100,000-200,000.................................        1,415        1,328           87            7          452          396           56           14
200,000 and over................................        3,857        4,000         -143           -4          344          316           28            9
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................        6,576        6,131          445            7        2,004        1,269          735           58
                                                 =======================================================================================================
                                                                 as percentage of total
 
Less than 0.....................................            1            2          -14  ...........            0            0            0  ...........
0-15,000........................................            0            0           -2  ...........            3           12          -13  ...........
15,000-30,000...................................            1            0            8  ...........            7            1           18  ...........
30,000-50,000...................................            2            1           18  ...........           10            5           20  ...........
50,000-75,000...................................            6            3           43  ...........           18           10           31  ...........
75,000-100,000..................................           10            6           59  ...........           22           16           32  ...........
100,000-200,000.................................           22           22           20  ...........           23           31            8  ...........
200,000 and over................................           59           65          -32  ...........           17           25            4  ...........
                                                 ---------------------------------------             ---------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          100          100          100  ...........          100          100          100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes lost credits.
\2\ Includes taxpayers who only have lost credits.
Source: Treasury Department Individual Tax Model.


[[Page S2313]]


                                               TABLE 3.--AGI DISTRIBUTION OF TRA '97 EFFECT ON AMT IN 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AMT Liability\1\ ($ millions)             Number of AMT Taxpayers\2\ (thousands of returns)
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              AGI \1\ (in dollars)                  Post-TRA                              Percentage    Post-TRA                              Percentage
                                                      '97      Pre-TRA '97   Difference     change        '97      Pre-TRA '97   Difference     change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 0.....................................           91          176          -85          -48           14           18           -4          -22
0-15,000........................................           15           50          -35          -70           91          753         -662          -88
15,000-30,000...................................          135           38           97          255          251           34          217          638
30,000-50,000...................................        1,161          455          706          155        1,417          595          822          138
50,000-75,000...................................        4,130        1,615        2,515          156        3,431        1,592        1,839          116
75,000-100,000..................................        3,766        2,208        1,558           71        2,412        1,558          854           55
100,000-200,000.................................        7,508        7,312          196            3        3,057        2,939          118            4
200,000 and over................................        8,179        8,975         -796           -9          965          986          -21           -2
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................       24,985       20,829        4,156           20       11,638        8,475        3,163           37
                                                 =======================================================================================================
                                                                 as percentage of total
 
Less than 0.....................................            0            1           -2  ...........            0            0           -0  ...........
0-15,000........................................            0            0           -1  ...........            1            9          -21  ...........
15,000-30,000...................................            1            0            2  ...........            2            0            7  ...........
30,000-50,000...................................            5            2           17  ...........           12            7           26  ...........
50,000-75,000...................................           17            8           61  ...........           29           19           58  ...........
75,000-100,000..................................           15           11           37  ...........           21           18           27  ...........
100,000-200,000.................................           30           35            5  ...........           26           35            4  ...........
200,000 and over................................           33           43          -19  ...........            8           12           -1  ...........
                                                 ---------------------------------------             ---------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          100          100          100  ...........          100          100          100  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1999 dollars.
\2\ Includes lost credits.
\3\ Includes taxpayers who only have lost credits.
Source: Treasury Department Individual Tax Model.


                                                           TABLE 4.--INDIVIDUAL AMT LIABILITY
                                                             [Calendar years; ($ billions)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Compound
                                                                                                                                                annual
         AMT liability             1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008   growth rate
                                                                                                                                              (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Taxpayer Relief Act of
 1997:
    Form 6251..................      3.0      3.3      3.5      3.9      4.4      5.1      6.0      7.1      8.4     10.2     12.3     15.3           16
    ``Lost'' credits...........      2.0      2.7      3.0      3.3      3.6      4.0      4.7      5.3      6.2      7.3      8.4      9.7           16
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..................      5.0      6.0      6.6      7.2      8.0      9.1     10.7     12.4     14.5     17.4     20.6     25.0           16
Pre-Taxpayer Relief Act of
 1997:
    Form 6251..................      3.0      3.4      3.8      4.4      5.0      5.7      6.7      7.8      9.2     11.1     13.2     16.1           17
    ``Lost'' credits...........      2.0      2.1      2.3      2.5      2.7      2.9      3.1      3.3      3.6      4.0      4.3      4.7            8
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..................      5.0      5.5      6.1      6.9      7.6      8.6      9.8     11.2     12.8     15.0     17.5     20.8           14
Change caused by TRA '97:
    Form 6251..................      N/A     -0.1     -0.3     -0.5     -0.6     -0.6     -0.7     -0.8     -0.8     -0.9     -0.9     -0.9  ...........
    ``Lost'' credits...........      N/A      0.6      0.7      0.8      0.9      1.1      1.6      2.0      2.6      3.3      4.1      5.0  ...........
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..................      N/A      0.5      0.4      0.3      0.4      0.5      0.9      1.2      1.7      2.4      3.2      4.2  ...........
Percentage change caused by TRA
 '97:
    Form 6251..................      N/A       -3       -8      -11      -11      -11      -10      -10       -9       -8       -7       -5  ...........
    ``Lost'' credits...........      N/A       27       32       34       35       39       53       59       71       83       94      106  ...........
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total..................      N/A        9        7        5        5        6       10       11       14       16       18       20  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Treasury Department Individual Tax Model.


                                      TABLE 5.--EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL TRA '97 PROVISIONS ON THE INDIVIDUAL AMT 1, 2
                                                 [Number of taxpayers in millions, dollars in billions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Calendar year                                              Compound
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    annual
                                                                                                                                             growth rate
                                            1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Child Credit:
    Number of taxpayers benefitting \3\.     25.8     26.0     25.9     25.8     25.7     25.4     25.2     24.8     24.3     23.7     22.8           -1
    Number of taxpayers with credit           0.6      0.9      1.1      1.3      1.6      2.2      2.7      3.4      4.3      5.0      6.0           25
     reduced or eliminated by AMT.......
        Reduced.........................      0.3      0.5      0.6      0.9      1.0      1.3      1.6      2.0      2.5      2.8      3.1           25
        Eliminated......................      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.9      1.1      1.4      1.8      2.2      2.8           25
    Change in number of AMT taxpayers...      0.3      0.5      0.6      0.8      0.9      1.1      1.3      1.7      2.0      2.3      2.5  ...........
    Change in tax liability from AMT....      0.3      0.5      0.6      0.7      0.9      1.2      1.5      1.8      2.3      2.8      3.5  ...........
2. Education Credits:
    Number of taxpayers benefitting \3\.     12.1     11.9     11.8     11.6     11.6     11.5     11.4     11.3     11.1     10.9     10.6           -1
    Number of taxpayers with credit           0.4      0.5      0.6      0.7      0.9      1.2      1.4      1.7      2.0      2.2      2.5           20
     reduced or eliminated by AMT.......
        Reduced.........................      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.8      0.9      1.0      1.1      1.2      1.3           16
        Eliminated......................      0.1      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.3      0.4      0.5      0.7      0.8      1.0      1.3           26
    Change in number of AMT taxpayers...      0.3      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.6      0.8      0.9      1.0      1.2      1.2      1.3  ...........
    Change in tax liability from AMT....      0.3      0.3      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.9      1.1      1.4      1.6      1.8      2.1  ...........
3. Child and Education Credits Combined:
    Number of taxpayers benefitting \3\.     33.8     34.0     33.9     33.9     33.9     33.8     33.7     33.5     33.1     32.6     31.7           -1
    Number of taxpayers with credit           0.8      1.1      1.3      1.6      1.9      2.6      3.2      3.9      4.9      5.7      6.7           23
     reduced or eliminated by AMT.......
        Reduced.........................      0.6      0.8      0.9      1.2      1.4      1.9      2.3      2.9      3.5      3.9      4.4           23
        Eliminated......................      0.3      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.7      0.8      1.0      1.3      1.7      2.3           24
    Change in number of AMT taxpayers...      0.6      0.8      0.9      1.1      1.3      1.8      2.1      2.6      3.1      3.5      3.8  ...........
    Change in tax liability from AMT....      0.5      0.7      0.8      1.0      1.2      1.8      2.2      2.8      3.5      4.2      5.1  ...........
4. Conform Recovery Periods for AMT
 Depreciation With Recovery Periods for
 Regular-tax Depreciation:
    Number of taxpayers benefitting.....      N/A      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.4           10
    Change in number of AMT taxpayers...      N/A     -0.0     -0.0     -0.0     -0.0     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1  ...........
    Change in tax liability from AMT....      N/A     -0.2     -0.4     -0.5     -0.7     -0.8     -0.9     -0.9     -1.0     -0.9     -0.8  ...........
5. Change AMT Exemption for Kiddie-Tax
 Taxpayers:
    Number of taxpayers benefitting.....      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.2      0.2      0.4      0.4      0.5           24
    Change in number of AMT taxpayers...     -0.0     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.2     -0.2     -0.4     -0.4     -0.5  ...........
    Change in tax liability from AMT....    -0.01    -0.01    -0.01    -0.01    -0.01    -0.01    -0.01    -0.01    -0.02    -0.02    -0.02  ...........
6. Lower Regular-Tax Capital Gains Rate
 and Conform AMT Capital Gains Rate \4\
    Change in number of AMT taxpayers...      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3          0.3
    Change for taxpayers with increased       0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4          0.4
     AMT liability......................
    Change for taxpayers with decreased      -0.0     -0.0     -0.0     -0.0     -0.0     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1  ...........
     AMT liability......................

[[Page S2314]]

 
    Change in tax liability from AMT....      0.1      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.1  ...........
    Change for taxpayers with increased       0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.6      0.6      0.6      0.7      0.7      0.8      0.8  ...........
     AMT liability......................
    Change for taxpayers with decreased      -0.5     -0.5     -.05     -0.5     -0.5     -0.6     -0.6     -0.7     -0.7     -0.8     -0.9  ...........
     AMT liability......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Treasury Department Individual Tax Model.
\1\ Estimates on this table are not directly comparable with estimates contained on either Tables 1 or 4. Except for No. 3 above, estimates on this
  table are for single TRA '97 provisions only, with no interactions. Estimates in Tables 1 and 4 show the effects of all provisions, including
  interaction effects.
\2\ Provisions are ``stacked last'' for purposes of these estimates (i.e., estimates are based on the difference in revenue between post-TRA '97 and
  post-TRA '97 law with the provision under examination removed).
\3\ Number excludes taxpayers who lose entire total amount of new credits because of the AMT.
\4\ Includes effects of increased capital gains realizations caused by lower capital gains tax rate.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 538. A bill to provide for violent and repeat juvenile offender 
accountability, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                   protect children from violence act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
address a serious national problem--the increasingly violent nature of 
juvenile crime. It seems that nearly every day we hear encouraging news 
about the progress we are making in the fight against crime. There is 
no doubt that this is good news. But reports about reductions in the 
crime rate obscure two unfortunate realities: First, although the rate 
of crime has dropped over the past few yeas, the level of crime remains 
far too high. Second, whatever progress has been made in the reduction 
of overall crime rates, we are still confronted with a serious problem 
with violent juvenile crime.
  Statistics about crime rates are useful, but what really matters is 
the level of violent crime. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average 
went down over twenty points. If we were focus on that fact alone, it 
would appear that the stock market was down, when in fact the Dow is 
near its all time record high. The same is true of crime, especially 
juvenile crime. Although the most recent data show some drops in the 
crime rate, the overall level of crime, especially juvenile crime is 
unacceptably high. There are about as many violent crimes committed 
today as in 1987. The number of violent juvenile crimes is at roughly 
the 1992 level and at 150% of the 1987 level. I do not think anyone 
thought they were safe or secure enough in 1987 or in 1992.
  Statistics about crime rates also mask the increasingly violent 
nature of juvenile crimes. Seventeen percent of all forcible rapes, 
fifty percent of all arsons and thirty-seven percent of all burglaries 
are committed by juveniles. The juvenile justice system is no longer 
being asked to deal with juveniles who have committed a youthful 
indiscretion. The system is being asked to deal with juveniles who 
become hardened criminals before they turn eighteen.
  Finally, the recent dip in crime rates is cold comfort for victims of 
violent crimes. My constituents in Missouri continually identify 
violent juvenile crime as a paramount concern, and you only have to 
read the newspaper to understand why. When parents read in the 
newspaper about a 16-year old who raped four young girls in St. Charles 
County, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile 
crime. When parents in Hazelwood read about a 13-year old convicted of 
murder for fracturing his victim's skull with the butt of a sawed-off 
shotgun, they understand the importance of targeting violent juvenile 
crime. And when people in Poplar Bluff read about a 16-year old, 
encouraged by his 20-year old accomplice, who held a pizza delivery man 
at the point of a shotgun to steal $32, they understand the importance 
of targeting violent juvenile crime.
  Mr. President, that is precisely what the bill I am introducing today 
does--it targets violent juvenile crime. This bill, the Protect 
Children from Violent Act, will update our current juvenile justice 
laws to reflect the new vicious nature of today's teen criminals. It 
treats the most violent juvenile offenders as adults and punishes those 
adults who would exploit or endanger our children.
  The Act has several components. First and foremost, it would require 
federal prosecutors and States, in order to qualify for $750 million in 
new incentive grants, to try as adults those juveniles fourteen and 
older who commit serious violent offenses, such as rape or murder. 
There is nothing juvenile about these crimes, and the perpetrators must 
be treated and tried as adults.
  Some of the laws on the books inadvertently pervert the direction of 
the law enforcement system, offering more protections to the 
perpetrators, than to the public. This must cease. Strengthening our 
juvenile justice laws is the first line of defense in protecting the 
public and providing greater protection for innocent children than for 
violent criminals.
  In order to do this, we also must ensure that our law enforcement 
officials, courts and schools have clear lines of communication and 
access to the records of violent juvenile offenders. This bill 
accomplishes this goal by requiring the fingerprinting and 
photographing of juveniles found guilty of crimes that would be 
felonies if committed by an adult. The bill also would ensure that 
those records are made available to federal and state law enforcement 
officials and school officials, so thy will know who they are dealing 
with when they confront a dangerous juvenile offender.
  Typically, state statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge 
those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal 
predators understand that when they reach their eighteenth birthday, 
they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an 
unblemished record. The time has come to discard the anachronistic idea 
that crimes committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter 
how heinous the crime.
  Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need 
improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal 
with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile 
crimes.
  The current state of juvenile record keeping is simply unacceptable. 
As part of the message that juvenile crime is something less than real 
crime, many jurisdictions have kept inadequate juvenile records or kept 
records sealed and inaccessible. What is more, whatever juvenile 
records they did keep were expunged when the juvenile turned eighteen. 
A judge sentencing a fresh-faced nineteen-year-old would sentence him 
like a first-time offender, blissfully ignorant of his prior record of 
similar incidents. These problems are made worse by the absence of any 
system to provide for the nationwide sharing of juvenile records. This 
is not a problem that any one State can solve alone. Even if a State 
treats juvenile criminal records like any other criminal record, it is 
still vulnerable to violent juveniles who move into the State. The 
problem we face is that although juveniles frequently cross state 
lines, their records do not follow them.
  For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our 
police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal 
records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and 
apprehension.
  According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is past president of 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement 
officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. 
The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile records (both arrest and 
adjudication) are inconsistent across the States, and are usually 
unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful 
offenders.''
  Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know 
who

[[Page S2315]]

the youthful offenders are, we can't appropriately intervene.''
  Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement 
officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles 
they have no idea who they are dealing with because the records are 
kept confidential.
  School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, 
need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing 
for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies.
  The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to 
a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous 
students ahead of protecting the innocent--those who go to school to 
learn, not to maim or murder.
  While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, Missouri, a teacher 
told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic 
monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and 
having to turn around--back to the class--to write on the chalk board 
not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer?

  The proposed bill solves these problems by providing a nationwide 
system of record sharing. What is more, the bill provides block grants 
to the States for the purpose of establishing improved juvenile record 
keeping. To qualify for these block grants, States must keep records 
for juveniles that are equivalent to those they keep for adult 
criminals. The States must then make those records available to the 
FBI, law enforcement officers, school officials and sentencing courts. 
These provisions allow those who have to deal with these violent 
juveniles to do so based on full information. That is the only basis on 
which those decision should be made.
  In addition to requiring that federal and state prosecutors try 
violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing record keeping and 
sharing capabilities, this bill enhances the federal criminal penalties 
for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal activity or 
drug use.
  For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in 
drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would 
face a minimum three year jail sentence (as compared to the 1 year 
minimum under current law).
  This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who 
use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides 
behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, 
the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence and fine.
  The fact that our current system treats juvenile crime lightly has 
not been lost on young people. Not has it been lost on hardened adult 
criminals. If the system is going to let young people off with a slap 
on the wrist and then give them a clean slate when they turn eighteen, 
why should any adult criminal risk serious jail time by committing a 
crime themselves. Why not, instead, just use a juvenile and have the 
youth commit the crime for them. This use of juveniles is deplorable. 
But, sadly, our current treatment of juveniles gives adults an 
incentive to exploit children in this way. If a store sold candy for $5 
to adults, but for $1 to children, there would be a lot of adults 
sending a kid in to buy them a candy bar. So too, with the criminal 
justice system. Our light treatment of juveniles has led adults to 
corrupt children in order to escape the penalties imposed by the adult 
system. It is no wonder that a 20-year old in Poplar Bluff has her 16-
year old accomplice take the lead in the armed robbery. We cannot 
continue to encourage this intolerable behavior. Those who would 
corrupt our children should received our stiffest and swiftest 
sanction. To this end, my bill imposes enhanced penalties on adults who 
use juveniles to commit violent offenses, and also will encourage the 
States to adopt similar provisions.
  Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates to a 
federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. 
Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into 
gangs will face a federal prosecutor and a federal penitentiary.
  A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang 
members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But 
a second study, conducted just two years later, found that the number 
of gangs had increased more than four-fold, with 23,388 gangs claiming 
over 650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide.
  Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to 
qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles 
as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and 
murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on 
juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by 
adults, and States mut allow public access to juvenile criminal records 
of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply to 
federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from adults 
who prey on the, this bill doubles and triples the jail time for those 
convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to 
distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a 
school will face three times the penalty under current law.
  This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that 
violent youth, and the adults that lead them into a life of crime, pose 
to our children. the monies authorized will be used to deter and 
incarcerate violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more 
midnight basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our 
future, demands more than that. We need to take into account the needs 
of the innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of 
privacy for violent juvenile perpetrators.
  For too long now we have treated juvenile crime as something less 
than real crime. Even the language we use--referring to adult crimes, 
but to acts of juvenile delinquency--suggests that juvenile crime is 
not real crime. But we are not talking about throwing spit-balls or 
juvenile horseplay. We are talking about murder and assault and rape. 
And I assure you that for the victims of these crimes, the crimes are 
all too real--no less so because the perpetrator was under eighteen. 
The time has come to take juvenile crime seriously and protect our 
children from violence.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK:
  S. 539. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the maximum taxable income for the 15 percent rate bracket, to replace 
the Consumer Price Index with the national average wage index for 
purposes of cost-of-living adjustments, to lessen the impact of the 
noncorporate alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                            tax legislation

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I have introduced a proposal for 
a tax cut which I think answers a number of questions that people have 
been putting forward. I hear both sides of the aisle talking about a 
tax cut and the willingness to have a tax cut. Some are saying we need 
it to be targeted; some say we need to do it with the marriage penalty; 
others say we need a broad-based tax relief to take place.
  The proposal I am putting in today would expand the 15-percent tax 
category over a period of 10 years and raise that to the level of the 
maximum amount at which we tax Social Security. What it does is, we 
broaden that 15-percent tax bracket. We make it such that it will take 
care of most of the marriage penalty. It will be economically 
simulating in that it will be a great relief for a number of people 
that grow into that 15-percent category, then, as we expand it. And it 
will be middle-income targeted because it will be that category of 
people making in the 15-percent rate and growing it up to $72,000 over 
a period of 10 years.
  I think this answers a lot of questions on what we have been putting 
forward. We set aside every dime of Social Security money for Social 
Security, period. We do that. All those funds flowing into Social 
Security will remain and stay with Social Security. Not a dime of that 
is touched.
  With the other resources that we have coming in that are building the 
surplus, let's do this sort of tax cut that moves to the middle-income 
category and addresses the marriage penalty problem. That is 
economically stimulating and is one that I think can be fair and 
helpful to our growth.

[[Page S2316]]

  This is the final point I will make, as I intend to be brief about 
this. We are at a period of being able to talk about solving Social 
Security and paying down debt and providing tax cuts and dealing with 
education problems because we have a strong growing economy. We have a 
growing economy that is producing these sorts of revenues. We have to 
maintain that, and the lead thing that we can do to maintain that is to 
provide for economically stimulating tax cuts like what I am proposing 
here, and broaden that 15-percent tax rate, target it for people there, 
and have an economically stimulating benefit from that occurring. I 
think that is the way that we need to go to be able to maintain what we 
have in place now in this healthy economy and to be able to deal with 
these sorts of issues, to stimulate education reform, and to have the 
funds for education, as well.
  Mr. President, that is the proposal I have introduced today. I urge 
my colleagues to look at it, and I would appreciate their support for 
this bill as we press forward on this broad-based debate on what we are 
going to do about this budget and how we continue the strong economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Reid, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Bryan, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 540. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that housing assistance provided under the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 be treated for purposes 
of the low-income housing credit in the same manner as comparable 
assistance; to the Committee on Finance.


    low income housing tax credit equitable access for indian tribes

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
which will correct an unintended oversight in the federal 
administration of Native American housing programs, allowing Indian 
tribes to once again access Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for 
housing development in some of this nation's most under-served 
communities. Joining me as original cosponsors of this bill are 
Senators Inhofe, Conrad, Kerry, Daschle, Inouye, Wellstone, Sarbanes, 
Kerrey, Kennedy, Dorgan, Reid, Baucus, Bryan and Boxer.
  In the 104th Congress, the Native American Housing Assistance and 
Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) was signed into law, separating Indian 
housing from public housing and providing block grants to tribes and 
their tribally designated housing authorities. Prior to passage of 
NAHASDA, Indian tribes receiving HOME block grant funds were able to 
use those funds to leverage the Low Income Housing Tax Credits 
distributed by states on a competitive basis. Unfortunately, unlike 
HOME funds, block grants to tribes under the new NAHASDA are defined as 
federal funds and cannot be used for accessing LIHTCs.
  The fact that tribes cannot use their new block grant funds to access 
a program (LIHTC) which they formerly could access is an unintended 
consequence of taking Indian Housing out of Public Housing at HUD and 
setting up the otherwise productive and much needed NAHASDA system. The 
legislation I am introducing today is limited in scope and redefines 
NAHASDA funds, restoring tribal eligibility for the LIHTC by putting 
NAHASDA funds on the same footing as HOME funds. With this technical 
correction, there would be no change to the LIHTC programs--tribes 
would compete for LIHTCs with all other entities at the state level, 
just as they did prior to NAHASDA.
  This technical corrections legislation is a minor but much needed fix 
to a valuable program that will restore equity to housing development 
across the country. The South Dakota Housing Development Authority has 
enthusiastically endorsed this legislation out of concern for equitable 
treatment of every resident of our state and to reinforce the proven 
success of the LIHTC program for housing development in rural and lower 
income communities.
  I have joined many of my colleagues in past efforts to preserve and 
increase the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which benefits every 
state, and I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of 
maintaining fairness in access to this program emphasized through this 
legislation and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this 
vital legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 540

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE 
                   DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING WHETHER BUILDING IS 
                   FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED FOR PURPOSES OF THE LOW-
                   INCOME HOUSING CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 42(i)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to determination 
     of whether building is federally subsidized) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by inserting ``or the Native American 
     Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 
     U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) (as in effect on October 1, 1997)'' 
     after ``this subparagraph)'', and
       (2) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``or native 
     american housing assistance'' after ``home assistance''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 541. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
make certain changes related to payments for graduate medical education 
under the medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.


      THE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 1999

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague 
from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, in introducing the Graduate Medical 
Education Technical Amendments Act of 1999, which is intended to 
address some of the problems that small family practice residency 
programs in Maine and elsewhere are experiencing as a result of 
provisions in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 that were intended 
to control the growth in Medicare graduate medical education spending.
  Of specific concern are the provisions in the BBA that cap the total 
number of residents in a program at the level included in the 1996 
Medicare cost reports. Congress' goal in reforming Medicare's graduate 
medical education program was to slow down our nation's overall 
production of physicians, while still protecting the training of 
physicians who are in short supply and needed to meet local and 
national health care demands. While the BBA's provisions will indeed 
curb growth in the overall physician supply, they do so 
indiscriminately and are thwarting efforts in Maine and elsewhere to 
increase the supply of primary care physicians in underserved rural 
areas.
  Because Maine has only one medical school--the University of New 
England, which trains osteopathic physicians--we depend on a number of 
small family practice residency programs to introduce physicians to the 
practice opportunities in the state. Most of the graduates of these 
residency programs go on to establish practices in Maine, many in rural 
and underserved areas of the state. The new caps on residency slots 
included in the BBA penalize these programs in a number of ways.
  For instance, the current cap is based on the number of interns and 
residents who were ``in the hospital'' in FY 1996. Having a cap that is 
institution-specific rather than program-specific has caused several 
problems. For example, the Maine-Dartmouth Family Practice Residency 
Program had two residents out on leave in 1996--one on sick leave for 
chemotherapy treatments and one on maternity leave. Therefore, the 
program's cap was reduced by two, because it was based on the number of 
actual residents in the hospital in 1996 as opposed to the number of 
residents in the program.
  Moreover, residents in this program have spent one to two months 
training in obstetrics at Dartmouth's Mary Hitchcock's Medical Center 
in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Because the cap is based on a hospital's 
cost report, these residents are counted toward Dartmouth Medical 
School's cap instead of the Maine-Dartmouth Family Practice Residency 
Program's. Last

[[Page S2317]]

year, the Maine program was informed that Dartmouth would be cutting 
back the amount of time their residents are there. But the Maine-
Dartmouth Family Practice Residency Program has no way of recouping the 
resident count from them in order to have the funds to support 
obstetrical training for their residents elsewhere.
  Moreover, the cap does not include residents who continue to be part 
of the residency program, but who have been sent outside of the 
hospital for training. This penalizes all primary care specialties, but 
especially family medicine, where ambulatory training has historically 
been the hallmark of the specialty. This is particularly ironic since 
other specialty programs that now begin training in settings outside 
the hospital will, under the new rules, have those costs included in 
their Medicare graduate medical education funding.
  All told, the Maine Dartmouth Family Practice Residency Program will 
see its graduate medical education funding reduced by over half a 
million dollars a year as a result of the cap established by the BBA.
  The example I have just used is from Maine, but the problems created 
by the BBA's graduate medical education changes are national in scope. 
It has created disproportionately harmful effects on family practice 
residencies from Maine to Alaska. A recent survey of all family 
practice residency program directors has found that:
  56 percent of respondents who were in the process of developing new 
rural training sites have indicated that they will either not implement 
those plans or are unsure about their sponsoring institutions' 
continued support.
  21 percent of respondents report planning to decrease their family 
practice residency slots in the immediate future. The majority of those 
who are planning to decrease their slots are the sole residency program 
in a teaching hospital. This means that, under current law, they have 
no alternative way of achieving growth, such as through a reduction of 
other specialty slots in order to stay within the cap.

  And finally, the vast majority of family practice residencies did not 
have their full residency FTEs captured in the 1996 cost reports upon 
which the cap is based.
  In addition to this survey, we have anecdotal information from 
residencies across the country detailing how they have lost funding 
either because of where they trained their residents or because their 
residents had been extended sick or maternity leave. For example, one 
family practice residency in Washington State last year had an 
equivalent of 14 residents training outside of the hospital and four in 
the hospital. Under the BBA, their cap would be four. By contrast, had 
all of their residents been trained in the hospital up to this point, 
their payment base would have been capped at 18, even if they trained 
residents in non-hospital settings in the future.
  The Medicare Graduate Medical Education Technical Amendments Act we 
are introducing today will address these problems by basing the cap on 
the number of residents ``who were appointed by the approved medical 
residency training programs for the hospital'' in 1996, rather than on 
the number of residents who were ``in the hospital.''
  I am also concerned that the Balanced Budget Act and its accompanying 
regulations will severely hamper primary care residency programs that 
are expanding to meet local needs. Specifically, a new residency 
program that had not met its full complement of accredited residency 
positions until after the cutoff date of August 5, 1997, is precluded 
from increasing its number of residents unless the hospital decreases 
the number of residents in one of its other specialty programs. 
However, over forty percent of the nation's family practice residency 
programs are the only program sponsored by the hospital. This provision 
therefore completely precludes such a hospital from expanding its 
residency program to meet emerging primary care needs.
  To address this problem, the legislation we are introducing today 
would allow the small number of programs at hospitals that sponsor just 
one residency program to increase their cap by one residency slot a 
year up to a maximum of three. In addition, to enable a number of 
family practice residency programs that are already in the pipeline to 
get accredited and grow to completion, the bill extends the cutoff date 
to September 1999.
  And finally, the Balanced Budget Act gave the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services the authority to give ``special consideration'' to new 
facilities that ``meet the needs of underserved rural areas.'' The 
Health Care Financing Administration has interpreted this to mean 
facilities that are actually in underserved rural areas. There have 
been several recent expansions in family practice residency programs 
that include a rural training track, with residents located in outlying 
hospitals, or with satellite programs designed specifically to train 
residents to work with underserved populations.
  Even though these new programs or satellites required accrediting 
body approval, they are still part of the ``mother'' residencies, which 
may not be physically located in an underserved rural area. While these 
are not technically new programs, I believe that the definition should 
be expanded to include such endeavors, given the value of these 
programs in addressing the needs of underserved populations. Therefore, 
the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Technical Amendments Act would 
expand the definition to include ``facilities which are not located in 
an underserved rural area, but which have established separately 
accredited rural training tracks.''
  Mr. President, while the changes we are proposing today are 
relatively minor and technical in nature, they are critical to the 
survival of the small family practice residency programs that are so 
important to our ability to meet health manpower needs in rural and 
underserved areas. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in 
cosponsoring the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Technical 
Amendments and 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. 541

       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 ``Graduate Medical Education 
     Technical Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. INDIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(v) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(v)) (as added by 
     section 4621(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(v) In determining'' and inserting 
     ``(v)(I) Subject to subclause (II), in determining'';
       (2) by striking ``in the hospital with respect to the 
     hospital's most recent cost reporting period ending on or 
     before December 31, 1996''; and inserting ``who were 
     appointed by the hospital's approved medical residency 
     training programs for the hospital's most recent cost 
     reporting period ending on or before December 31, 1996''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(II) Beginning on or after January 1, 1997, in the case 
     of a hospital that sponsors only 1 allopathic or osteopathic 
     residency program, the limit determined for such hospital 
     under subclause (I) may, at the hospital's discretion, be 
     increased by 1 for each calendar year but shall not exceed a 
     total of 3 more than the limit determined for the hospital 
     under subclause (I).''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)) is amended by 
     moving clauses (ii), (v), and (vi) 2 ems to the left.

     SEC. 3. DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Limitation on Number of Residents.--Section 
     1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(h)(4)(F)) (as added by section 4623 of the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997) is amended by inserting ``who were 
     appointed by the hospital's approved medical residency 
     training programs'' after ``may not exceed the number of such 
     full-time equivalent residents''.
       (b) Funding for New Programs.--The first sentence of 
     section 1886(h)(4)(H)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(H)(i)) (as added by section 4623 of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997) is amended inserting ``and 
     before September 30, 1999'' after ``January 1, 1995''.
       (c) Funding for Programs Meeting Rural Needs.--The second 
     sentence of section 1886(h)(4)(H)(i) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(H)(i)) (as added by section 4623 
     of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) is amended by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting ``, including facilities 
     that are not located in an underserved rural area but have 
     established separately accredited rural training tracks.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if 
     included in the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.


[[Page S2318]]


  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with my 
distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Graduate 
Medical Education Technical Amendments Act of 1999. This legislation 
will alleviate unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 regarding Graduate Medical Education (GME).
  The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained important and necessary GME 
reform. However, a small number of the changes in the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997, have grave consequences for many residency programs, 
particularly for programs that have been training in ambulatory 
settings, are small, or who produce physicians to serve in rural areas. 
The impact has been disproportionately harmful to programs that: have 
already been training in ambulatory settings (because the hospitals in 
which they were located were not allowed to count the residents they 
had serving in community settings in the cap); are small, such as 
hospitals with only one residency program; and train physicians for 
practice in rural areas.
  The impact is especially damaging to family practice residency 
programs. Only family practice residents have been trained extensively 
out of the hospital and only family practice residencies were 
significantly harmed by this provision in the BBA. In fact, a recent 
survey indicates that 56 percent of family residency program directors 
believe that the BBA provisions will preclude their development of 
rural training sites.
  Senator Collins' and my legislation would include the following 
legislative remedies:
  Recalculate the IME and DME caps based on the number of interns and 
residents who were appointed by the approved medical residency training 
programs for FY 1996, whether they were being trained in the hospital 
or in the community;
  Change the cutoff date for adjusting the DME funding cap to September 
30, 1999, to allow those programs already in the approval process for 
accreditation to continue to realization; and
  Expand the exception to the funding caps to include programs with 
separately accredited rural training tracks even if the sponsoring 
hospital is not located in a rural area, and for residency programs 
where a primary care training program is the only one offered in the 
hospital.
  This legislation is important for Alaska's first and only residency 
program. The Alaska Family Practice Residency is specifically designed 
to train physicians to practice medicine in rural Alaska.
  Alaska's rural health care problems are tough: 74% of Alaska is 
medically under-served. Many villages populated by 25-1000 individuals 
do not have access to physicians. Physician turn-over rate is high 
which makes it impossible for patients to establish long-term 
relationships with their physician to manage chronic disease or to do 
preventative medicine. The result is that bush Alaska has much higher 
rates of preventable diseases.
  This legislation is truly imperative to Alaska health care. While 
other residency programs have the luxury of educating their residents 
on rural health issues, for us it is a necessity.
  Mr. President, our legislation corrects a small deficiency in the BBA 
of 1997 that has had a large, unintended impact on programs training 
community-based and rural doctors. I hope my colleagues can join our 
efforts and support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kerrey, 
        Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Burns, and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 542. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the deduction for computer donations to schools and allow a tax credit 
for donated computers; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________