[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3123-S3146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 678. A bill to establish certain safeguards for the protection of 
purchasers in the sale of motor vehicles that are salvage or have been 
damaged, to require certain safeguards concerning the handling of 
salvage and nonrebuildable vehicles, to support the flow of important 
vehicle information to the National Motor Vehicle Title Information 
System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


     salvaged and damaged motor vehicle information disclosure act

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation on behalf of myself and Senators Levin and Bryan that will 
offer consumers protection against unknowingly purchasing a vehicle 
that has been rebuilt after sustaining substantial damage in an 
accident.

  The sale of rebuilt vehicles that have been wrecked in accidents has 
become a major national problem. According to the National Association 
of Independent Insurers, about 2.5 million vehicles are involved in 
accidents so severe that they are declared a total loss. Yet, more than 
a million of these vehicles are rebuilt and put back on the road.
  In a report to the state Legislature, the California Department of 
Consumer Affairs found, with respect to California alone ``More than 
700,000 structurally damaged and 150,000 salvaged vehicles are returned 
to streets and highways every year without a safety inspection, and 
they pose a potential hazard to all of California's twenty million 
unsuspecting motorists.''
  In many cases, ``totaled'' cars are sold at auction, refurbished to 
conceal prior damage, then resold to consumers without disclosure of 
the previous condition of the car. The structural integrity of these 
vehicles has been so severely weakened that the potential for serious 
injury in an accident is greatly increased.
  In one case, a teenage who purchased a rebuilt wreck was rendered 
quadriplegic after an accident in which her vehicle rolled 360 degrees 
at about five miles an hour. The vehicle had been in a previous 
accident. It had been badly repaired and then resold without disclosure 
of its previous condition. The vehicle's roof was replaced after the 
first accident, but in the subsequent accident, the roof collapsed when 
the substandard welds failed.
  In another incident, a mother purchased a Honda Prelude for her 
daughter's high school graduation. Although only hail damage was 
reported at the time of sale, the car had actually been totaled in 
Texas and rebuilt in Arkansas. The repair shop acknowledged that they 
had spent only about $3,000 on repairs, despite an insurance company's 
estimate of over $10,000 worth of damage. The inadequate repair 
resulted in the collapse of the right front suspension inflicting a 
debilitating head injury on the driver.
  In yet another case of fraud, Jimmy Dolan bought a used Toyota from a 
dealership in Clovis, California. The odometer had only 19,000 miles on 
it and he was told the car was like new and in original condition. In 
fact, that was untrue. The previous owner had been involved in a 
serious accident that required $8,700 in repairs. After a series of 
problems with the car, the original owner took it back to the 
dealership and traded it in. The dealership then resold the car to 
Jimmy Dolan for almost $14,000.
  After only a minor accident, Mr. Dolan found out the truth about his 
car. He managed to trace the car back to the original owner who 
described the extent of the damage. Despite having full knowledge of 
the vehicle's history, the dealership refused to give Dolan a refund. 
Eventually, he had to file a civil lawsuit to recoup his losses.
  These are just three cases in which serious physical and financial 
losses were inflicted on innocent victims who unknowingly purchased a 
vehicles that had sustained major damage.
  The bill that I am introducing will address the problem of rebuilt 
wrecks by: providing nationwide written disclosure for every vehicle 
sale of previous salvage and major damage; providing widespread 
coverage for all vehicles including vehicles of any age or value, motor 
homes, pickups, and motorcycles; allowing states to maintain existing 
salvage laws; strengthening the Federal rebuilt vehicle database to 
promote instant access to vehicle accident histories for consumers, 
dealers, and law enforcement; requiring certification by a qualified 
repair facility of the proper repair of any salvage vehicle before it 
is returned to the road.
  This bill has been endorsed by the Attorneys General of California, 
Connecticut, Iowa, and Michigan. In a letter of support, Attorneys 
General Blumenthal, Lockyer, and Miller state that this bill ``has 
strong disclosure requirements that will put consumers on notice before 
they agree to buy a car concerning any prior collision or flood 
damage.''
  They also state ``We especially appreciate that this bill tracks the 
Resolution adopted in 1994 by the National Association of Attorneys 
General. That Resolution calls for the strong national standards and 
remedies that are provided for in this bill.''
  Mr. President, I submit this letter for the record.
  This bill also has the support of a number of consumer advocates 
including: Center for Auto Safety, Consumer

[[Page S3124]]

Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, 
Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public 
Interest, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
  In a letter of support from the National Association of Consumer 
Advocates, Pat Sturdevant writes ``This bill is entirely consistent 
with views of the major national consumer groups in that it would 
require disclosure of major damage to vehicles. Provide broad coverage 
of most used vehicles, prevent laundering or washing of titles to 
conceal prior damage, provide for effective criminal and civil 
enforcement, and provide a minimum standard of consumer protection 
while allowing states to offer stronger protection to their citizens.''
  I submit this letter for the Record.
  The bill is also strongly supported by the Automotive Recyclers 
Association and the Auto Dismantlers Association.
  Mr. President, there is no question that the sale of rebuilt vehicles 
is a major national problem. We need to insure that we provide the 
proper solution. I believe that this bill is that solution and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I want to thank the Senators from Michigan and Nevada for their 
assistance with this legislation. Their input and support has been 
invaluable to the development of this bill. I ask that letters in 
support of the bill be printed in the Record.
  The material follows:
                                   Office of The Attorney General,


                                         State of Connecticut,

                                                   March 18, 1999.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
     Re: The Salvaged and Damaged Motor vehicle Information 
         Disclosure Act
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We are writing in order to express 
     our support for the Salvaged and Damaged Motor Vehicle 
     Information Disclosure Act, a bill which we understand you 
     and Senators Levin and Bryan intend to offer.
       We are very aware of the harm caused to consumers who 
     unwittingly purchase used cars that had sustained major 
     damage. They not only pay far more than the vehicle's market 
     value, they may be placing themselves and their families in 
     danger.
       Despite state efforts to vigorously enforce state laws 
     requiring car sellers to make salvage and damage disclosures, 
     the problem continues to be our nation's top consumer 
     compliant regarding used car sales. It is right for Congress 
     to act. However, in acting, Congress must protect consumers, 
     while permitting the states flexibility to deal with this 
     growing problem.
        Your draft bill achieves those two major goals. It has 
     strong disclosure requirements that will put consumers on 
     notice before they agree to buy a car concerning any prior 
     collision or flood damage. It uses definitions that provide 
     strong baselines of protection, while permitting individual 
     states to impose tougher standards, if that is their choice. 
     It effectively deals with the problem of ``title-washing'' by 
     ensuring that information about prior collision or flood 
     damage remains on vehicle titles, regardless of the state of 
     titling. Finally, it provides strong remedies, by subjecting 
     violations to criminal penalties, civil law enforcement 
     actions by state attorneys general, and substantial private 
     civil remedies.
       We especially appreciate that this bill tracks the 
     Resolution adopted in 1994 by the National Association of 
     Attorneys General. That Resolution calls for the strong 
     national standards and remedies that are provided for in this 
     bill.
       Another reason we support this bill is that it follows the 
     successful mode of the federal odometer law, originally 
     enacted in the 1970's. That law provided for the same types 
     of strong national standards and remedies found in your bill. 
     States have relied on the federal odometer law to file many 
     civil and criminal law enforcement actions against odometer 
     spinners and have recovered millions of dollars in 
     restitution for consumers. Strong federal and state 
     enforcement, plus the private actions brought under the 
     odometer law, have put a real dent in odometer fraud. We look 
     forward to similar results as we join forces to tackle auto 
     salvage fraud.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look 
     forward to working with you in the fight to protect used car 
     buyers.
           Very truly yours,
     Richard Blumenthal,
                                  Attorney General of Connecticut.
     Bill Lockyer,
                                   Attorney General of California.
     Tom Miller,
     Attorney General of Iowa.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                           Consumer Advocates,

                                                   March 19, 1999.
       Dear Senators Feinstein, Levin and Bryan: We are a consumer 
     protection organization very concerned about the safety 
     hazard posed by the resale of rebuilt wrecked cars. We 
     strongly support the national salvage and damaged motor 
     vehicle disclosure bill which you intend to offer because it 
     will protect consumers against the unsuspecting purchase of a 
     rebuilt wrecked car. This would require disclosure of major 
     damage to vehicles, provide broad coverage of most used 
     vehicles, prevent laundering or washing of titles to conceal 
     prior damage, provide for effective criminal and civil 
     enforcement, and establish a federal minimum standard of 
     consumer protection while allowing states to offer stronger 
     protection to their citizens. The bill is consistent with the 
     recommendations embodied in the 1994 Resolution of the 
     National Association of Attorneys General and adopted by the 
     Attorneys General of all 50 states, so we anticipate that it 
     will receive broad support from law enforcement.
       We remain strongly opposed to competing legislation, which 
     the Washington Post termed ``controversial'' and featured as 
     a example of ``special interest'' legislation. That bill was 
     opposed by the Attorneys General of 39 states, encountered 
     major opposition in the House, and was removed from the 
     Omnibus Appropriations package after objection by the White 
     House. The current measure remains flawed, failing to cover 
     more than half the used cars on the road, and eliminating 
     many of the state law protections that consumers now have 
     against unscrupulous sellers of rebuilt wrecks. Its 
     definitions of ``flood'' and ``nonrepairable'' vehicles are 
     extremely loose, and its standard of proof and weak and 
     inadequate enforcement mechanism would do nothing to deter 
     the fraudulent sale of dangerous rebuilt wrecks.
       It can hardly be disputed that automobile salvage fraud is 
     a serious problem which requires federal action. Each year, 
     more than one million ``totalled'' cars are rebuilt and sold 
     to unsuspecting consumers. These consumers need protection 
     from salvage fraud. I am looking forward to continuing to 
     work closely with leading state Attorneys General on this 
     important public safety issue, and would welcome the 
     opportunity to wok with you and your staffs in obtaining the 
     genuine reform which your pro-consumer bill will provide.
           Sincerely yours,
                                      Patricia Sturdevant.

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
along with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Bryan, that will 
protect consumers from the unscrupulous practice known as ``title 
washing'' the current practice of selling rebuilt wrecks to 
unsuspecting buyers. The objective of this legislation is to make it 
more difficult for unscrupulous auto sellers to conceal the fact that a 
vehicle has been in an accident by transferring the vehicle's title in 
a state with lower standards than where the vehicle is ultimately sold.
  In developing this bill, Senators Feinstein and Bryan and I worked 
closely with national consumer protection groups and a number of state 
Attorneys General. We have crafted a bill that is truly consumer 
protective and sets high national standards that did not previously 
exist. We took great care to ensure that our bill would not preempt the 
rights of states to retain or enact laws that exceed the minimum 
federal standards in this bill.
  National automobile salvage title legislation is needed because there 
is no uniform standard for when a vehicle must be declared salvage or 
nonrepairable. About 2.5 million cars are severely damaged in auto 
accidents each year. More than half of them are returned to the road. 
Many of these rebuilt cars are sold to unsuspecting consumers without 
disclosure of the car's prior history, increasing the chance of serious 
injury to the drivers and passengers of these rebuilt cars. The 
National Association of Attorneys General estimates that the sale of 
rebuilt or salvaged motor vehicles as undamaged, costs the motor 
vehicle industry and consumers up to $4 billion annually.
  Currently, some states, like Michigan and California and others, have 
tough consumer protection laws dictating when a vehicle's title must be 
branded as salvage or nonrepairable, but other states do not. 
Unfortunately, unscrupulous people now take advantage of this lack of 
uniformity and take wrecked vehicles to states with low or no standards 
to retitle them and thus wipe out the vehicle's prior damage history.
  Our bill would provide for uniform standards of nationwide seller 
disclosure for every vehicle sale of previous salvage and major damage 
vehicles, and ensure these title brands are carried forward with all 
titles each time

[[Page S3125]]

the vehicle is sold. This proposal is consistent with the National 
Association of Attorneys General auto salvage resolution adopted in 
1994.
  This bill also has the support of Michigan's Attorney General, who 
wrote in a letter endorsing the bill,

       This bill will further empower consumers to have more 
     information available in making an informed decision about 
     what is generally their second most costly purchase, motor 
     vehicles used for personal transportation. I urge Congress to 
     enact this bill.

  The salvage title requirements in our bill are modeled after the 
successful 25 year old federal odometer law which requires the milage 
of a vehicle to be disclosed before a vehicle can be transferred. This 
law requires each seller to fill out a statement on the odometer 
reading that verifies its accuracy and a vehicle buyer cannot get a 
state title without this disclosure on the title. Our bill would work 
in a similar manner.
  Our bill is basically a disclosure bill. It requires that whenever a 
vehicle's title is transferred, the seller must disclose in writing to 
the buyer any accident history of the vehicle which includes: salvage, 
flood, nonrepairable or major damage. Our bill defines ``salvage'', 
``flood'', ``nonrepairable'' and ``major damage'' to provide broad 
disclosure and to protect consumer safety. These definitions are 
consistent with recommendations from the state Attorneys General.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, the sale of rebuilt wrecks to 
unsuspecting buyers is a serous problem and should be stopped as soon 
as possible. The Feinstein, Levin, Bryan bill will do just that by 
establishing uniform disclosure standards for all vehicle sales and 
requiring all states to carry forward this disclosure on the vehicle's 
title. Simply put, our bill will put an end to title-washing.
  I ask that additional materials be printed in the Record.
  The material follows:

Resolution Adopted by National Association of Attorneys General, March 
                              20-22, 1994


   mandatory disclosure of salvage history and major damage to motor 
                                vehicles

       Whereas, motor vehicles which are severely damaged or 
     declared a ``total'' loss are often subsequently rebuilt or 
     salvaged and then resold; and
       Whereas, the fact that a vehicle is rebuilt or salvaged is 
     material to any subsequent sale of the vehicle; and
       Whereas, not all states require that a vehicle's salvage 
     history be marked on the vehicle's title or that such a title 
     brand be carried forward on new titles issued or that a 
     vehicle's salvage history be disclosed to subsequent 
     purchasers; and
       Whereas, branding the title is an effective means of 
     allowing dealers, subsequent purchasers and law enforcement 
     authorities to track a vehicle's true history and has been 
     supported by NAAG for tracking vehicles returned under state 
     lemon laws; and
       Whereas, it is estimated that the sale of rebuilt or 
     salvaged motor vehicles as undamaged, costs the motor vehicle 
     industry and consumers up to $4 billion annually;
       Now, therefore be it
       Resolved, That the National Association of Attorneys 
     General:
       1. Supports federal legislation that:
       a. creates a uniform definition of a ``salvage vehicle'' as 
     a vehicle declared a total loss by an insurance company or 
     where the retail cost to repair the vehicle exceeds 65 
     percent of its fair market value immediately prior to being 
     damaged; and
       b. requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle 
     disclose to the transferee orally and in writing at or before 
     the time of sale, whether the vehicle is a salvage vehicle 
     and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage; and
       c. requires that each applicant for a motor vehicle title 
     disclose, on the application, whether the motor vehicle is a 
     salvage vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major 
     damage; and
       d. requires that each motor vehicle title issued, 
     conspicuously show whether the motor vehicle is a salvage 
     vehicle and whether the vehicle has suffered major damage, if 
     that information is disclosed on the title application or on 
     any title previously issued by that state or another state; 
     and
       e. provides for recovery of actual damages, minimum 
     statutory damages of $5,000 and attorneys fees, where 
     appropriate, by consumers injured by violation of the 
     statute, and
       f. provides the civil enforcement by state Attorneys 
     General which includes injunctive relief, civil penalties and 
     restitution; and
       h. provides for criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and 
     imprisonment for up to three years for each willful 
     violation; and
       i. does not preempt state laws which provide greater 
     protection for consumers as long as state provisions are not 
     inconsistent with the federal law; and
       2. Authorizes its Executive Director and General Counsel to 
     make these views known to all interested parties.
                                  ____

         State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General,
                                      Lansing, MI, March 19, 1999.
     Re Salvaged and Damaged Motor Vehicle Information Disclosure 
         Act

     Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: I am writing regarding your efforts to 
     provide greater protection for American consumers who 
     purchase used motor vehicles that have previously suffered 
     major damage or been salvaged prior to being repaired, 
     rebuilt and put back on the roadways. I believe that it is 
     essential for consumers to be informed of the prior condition 
     of their vehicle so that they may have all available material 
     facts at their disposal in making an informed decision 
     whether to purchase a motor vehicle.
       Not only will your bill mandate disclosure of major damage 
     or salvage conditions, but the bill will also provide an 
     enforcement mechanism including damages and award of 
     attorneys fees to victims, civil penalties and criminal 
     sanctions. I also endorse the section of the bill that 
     empowers state attorneys general to enforce this law through 
     injunction relief or actions for damages.
       This bill will further empower consumers to have more 
     information available in making an informed decision about 
     what is generally their second most costly purchase, motor 
     vehicles used for personal transportation. I urge Congress to 
     enact this bill.
           Sincerely yours,
                                             Jennifer M. Granholm,
                                                 Attorney General.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 679. A bill to authorize appropriations to the Department of State 
for construction and security of United States diplomatic facilities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


      SECURE EMBASSY CONSTRUCTION AND COUNTERTERRORISM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to introduce a bill 
dealing with the security of our embassies around the world.
  Mr. President, we all remember the horrible day of August 17, 1998, 
when U.S. embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya were 
destroyed by car bombs. We all mourn the passing of the 220 people who 
lost their lives to these heinous terrorist acts. But it is not enough 
to mourn. We in Congress have a separate responsibility--to conduct 
proper oversight to expose weaknesses in our embassy security 
requirements and to ensure the resources given to this Administration 
are being allocated in ways to maximize their effectiveness.
  In reviewing the conclusions of the State Department Accountability 
Review Boards chaired by Admiral William J. Crowe, I was disturbed to 
find that they are strikingly similar to those reached by the Inman 
Commission which issued an extensive embassy security report 14 years 
ago. Clearly, the United States has devoted inadequate resources and 
placed too low a priority on security concerns.
  And I regret to say, the President's response to the Crowe Report 
simply is not adequate. The Administration has asked the Congress to 
provide for an advance appropriation of $3 billion with no strings 
attached. That funding does not start next year, it starts in 2001. And 
the bulk of the money is proposed in the out years. Those kind of 
budget games shouldn't be played when the lives of U.S. government 
workers are at stake. It's wrong to state that embassy construction is 
a priority, while refusing to make funds available for that purpose.
  As Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, which has 
oversight responsibilities for embassy security issues, I have looked 
into the mistakes that we made in the past, and I am committed to 
making sure they do not happen in the future. Our embassies are not 
vulnerable because we lack security requirements. They are vulnerable 
because over three-quarters of our embassies have those requirements 
waived. Now, I understand that when the Inman security standards were 
put forward in the 1980's, a number of existing embassies did not meet 
the criteria. But I was surprised to find many of the embassies built 
and purchased since that time do not meet the Inman standards either. 
While I do not want to micromanage the State Department's construction 
program, given State's record in this area, certain external 
constraints are warranted.

[[Page S3126]]

  Unfortunately, under the Administration's plan, we are doomed to 
repeat some of the same mistakes that were made following the Inman 
recommendations. The funding structure makes it impossible to achieve 
efficiencies in embassy construction. There is just not enough funding 
in the next three years to permit a single contract to design and build 
an embassy or a single contract to build multiple embassies in a 
region. Furthermore, the back loading of the funding means it could be 
a decade before secure embassies are up and running. Clearly, that is 
not acceptable.
  Mr. President, I am introducing a 5-year authorization bill that 
makes sure the money set aside for embassy construction and security is 
not used for other purposes. It provides $600 million a year, starting 
in fiscal year 2000. And the Secretary of State is going to have to 
certify these funds are being used to bring these embassies into 
compliance with specific security standards, because 14 years from now, 
I don't want any finger pointing. I don't want the Congress to revisit 
this matter and find that funds were diverted and U.S. personnel put at 
risk.
  The security requirements in my bill reflect some of the lessons that 
we learned from Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. While these requirements may 
not have prevented lives being lost in the bombings, they could prevent 
the loss of life in the future. For example, under my bill, the 
Emergency Action Plan for each mission will address threats from large 
vehicular bombs and transnational terrorism. And the ``Composite Threat 
List'' will have a section which emphasizes transnational terrorism and 
considers criteria such as the physical security environment, host 
government support, and cultural realities.

  Furthermore, in selecting sites for new U.S. diplomatic facilities 
abroad, there will be a set back requirement of 100 feet and all U.S. 
government agencies will have be located on the same compound. State 
Department guidelines currently state that ``[a]ll U.S. Government 
offices and activities, subject to the authority of the chief of 
mission, are required to be collocated in chancery office buildings or 
on a chancery/consulate compound.'' Unfortunately, these guidelines are 
often ignored. Indeed, after the August terrorist bombings, in 
violation of State Department guidelines, A.I.D. headquarters decided 
not to move its missions in Kenya and Tanzania into the more secure 
embassy compounds that are going to be built. A.I.D. only reversed 
itself after hearing from the Congress and U.S. officials in Kenya and 
Tanzania.
  Working abroad will never be risk free. But we can take a number of 
measures, like these, to make sure that safety is increased for U.S. 
government workers overseas. We can also put forward requirements to 
ensure we have an effective emergency response network in place to 
respond to a crisis should one arise. My bill requires crisis 
management training for State Department personnel; support for the 
Foreign Emergency Support Team; rapid response procedure for assistance 
from the Department of Defense; and off-site storage of 
emergency equipment and records. These are prudent steps which should 
be taken to ensure we have an effective crisis management system in 
place if our embassies are attacked in the future.

  My bill also calls for the Secretary of State to submit three reports 
to Congress. The first report would be a classified report rating our 
diplomatic facilities in terms of their vulnerablity to terrorist 
attack. The second report would be a classified review of the findings 
of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel which would recommend whether 
any U.S. missions should be closed due to high vulnerability to 
terrorist attacks and ways to maintain a U.S. presence if warranted. 
The third report would be submitted in classified and unclassified form 
on the projected role and function of each U.S. diplomatic facility 
through 2010. It would explore the potential of technology to decrease 
the number of U.S. personnel abroad; the balance between the cost of 
providing secure buildings and the benefit of a U.S. presence; the 
potential of regional facilities; and the upgrades necessary.
  Finally, my bill enables the President to award the Overseas Service 
Star to any member of the Foreign Service or any civilian employee of 
thegovernment of the United States who--after August 1, 1998--was 
killed or wounded while performing official duties, while on the 
premises of a U.S. mission abroad, or as a result of such employee's 
status as a U.S. government employee. These sacrifices for our nation 
by U.S. government workers abroad no longer should go unrecognized.
  Mr. President, I believe with the approach outlined in my bill we can 
better ensure that we are providing a safe environment for U.S. 
government workers abroad. We can also be confident that should another 
terrorist attack occur, we will be ready for the aftermath. I 
understand that there is a trade-off between security and 
accessibility. But there are obvious steps that we should be taking to 
provide a higher level of security in this age of transnational 
terrorist threats. I hope this bill will not just provide a blueprint 
for the steps we must take now, but guidance on how we should proceed 
in the future. We must acknowledge the world is changing and doing 
business as usual is not going to work. We need to think outside the 
box and explore new ways to confront new challenges. I hope the State 
Department sees my bill as an opportunity rather than a burden. I am 
committed to making sure that embassy security is treated as a 
priority, and this bill is a good first step.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
        Smith of Oregon, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Warner, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. 
        Gramm):
  S. 680. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


        extension of the research and experimentation tax credit

 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend 
Senator Baucus and many more of my esteemed colleagues in the Senate in 
introducing legislation that would permanently extend the research and 
experimentation tax credit.

  As we enter the 21st century, we need to ensure that the United 
States remains the world's undisputed leader in technological and 
scientific innovation. The global economy is becoming increasingly 
competitive. We must move to ensure that our economy does not fall 
behind.
  The research and experimentation tax credit is crucial to stimulating 
economic growth. The President emphasized the value of this credit by 
asking that it be extended in his budget. Additionally, Congress has 
recognized the importance of this tax credit by extending it nine times 
since 1981.
  Now is the time to end the uncertainty surrounding whether or not the 
credit will continue to be extended or be allowed to lapse. We must 
guarantee to American business, our scientists, our engineers, and our 
citizens who depend on technological innovations every day, that we 
will make this tax credit permanent.
  Mr. President, permanence is essential to the effectiveness of this 
credit. Research and development projects typically take a number of 
years and may even last longer than a decade. As our business leaders 
plan these projects, they need to know whether or not they can count on 
this tax credit. The current uncertainty surrounding the credit has 
induced businesses to allocate significantly less to research than they 
otherwise would if they knew the tax credit would be available. This 
uncertainty undermines the entire purpose of the credit. For the 
government and the American people to maximize the return on their 
investment in U.S. based research and development, this credit must be 
made permanent.
  Studies have shown that the R&E tax credit significantly increases 
research

[[Page S3127]]

and development expenditures. The marginal effect of one dollar of the 
R&E credit stimulates approximately one dollar of additional private 
research and development spending over the short-run and as much as two 
dollars of extra investment over the long-run.
  In the business community, the development of new products, 
technologies, medicines, and ideas can result in either success or 
failure. Investments carry a risk. The R&E tax credit helps ease the 
cost of incurring these risks. Whereas foreign nations heavily 
subsidize research with public dollars, the United States has typically 
relied less on direct public funds and more on private sector 
incentives. The R&E tax credit has potential to be an even more 
effective incentive if it were made permanent.

  I am aware that not every company that incurs research and 
development expenditures in the U.S. can take advantage of the R&E tax 
credit. As the credit matures and business cycles change, the current 
credit may be out of reach for some companies. To help solve this 
problem Congress enacted the Alternative Incremental Research Credit to 
help businesses that do not qualify for the R&E tax credit. To improve 
the effectiveness of this alternative credit, we have included a 
proposal to increase it by 1 percent.
  Mr. President, I am aware that a permanent extension of this credit 
will be costly. However, when you consider the value that this 
investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain. Making this 
credit permanent will encourage more companies to locate their research 
activities within the United States. This will lead to more jobs and 
higher wages for U.S. workers. We must recognize that international 
competition is fierce. Many other countries offer significant 
enticements to prompt companies to move research activities within 
their borders. If we fail to ensure at least a level playing field, 
many companies will move their research activities abroad and we will 
lose many precious high-paying jobs.
  Findings from a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that 
workers in every state will benefit from higher wages if the R & E tax 
credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in 
productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 
billion over the next 12 years. Furthermore, greater productivity from 
additional R&E will increase overall economic growth in every state in 
the Union.
  Mr. President, my home state of Utah is a good example of how state 
economies will benefit from the R&E tax credit. Utah is home to a large 
number of firms who invest a high percentage of their revenue on 
research and development. For example, between Salt Lake City and Provo 
lies the world's biggest stretch of software and computer engineering 
firms. This area, which was named ``Software Valley'' by Business Week, 
is second only to California's Silicon Valley as a thriving high tech 
commercial area.
  In addition, Utah is home to about 700 biotechnology and biomedical 
firms that employ nearly 9,000 workers. These companies were conceived 
in research and development and will not survive, much less grow, 
without continuously conducting R&D activities.
  In all, Mr. President there are approximately 80,000 employees 
working in Utah's 1,400 plus and growing technology based companies. 
Research and development is the lifeblood of these firms and hundreds 
of thousands like them throughout the nation.
  If the credit is allowed to lapse, businesses will not be able to 
factor the credit into their long-term plans. This uncertainty causes 
businesses to under-invest in research. This may slow the development 
of the next computer chip, the next household convenience, the next 
generation of heart monitoring equipment, or a new drug that stops 
cancer. We must ensure stability so that our business leaders can count 
on the credit as they decide how much to invest in research and 
development.
  Research and development is essential for long-term economic growth. 
Innovations in science and technology have fueled the massive economic 
expansion we have witnessed over the course of the 20th century. These 
advancements have improved the standard of living for nearly every 
American. Simply put, the R&E tax credit is an investment in economic 
growth, new jobs, and important new products and processes.
  In conclusion Mr. President, if we decide not to make the R&E tax 
credit permanent, we are limiting the potential growth of our economy. 
How can we expect the American economy to hold the lead in the global 
economic race if we allow other countries to offer faster tracks than 
we do? Making the tax credit permanent will keep American business 
ahead of the pack. It will speed economic growth. Innovations resulting 
from American research and development will continue to improve the 
standard of living for every person in the U.S. and also worldwide.
  Mr. President, simply put, the costs of not making the R&E tax credit 
permanent are far greater than the costs of making it permanent. As the 
next millennium closes in on us, we cannot afford to let the American 
economy slow down. Now is the time to send a strong message to to the 
world that America intends to retain its position as the world's 
foremost innovator.
  I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 680

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) Credit Made Permanent.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities) 
     is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Increase in Alternative Incremental Credit Rates.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 41(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``1.65 percent'' and 
     inserting ``2.65 percent'',
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``2.2 percent'' and 
     inserting ``3.2 percent'', and
       (3) in clause (iii), by striking ``2.75 percent'' and 
     inserting ``3.75 percent''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 
     30, 1999.

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I 
join with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and my other 
colleagues to introduce this bill, which is so critical to the ability 
of American businesses to effectively compete in the global 
marketplace. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes as 
original co-sponsors one-third of the members of this body. This bill 
is bi-partisan and bi-cameral. Companion legislation, introduced in the 
House by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Robert Matsui, is co-
sponsored by over one-quarter of the Members of the House.
  Our Nation is the world's undisputed leader in technological 
innovation, a position that would not be possible absent U.S. 
companies' commitment to research and development. Investment in 
research is an investment in our Nation's economic future, and it is 
appropriate that both the public and private sector share the costs 
involved, as we share in the benefits. The credit provided through the 
tax code for research expenses provides a modest but crucial incentive 
for companies to conduct their research in the United States, thus 
creating high-skilled, high-paying jobs for U.S. workers.
  The R&D credit has played a key role in placing the United States 
ahead of its competition in developing and marketing new products. 
Every dollar that the federal government spends on the R&D credit is 
matched by another dollar of spending on research over the short run by 
private companies, and $2 of spending over the long run. Our global 
competitors are well aware of the importance of providing incentives 
for research, and many provide more generous tax treatment for research 
and experimentation expenses than does the United States. As a result, 
while spending on non-defense R&D in the United States as a percentage 
of GDP has remained relatively flat since 1985, Japan's and Germany's 
has grown.
  The benefits of the credit, though certainly significant, have been 
limited over the years by the fact that the credit has been temporary. 
In addition to the numerous times that the credit has been allowed to 
lapse only to be extended retroactively, the 1996 extension left a 12-
month gap during which the credit was not available. This unprecedented 
lapse sent a troubling signal to

[[Page S3128]]

the U.S. companies and universities that have come to rely on the 
government's longstanding commitment to the credit.
  Much research and development takes years to mature. The more 
uncertain the long-term future of the credit is, the smaller its 
potential to stimulate increased research. If companies evaluating 
research projects cannot rely on the seamless continuation of the 
credit, they are less likely to invest in research in this country, 
less likely to put money into cutting-edge technological innovation 
that is critical to keeping us in the forefront of global competition.
  Our country is locked in a fierce battle for high-paying 
technological jobs in the global economy. As more nations succeed in 
creating educationally advanced workforces and join the U.S. as high-
technologically manufacturing centers, they become more attractive to 
companies trying to penetrate foreign markets. Multinational companies 
sometimes find that moving both manufacturing and basic research 
activities overseas is necessary if they are to remain competitive. The 
uncertainty of the R&D credit factors into their economic calculations, 
and makes keeping these jobs in the U.S. more difficult.
  According to a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand last year, making 
the R&D credit permanent will provide a substantial positive stimulus 
to investment, wage-growth, productivity, and overall economic activity 
for this country. Payroll increases from gains in productivity are 
estimated to total $64 billion over the period 1998 through 2010. In 
the year 2010 alone, the payroll increase is estimated to total nearly 
$12 billion.
  Also according to the study, gross State Product, which is the basic 
measure of economic activity in a state, will rise overall by nearly 
$58 billion between 1998 and 2010 as a result of a permanent credit. 
Nearly three-fifths of this increase nationally is attributable to 
additional value added by industries that generally do not perform R&D 
themselves, but benefit from the R&D done by companies in other 
industries.
  Gains in payroll and in Gross State Produce are not limited to states 
regarded as centers for technological innovation. Although such regions 
of the country certainly benefit from the credit, each and every state 
will profit in some measurable way from the credit since all sectors of 
the economy--agriculture, mining, basic manufacturing, and high-tech 
services--benefit from productivity improvements resulting from the 
additional research and development caused by the credit.
  My own State of Montana is an excellent example of this economic 
activity. The total increase in payroll due to the R&D credit for the 
years 1998-2010 is estimated to be just over $250 million. The total 
increase in Gross State Product during this same period is expected to 
be $150 million. Neither of these increases place Montana in the top 
tier of States benefiting from the credit. However, looking beyond 
those numbers, the impact of the credit in Montana is substantial. In 
1995, 12 of every 1,000 private sector workers were employed directly 
by high-tech firms in Montana. Almost 400 establishments provided high-
technology services, at an average wage of $34,500 per year. These jobs 
paid 77 percent more than the average private sector wage in 1995 of 
$19,500 per year. Many of these jobs would never have been created 
without the assistance of the R&D credit. And many more jobs in Montana 
are dependent upon the growth and stability of the high-tech sector. 
Although the cumulative numbers may not be high in comparison with 
other States, the impact of the R&D credit on Montana's economy is 
clear.
  Senator Hatch and I are not newcomers to this issue. We have jointly 
introduced bills to make the R&D credit permanent in numerous previous 
Congresses only to end up with extensions of one year or less. But I 
like to think that this year will be different. The hard work we have 
done to bring our budget into balance is finally beginning to pay off, 
and the projected budget surpluses gives us an opportunity to think 
carefully about how best to allocate our resources. We believe making 
the R&D credit permanent is a wise use of budget dollars because of the 
direct positive impact on economic growth and productivity. This is not 
just a corporate issue. This is a use of tax dollars that benefits all 
of us who are working to expand employment, increase wages and keep our 
Nation at the cutting edge of technological development. I sincerely 
hope we can make this year the year that the R&D credit becomes a 
permanent part of our tax code.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, technology is the driving force 
behind the U.S. economy, and investment in research and development is 
the driving force behind technology. Without research and development, 
the Internet would not exist. Without research and development, bone 
marrow transplants would not be saving lives. Without research and 
development, global satellite networks would not bring instantaneous 
news from around the world into our living rooms.
  Quite simply, Mr. President, research and development encourages 
economic growth, creates jobs, and gives U.S. businesses an edge in 
today's competitive world marketplace.
  That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of legislation 
introduced today by my colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus. 
This bill to make permanent the R&D tax credit will enable private 
businesses large and small to spend more of their resources on research 
and development. I have long been a strong supporter of the R&D tax 
credit and am delighted to join the effort to make it permanent.
  As my colleagues know, the credit was first created in 1981 as a way 
to encourage the development of new and innovative commercial 
technologies and has been renewed nine times. Unfortunately, Congress 
has never made the tax credit permanent. Such a year to year 
uncertainty prohibits companies from making long-term R&D plans that 
take the tax credit into account. This lack of permanency leads 
inevitably to a lower rate of investment in research and development. 
That, Mr. President, slows U.S. innovation and economic growth, results 
in fewer jobs for Americans, and places U.S. firms at a competitive 
disadvantage to foreign companies.
  Making the R&D tax credit permanent is one of the easiest and most 
effective measures we can take to boost the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the high tech industry.
  The credit spurs economic growth. A recent study by Coopers & Lybrand 
found that every dollar of tax benefit generates as much as one dollar 
of additional private R and D spending in the short term and as much as 
two dollars of long-term R and D investment. The study concluded that 
over the 1998-2010 period, U.S. companies would spend 41 billion 
dollars more on research and development if the credit were made 
permanent. Further, innovations from that additional R and D investment 
would add more than 13 billion dollars a year to the economy's 
productive capacity by the year 2010.
  The credit creates jobs. Because it is targeted primarily at salaries 
and wages of employees directly involved in research and 
experimentation, it is an incentive for companies to create and sustain 
high-skilled, high-paying jobs.
  The credit helps U.S. companies compete. The R and D Tax Credit 
Coalition, a group of over 1000 American companies and 52 trade 
associations dedicated to making the tax credit permanent, argues that 
the credit is an essential tool for U.S. companies competing against 
foreign firms. Foreign companies often benefit from research and 
development subsidies from their governments. Such incentives lower the 
cost of R and D in foreign countries and give companies receiving the 
subsidies a competitive advantage over U.S. firms. According to the 
Coalition, U.S. corporate research and development spending lags far 
behind Germany and Japan as a percentage of sales. Making the tax 
credit permanent will go a long way to eliminate this disadvantage.
  In my home state of Washington, hundreds of businesses, both large 
and small, use the R&D tax credit to develop new and innovative 
products and create jobs. In fact, Washington is making a name for 
itself as the home of a large and growing high technology industry. 
Last year, the American Electronics Association named Washington a 
``cyber state'' and found that 45 out of every 1,000 private sector

[[Page S3129]]

workers in the state are employed by high-tech firms. According to AEA, 
Washington leads the nation in high-tech wages with an average high-
tech salary in the state of over 66 thousand dollars a year.
  Not surprisingly then, we in Washington view the R&D credit as a 
valued complement to our state's economic development policies. In 
fact, the Coopers and Lybrand study estimates that the credit will 
increase Washington's Gross State Product by $1.4 billion and the 
state's payroll by $1.6 billion over the next decade.
  The Hatch-Baucus legislation to make the R&D tax credit permanent 
will benefit Washington and every other state in the nation. It is a 
smart and effective piece of legislation. It spurs economic growth, 
creates jobs, and helps U.S. companies compete more effectively.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting innovation in America.
 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, introduced by the Senators 
from Utah and Montana. This bill addresses what is in my opinion a 
long-standing oversight in the tax code, and will create a permanent 
extension for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit.
  Indeed, this legislation is necessary because, despite a remarkable 
record of spurring innovation and success--it is regarded by many in 
the business world as the single most effective tool government has to 
help business--the 18 year old research and experimentation tax credit 
inexplicably remains a temporary provision of the tax code.
  Economists have linked the tax credit to steady economic growth and 
productivity. Industry leaders have credited it with spawning private 
enterprise investments. It is especially important to high tech and 
emerging growth industries that are driving our economy. And, because 
it creates jobs and spurs economic activity, the research and 
experimentation tax credit helps to increase the tax base, paying back 
the benefit of the credit.
  Yet, despite its many benefits, for 18 years the research and 
experimentation tax credit has remained a temporary tax provision 
requiring regular renewal. The President's budget request for FY2000 
has, once again, only requested a one year extension of the credit.
  In fact, since 1981, when it was first enacted, the Research and 
Experimentation Tax Credit has been extended nine times. In four 
instances the research credit had expired before being renewed 
retroactively and, in one instance, it was renewed for a mere six 
months.
  This is not a process which is conducive to encouraging business 
investment in the innovative industries--high technology, electronics, 
computers, software, and biotechnology, among others--which will 
provide future strength and growth for the U.S. economy.
  Earlier in this decade California was faced with its severest 
economic downturn since the Great Depression. Today, the California 
economy is healthy and vibrant, and it is so in no small part because 
of the critical role played by innovative research and development 
efforts in nurturing new ``high tech'' industries.
  Today the 150 largest Silicon Valley companies are valued at well-
over $500 billion, $500 billion which did not exist two decades ago. 
Much of this growth is a result of ability of companies to undertake 
long-rage and sustained research in cutting-edge technologies.
  To give just one example: Pericom Semiconductor, located in San Jose, 
California, has expanded from a start-up company in 1990 to a company 
with over $50 million in revenue and 175 employees by the end of last 
year. Pericom is ranked by Deloitte Touche as one of the fastest 
growing companies in Silicon Valley. And, according to a letter I 
received from the Vice President of Finance and administration at 
Pericom, utilization of the research credit has been key to their 
success, enabling them to add engineers, conduct research, and expand 
their technology base.
  I will enter into the Record letters I have received from several 
California companies regarding the benefits of the research and 
experimentation tax credit.
  The new jobs created at companies like Pericom, Genetech, Intel, Lam, 
and Xylinx, along with a host of others, through utilization of the 
research and experimentation tax credit also create additional tax 
revenue, paying back the benefit of the tax credit.
  Research and experimentation is the lifeblood of high technology 
development, and if we want to replicate the success of companies like 
Pericom across the country it is crucial that we create a permanent 
research and experimentation tax credit.
  According to a 1988 study conducted by the national accounting firm 
Coopers & Lybrand, a permanent credit will increase GDP by nearly $58 
billion (in 1998 dollars) over the next decade. The productivity gains 
from a permanent extension will allow workers throughout the nation to 
earn higher wages.
  Whether it is advances in health care, information technology, or 
environmental design, research and development are critical ingredients 
for fueling the process of economic growth.
  Moreover, aggressive research and experimentation is essential for 
U.S. industries fighting to be competitive in the world marketplace.
  Right now American biotechnology is the world leader in developing 
effective treatments and biotech is considered one of the critical 
technologies for the twenty-first century. With other countries 
heavily-subsidizing research and development, it is critical that U.S. 
companies also receive incentive to invest the necessary resources to 
stay on top of breakthrough developments.
  Most biotech research and development efforts are long term projects 
spanning five to ten years, sometimes more. The uncertainty created by 
the temporary and sporadic extensions is incompatible with the basic 
needs of biotech innovation--providing companies with a stable time 
frame to plan, launch, and conduct research activities. In the case of 
a promising but financially intensive research project, such 
unpredictability can make the difference as to whether the project is 
completed or abandoned.
  Anyone who has watched the growth of America's high tech sector in 
the past two decades--much of it in California--has seen first hand how 
research and development investment leads to new jobs, new businesses, 
and even entire new industries. And anyone who has benefitted from 
breakthrough products--from new treatments for genetic disorders to 
cleansing contaminated groundwater--has felt the effect of this tax 
credit.
  Mr. President, I believe that the research and experimentation tax 
credit has proven its worth in creating new technologies and jobs, and 
in growing tax revenues for this country. It should not be imperilled 
by remaining a temporary credit, subject to termination because of the 
uncertainty of a given political moment. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill and to create a permanent extension for the Research 
and Experimentation Tax Credit.
  I ask that letter in support of the bill be printed in the Record.
  The material follows:


                                                      Pericom,

                                                 October 13, 1998.
     Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
     Washington, DC.
       This is a letter to let you know how we are able to utilize 
     the benefits of the Research and Development Tax Credit.
       Pericom Semiconductor--located in San Jose, California--has 
     expanded from a start-up in 1990 to $50M in revenue with 175 
     people as of September 1998. The savings that we obtain 
     through the utilization of the research credit have enabled 
     us to add engineers to help us expand our technology base. We 
     were ranked as one of the fastest growing companies in 
     Silicon Valley as a result of a Deloitte Touche survey.
       The benefit to our country is that we export about 50% of 
     our revenue to Asia Pacific and Europe. This helps with the 
     balance of trade.
       The engineers that we hire also pay their fair share of 
     taxes so the benefit of the tax credit is paid back and I'm 
     sure are more than revenue neutral. It enables them to buy 
     goods and services which has the spiral effect of making our 
     country that much stronger.
       We respect your efforts on our behalf and view the 
     extension as a must for us. There is no known reason not to 
     pass it.
           Sincerely,
                                               Patrick B. Brennan,
                       Vice President, Finance and Administration.

[[Page S3130]]

     
                                  ____
                                                Texas Instruments,


                                        Silicon Systems, Inc.,

                                    Santa Cruz, CA, March 9, 1999.
     Hon. Diane Feinstein,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I write to you in my capacity as 
     Santa Cruz Fab Director of Texas Instruments. Although we 
     have operations throughout the United States, especially in 
     Texas, we have significant operations in Santa Cruz, San 
     Jose, Tustin and Santa Barbara, California. Thank you for 
     your support for the Research and Development (R&D) tax 
     credit and your efforts to make the credit permanent. We 
     support the bill recently introduced by Reps. Johnson and 
     Matsui. Making the R&D tax credit permanent is our top tax 
     priority for 1999.
       Texas Instruments is a global semiconductor company 
     employing over 34,000 people worldwide. We are the world's 
     leading designer and supplier of digital signal processing 
     (DSP) and analog technologies, the engines driving the 
     digitization of electronics. DSP is the enabler of products 
     and processes yet to be imagined. It is a 3.9 billion dollar 
     market today. It should hit 13 billion dollars within the 
     next five years. If one adds mixed signal and analog 
     products, the total market could be in excess of 60 billion 
     dollars by the year 2002.
       The R&D tax credit provides a significant incentive for 
     companies to perform additional amounts of R&D activity. 
     Given the inherent riskiness of this type of investment, the 
     credit makes for sound tax policy. Because the R&D credit is 
     primarily a wage credit, most of this additional investment 
     is directly connected to the creation and maintenance of 
     high-wage professional jobs.
       Additionally, the creation of new products and broadening 
     the scope of technical knowledge benefits Americans 
     generally. We specialize in digital signal processing 
     solutions, enabling the nation to be more efficient and more 
     productive. Ultimately, the nation's employees will earn 
     higher wages and pay more taxes because Texas Instruments and 
     other California companies are investing in the future 
     through research.
       To best harness the incentive nature of the R&D tax credit, 
     we believe that Congress should make the credit permanent. 
     Texas Instruments and the entire high tech community would 
     like to be able to rely upon the existence of the credit 
     beyond the average six months to 1\1/2\ year extension that 
     has characterized the treatment of the credit since 1986. 
     This would allow us to devote even more resources to R&D 
     activities, and quite possibly hire even more Californians.
       There is another way to look at this: Congress and the 
     Administration need to take steps to ensure that U.S. 
     companies are equipped to compete in the international 
     marketplace. In the semiconductor industry, we have always 
     faced a continuing threat from foreign competitors such as 
     those in Japan, Korea or Taiwan. The R&D tax credit is a step 
     that helps U.S. companies as they compete in the global 
     marketplace. It does this by encouraging R&D activities, 
     which in turn result in greater employment opportunities.
       As you know, high-technology firms have a critical role to 
     play in the future of the nation, and we all need to work to 
     keep businesses like ours here in the U.S. As the world 
     quickly shifts to a service economy, high salary jobs that 
     can sustain the American standard of living are becoming 
     increasingly linked to high value-added, high-tech 
     professions. Future economic growth and high employment 
     require us to continue to nourish innovation while 
     encouraging our employees to be as productive and creative as 
     possible. Our nation has the potential to lead the world into 
     a prosperous new century of growth, given appropriate federal 
     policy--such as making permanent the R&D tax credit.
       Again, thank you for all your previous efforts in support 
     of the R&D tax credit. If there is any additional information 
     that we can provide to you in support of this important 
     provision, please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James D. Jensen,
                                  Santa Cruz Fab Director.

 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators 
Hatch and Baucus today in cosponsoring a bill to make the Research and 
Experimentation Tax Credit permanent. Technological innovation is the 
major factor driving economic and income growth in America today. A one 
percent increase in our nation's investment in research results in a 
productivity increase of 0.23 percent. Productivity increases are what 
allow us to increase wages and standards of living. The R&D undertaken 
by our companies today is too important to our economy and our wages to 
allow its encouragement through tax credits to be an unstable, 
haphazard effort varying from one year to the next.
  Moreover, R&D has a significantly higher rate of return at the 
societal level than at the company level. There is a huge spillover 
effect from one person's or one company's innovation to other firms, 
other industries, and benefits to consumers. That is why government has 
a role in supporting R&D both directly through government funded 
research and through tax credits to private industry. All of society 
benefits from increased R&D. I strongly support making the R&D tax 
credit permanent so that our companies can engage confidently in long-
term planning for sustained research investment.
  I believe making the R&D tax credit permanent is a priority. I also 
feel we must strengthen the United States investment in R&D through 
other means as well. Senators Frist, Rockefeller, Domenici, Gramm and I 
are sponsoring a bill, S. 296--with 29 cosponsors--to double federal 
investment in research over the next decade. Government labs and 
University labs undertake much of the basic research in this country. 
We need to nurture these incubators of basic research not only by 
increasing government support for them, but to encourage private sector 
support and financing of them. That is why Senators Domenici, Bingaman, 
Frist and I support some reforms to the R&D tax credit that will 
encourage the private sector to partner with Government and University 
labs. We will shortly be introducing a bill to increase the benefits of 
the R&D credit to all companies, encourage research consortia, and give 
special attention to research investment by small businesses.
  The reason we have been unable to make the R&D tax credit permanent 
is because it requires that the expenditures be scored for five years, 
thereby raising the budget costs. Extending the credit each year, 
sometimes at the last minute and sometimes retroactively, does not 
lower the cost to government, but increases the costs to industry by 
increasing its risk and uncertainty. Let's stop this charade and do 
what's right. Let's make it permanent.
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today with my 
colleagues Senator Hatch and Senator Baucus in introducing legislation 
to permanently extend the research and experimentation (R&E) tax 
credit. This credit provides a major incentive to the private sector to 
invest in long-range, high-risk research. It has played, and continues 
to play an important role in fostering private-sector investment in 
research, driving innovation in our technology-based industries.
  Economic studies have shown that for each dollar of lost tax revenue, 
the tax credit stimulates an additional dollar of R&E in the short term 
and two additional dollars in the long term. These research investments 
promote technological innovation, enhance job growth, and increase 
productivity, helping to maintain our nation's quality of life and 
economic strength and well-being.
  The R&E tax credit was enacted in 1981, and since then has been 
temporarily extended nine times, for periods as brief as six months, 
and has been allowed to lapse at least three times before being renewed 
retroactively. This is simply not an acceptable situation, especially 
if we mean to create a business climate which encourages the private 
sector to fund as much R&E as possible in the U.S., and not to move 
these activities off shore to countries that offer more substantial tax 
and financial incentives. This is a particularly critical concern for 
our high-growth, research-intensive industries, such as those in the 
computer, telecommunications, and biotechnology sectors. These 
companies depend on the R&E tax credit to undertake and continue long-
term research projects. To ensure the success of such projects it is 
essential that our support for industry research is both continuous and 
predictable--our future competitiveness in the world marketplace 
depends upon it.
  The federal government is reducing its commitment to research and 
development. We therefore need to encourage the private sector to 
expand its investment in this area. By making the R&E tax credit 
permanent, so that companies can count on its availability from year to 
year in planning their research investments, we create an environment 
conducive to promoting investment in R&E. We must not allow a system 
characterized by the uncertainty of frequent expirations and renewals 
to continue. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of 
this legislation to make the R&E tax credit permanent.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Johnson, Ms.

[[Page S3131]]

        Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 681. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require that group and 
individual health insurance coverage and group health plans provide 
coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node 
dissections performed for the treatment of breast cancer, to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                  breast cancer patient protection act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Breast Cancer 
Patient Protection Act of 1999, which requires health insurance plans 
to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and 
lymph node dissections performed to treat breast cancer.
  This bill would prevent insurance companies and health maintenance 
organizations (HMOs) from forcing women to leave the hospital 
prematurely following a mastectomy or lymph node dissection or to have 
these treatments on an outpatient basis. Insurance company accountants 
should not make medical decisions without considering a doctor's 
judgments or a patient's needs. This legislation is part of my ongoing 
effort to protect patients and require that insurance companies deliver 
necessary, promised coverage. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act, S.6, 
also addresses these types of abuses, while providing a range of other 
important protections.
  The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act would guarantee women at 
least 48 hours of inpatient care following a mastectomy and at least 24 
hours following lymph node dissection. These standards were designed in 
consultation with surgeons who specialize in this area and reflect the 
minimum amount of inpatient care necessary following these procedures. 
Patients, in consultation with their physicians, would be able to leave 
the hospital earlier if their situation warrants. The bottom line is 
still that insurers should allow coverage for the time necessary to 
ensure a proper recovery.
  Over the last several years, the average length of hospitalization 
following a mastectomy has fallen from 4-6 to 2-3 days. Patients 
undergoing lymph node dissections in the past were hospitalized for 2-3 
days. While some of the reductions in length of care may be the result 
of better medical practices, hospitalization is still critical for pain 
control, to manage fluid drainage, and to provide support and 
reassurance for women who have just undergone major surgery.
  Nevertheless, some patients have been told that their health 
maintenance organization (HMO) will cover their major surgery only on 
an outpatient basis. These determinations have been made on the basis 
of studies by their own actuarial consulting firms. However, both 
American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association have 
concluded that inpatient stays are recommended in many cases. Women 
suffering from breast cancer deserve to know that their insurance will 
cover care based on their medical needs rather than the coverage 
recommendations made by HMO actuaries.
  My bill is a companion to H.R. 116, which was introduced in the House 
of Representatives by Congresswoman DeLauro. I would like to express 
appreciation to Congresswoman DeLauro, and to Senators Feinstein, 
Mikulski and Murray, for their tireless efforts on behalf of breast 
cancer patients. All have been invaluable leaders who have inspired and 
challenged us to address the very real need for breast cancer treatment 
reform.
  As we discuss the importance of ensuring quality care for breast 
cancer sufferers who have health insurance, it is also important to 
note that many women in the United States must fight this life-
threatening disease without any health insurance at all. The Centers 
for Disease Control (CDC) funds breast and cervical cancer screening--
in South Dakota, 1300 low-income women have been screened during the 
past 18 months--but there is no funding for actual treatment when that 
screening detects cancer. While the CDC effort is a critical part of 
the fight against cancer, it is ironic that those women who test 
positive for breast and cervical cancer may have no way to pay for the 
treatment they need.
  With one in eight women expected to develop breast cancer, it is 
increasingly likely that all of our families will be affected by this 
devastating disease in some way. In South Dakota, 500 women will be 
diagnosed with, and 100 will die of, breast cancer in the next 12 
months. Let us take this small step to ensure the experience is not 
complicated by insecurity and confusion over health insurance coverage. 
Let us put critical health care decisions back in the hands of breast 
cancer patients and their physicians.
  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 printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 681

       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 ``Breast Cancer Patient 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF MINIMUM HOSPITAL STAY FOR CERTAIN BREAST 
                   CANCER TREATMENT.

       (a) Group Health Plans.--
       (1) Public health service act amendments.--
       (A) In general.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the 
     Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 2707. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN 
                   BREAST CANCER TREATMENT.

       ``(a) Requirements for Minimum Hospital Stay Following 
     Mastectomy or Lymph Node Dissection.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     may not--
       ``(A) except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(i) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in 
     connection with a mastectomy for the treatment of breast 
     cancer to less than 48 hours, or
       ``(ii) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in 
     connection with a lymph node dissection for the treatment of 
     breast cancer to less than 24 hours, or
       ``(B) require that a provider obtain authorization from the 
     plan or the issuer for prescribing any length of stay 
     required under subparagraph (A) (without regard to paragraph 
     (2)).
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply in 
     connection with any group health plan or health insurance 
     issuer in any case in which the decision to discharge the 
     woman involved prior to the expiration of the minimum length 
     of stay otherwise required under paragraph (1)(A) is made by 
     an attending provider in consultation with the woman.
       ``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) deny to a woman eligibility, or continued 
     eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms 
     of the plan, solely for the purpose of avoiding the 
     requirements of this section;
       ``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to women to 
     encourage such women to accept less than the minimum 
     protections available under this section;
       ``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the 
     reimbursement of an attending provider because such provider 
     provided care to an individual participant or beneficiary in 
     accordance with this section;
       ``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to an 
     attending provider to induce such provider to provide care to 
     an individual participant or beneficiary in a manner 
     inconsistent with this section; or
       ``(5) subject to subsection (c)(3), restrict benefits for 
     any portion of a period within a hospital length of stay 
     required under subsection (a) in a manner which is less 
     favorable than the benefits provided for any preceding 
     portion of such stay.
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     a woman who is a participant or beneficiary--
       ``(A) to undergo a mastectomy or lymph node dissection in a 
     hospital; or
       ``(B) to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time 
     following a mastectomy or lymph node dissection.
       ``(2) This section shall not apply with respect to any 
     group health plan, or any group health insurance coverage 
     offered by a health insurance issuer, which does not provide 
     benefits for hospital lengths of stay in connection with a 
     mastectomy or lymph node dissection for the treatment of 
     breast cancer.
       ``(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     preventing a group health plan or issuer from imposing 
     deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing in relation 
     to benefits for hospital lengths of stay in connection with a 
     mastectomy or lymph node dissection for the treatment of 
     breast cancer under the plan (or under health insurance 
     coverage offered in connection with a group health plan), 
     except that such coinsurance or

[[Page S3132]]

     other cost-sharing for any portion of a period within a 
     hospital length of stay required under subsection (a) may not 
     be greater than such coinsurance or cost-sharing for any 
     preceding portion of such stay.
       ``(d) Notice.--A group health plan under this part shall 
     comply with the notice requirement under section 713(d) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with 
     respect to the requirements of this section as if such 
     section applied to such plan.
       ``(e) Level and Type of Reimbursements.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prevent a group health plan or 
     a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance 
     coverage from negotiating the level and type of reimbursement 
     with a provider for care provided in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(f) Preemption; Exception for Health Insurance Coverage 
     in Certain States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this section shall 
     not apply with respect to health insurance coverage if there 
     is a State law (as defined in section 2723(d)(1)) for a State 
     that regulates such coverage that is described in any of the 
     following subparagraphs:
       ``(A) Such State law requires such coverage to provide for 
     at least a 48-hour hospital length of stay following a 
     mastectomy performed for treatment of breast cancer and at 
     least a 24-hour hospital length of stay following a lymph 
     node dissection for treatment of breast cancer.
       ``(B) Such State law requires, in connection with such 
     coverage for surgical treatment of breast cancer, that the 
     hospital length of stay for such care is left to the decision 
     of (or required to be made by) the attending provider in 
     consultation with the woman involved.
       ``(2) Construction.--Section 2723(a)(1) shall not be 
     construed as superseding a State law described in paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 2723(c) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-23(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 2704'' and inserting ``sections 2704 and 
     2707''.
       (2) ERISA amendments.--
       (A) In general.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title 
     I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 714. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN BREAST 
                   CANCER TREATMENT.

       ``(a) Requirements for Minimum Hospital Stay Following 
     Mastectomy or Lymph Node Dissection.--
       ``(1) In general.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, 
     may not--
       ``(A) except as provided in paragraph (2)--
       ``(i) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in 
     connection with a mastectomy for the treatment of breast 
     cancer to less than 48 hours, or
       ``(ii) restrict benefits for any hospital length of stay in 
     connection with a lymph node dissection for the treatment of 
     breast cancer to less than 24 hours, or
       ``(B) require that a provider obtain authorization from the 
     plan or the issuer for prescribing any length of stay 
     required under subparagraph (A) (without regard to paragraph 
     (2)).
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply in 
     connection with any group health plan or health insurance 
     issuer in any case in which the decision to discharge the 
     woman involved prior to the expiration of the minimum length 
     of stay otherwise required under paragraph (1)(A) is made by 
     an attending provider in consultation with the woman.
       ``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) deny to a woman eligibility, or continued 
     eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms 
     of the plan, solely for the purpose of avoiding the 
     requirements of this section;
       ``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to women to 
     encourage such women to accept less than the minimum 
     protections available under this section;
       ``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the 
     reimbursement of an attending provider because such provider 
     provided care to an individual participant or beneficiary in 
     accordance with this section;
       ``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to an 
     attending provider to induce such provider to provide care to 
     an individual participant or beneficiary in a manner 
     inconsistent with this section; or
       ``(5) subject to subsection (c)(3), restrict benefits for 
     any portion of a period within a hospital length of stay 
     required under subsection (a) in a manner which is less 
     favorable than the benefits provided for any preceding 
     portion of such stay.
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     a woman who is a participant or beneficiary--
       ``(A) to undergo a mastectomy or lymph node dissection in a 
     hospital; or
       ``(B) to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time 
     following a mastectomy or lymph node dissection.
       ``(2) This section shall not apply with respect to any 
     group health plan, or any group health insurance coverage 
     offered by a health insurance issuer, which does not provide 
     benefits for hospital lengths of stay in connection with a 
     mastectomy or lymph node dissection for the treatment of 
     breast cancer.
       ``(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     preventing a group health plan or issuer from imposing 
     deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing in relation 
     to benefits for hospital lengths of stay in connection with a 
     mastectomy or lymph node dissection for the treatment of 
     breast cancer under the plan (or under health insurance 
     coverage offered in connection with a group health plan), 
     except that such coinsurance or other cost-sharing for any 
     portion of a period within a hospital length of stay required 
     under subsection (a) may not be greater than such coinsurance 
     or cost-sharing for any preceding portion of such stay.
       ``(d) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of 
     the requirements of this section shall be treated as a 
     material modification in the terms of the plan described in 
     section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such 
     requirements under the plan; except that the summary 
     description required to be provided under the last sentence 
     of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall 
     be provided by not later than 60 days after the first day of 
     the first plan year in which such requirements apply.
       ``(e) Level and Type of Reimbursements.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prevent a group health plan or 
     a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance 
     coverage from negotiating the level and type of reimbursement 
     with a provider for care provided in accordance with this 
     section.
       ``(f) Preemption; Exception for Health Insurance Coverage 
     in Certain States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this section shall 
     not apply with respect to health insurance coverage if there 
     is a State law (as defined in section 731(d)(1)) for a State 
     that regulates such coverage that is described in any of the 
     following subparagraphs:
       ``(A) Such State law requires such coverage to provide for 
     at least a 48-hour hospital length of stay following a 
     mastectomy performed for treatment of breast cancer and at 
     least a 24-hour hospital length of stay following a lymph 
     node dissection for treatment of breast cancer.
       ``(B) Such State law requires, in connection with such 
     coverage for surgical treatment of breast cancer, that the 
     hospital length of stay for such care is left to the decision 
     of (or required to be made by) the attending provider in 
     consultation with the woman involved.
       ``(2) Construction.--Section 731(a)(1) shall not be 
     construed as superseding a State law described in paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--
       (i) Section 731(c) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191(c)), as amended by 
     section 603(b)(1) of Public Law 104-204, is amended by 
     striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and 
     714''.
       (ii) Section 732(a) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1191a(a)), as amended by 
     section 603(b)(2) of Public Law 104-204, is amended by 
     striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections 711 and 
     714''.
       (C) Table of contents.--The table of contents in section 1 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 713 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 714. Standards relating to benefits for certain breast cancer 
              treatment.''.
       (b) Individual Health Insurance.--
       (1) In general.--Part B of title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2752 the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 2753. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN 
                   BREAST CANCER TREATMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The provisions of section 2707 (other 
     than subsection (d)) shall apply to health insurance coverage 
     offered by a health insurance issuer in the individual market 
     in the same manner as it applies to health insurance coverage 
     offered by a health insurance issuer in connection with a 
     group health plan in the small or large group market.
       ``(b) Notice.--A health insurance issuer under this part 
     shall comply with the notice requirement under section 714(d) 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with 
     respect to the requirements referred to in subsection (a) as 
     if such section applied to such issuer and such issuer were a 
     group health plan.
       ``(c) Preemption; Exception for Health Insurance Coverage 
     in Certain States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this section shall 
     not apply with respect to health insurance coverage if there 
     is a State law (as defined in section 2723(d)(1)) for a State 
     that regulates such coverage that is described in any of the 
     following subparagraphs:
       ``(A) Such State law requires such coverage to provide for 
     at least a 48-hour hospital length of stay following a 
     mastectomy performed for treatment of breast cancer and at 
     least a 24-hour hospital length of stay following a lymph 
     node dissection for treatment of breast cancer.
       ``(B) Such State law requires, in connection with such 
     coverage for surgical treatment of breast cancer, that the 
     hospital

[[Page S3133]]

     length of stay for such care is left to the decision of (or 
     required to be made by) the attending provider in 
     consultation with the woman involved.
       ``(2) Construction.--Section 2762(a) shall not be construed 
     as superseding a State law described in paragraph (1).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2762(b)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-62(b)(2)), as added by 
     section 605(b)(3)(B) of Public Law 104-204, is amended by 
     striking ``section 2751'' and inserting ``sections 2751 and 
     2753''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Group health insurance.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) shall apply with respect to group health plans 
     for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2000.
       (2) Individual health insurance.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (b) shall apply with respect to health insurance 
     coverage offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or 
     operated in the individual market on or after such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HELMS (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 682. A bill to implement the Hague Convention on Protection of 
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send to the desk legislation that the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu and I are 
introducing today, its purpose being to implement the Hague Convention 
on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry 
Adoption--a treaty pending before the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Senator Landrieu and I have worked together on issues of adoption 
since her arrival in the Senate in 1997. I am genuinely grateful for 
her leadership on this issue.
  According to the most recent statistics, in 1998 almost 15,774 
children were adopted by Americans from abroad. The majority of the 
children were brought to the United States from Russia, China, Korea, 
and Central and South American countries. In my state of North 
Carolina, 175 children were adopted in 1996 from outside the United 
States.
  The Intercountry Adoption Implementation Act will provide for the 
first time a rational structure for intercountry adoption. The act is 
intended to bring some accountability to agencies that provide 
intercountry adoption services in the United States, and strengthen the 
hand of the Secretary of State in ensuring that U.S. adoption agencies 
engage in efforts to find homes for children in an ethical manner.
   Mr. President, I strongly support adoption. It is in the best 
interest of every child--regardless of his or her age, race or special 
need--to be raised by a family who will provide a safe, permanent, and 
nurturing home. However, it is also a process that can leave parents 
and children vulnerable to fraud and abuse.
  For this reason, the legislation that Senator Landrieu and I are 
introducing today includes a requirement that agencies be accredited to 
provide intercountry adoption. Mandatory standards for accreditation 
will include ensuring that a child's medical records be available in 
English to the prospective parents prior to their traveling to the 
foreign country to finalize an adoption. (We are also requiring that 
agencies be transparent, especially in their rate of disrupted adoption 
and their fee scales.)
  This legislation also places the requirements of implementing the 
Hague Convention with the U.S. Secretary of State. Some have advocated 
a role for various government agencies, but I believe that spreading 
responsibility among various agencies will undermine the effective 
implementation of the Hague Convention.
  During hearings last year in the Foreign Relations Committee 
regarding international parental kidnaping, the Committee heard 
testimony regarding the difficulties of coordination among agencies in 
implementing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Parental 
Abduction. This situation provides a valuable lesson. As a result, our 
legislation tasks the Secretary of State with establishing 
accreditation criteria for adoption agencies.
  The Foreign Relations Committee soon will schedule hearings to 
consider both the treaty and this legislation. I hope that these 
hearings will emphasize both the many benefits of intercountry 
adoption, but also several of the abuses that have resulted during this 
decade.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am very proud to join with my friend 
and colleague, the senior Senator from North Carolina, in introducing 
the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on Intercountry 
Adoption. As many Members know, Senator Helms cares deeply about the 
welfare of children and knows personally of the joy of building a 
family through adoption. I commend him for his strong commitment, his 
leadership, and the very thoughtful work that he has put into this 
important piece of legislation.
  In my office, I have a large black and white poster of a smiling 
infant crawling only in a diaper. On the baby's bottom, on the diaper, 
is a huge bull's eye. The text says simply, ``Children always make the 
easiest targets.''
  Unfortunately, Madam President, that seems to be true in our 
legislative and budgetary process. They don't move very quickly, they 
are not very strong, they don't have very loud voices and they can't 
protect themselves. We need to help them do that.
  It would have been easy for the chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee to come to this floor on one of the dozens of other 
important treaties that he has pending before his committee. It would 
have required no effort to leave this relatively obscure treaty 
languishing in limbo for months or even years. Instead, Senator Helms 
made this treaty a priority. I am very proud to join him as a lead 
democratic sponsor of its implementing legislation, which will benefit 
millions of children throughout the world, and families around the 
globe.
  I have had the opportunity to meet with many foreign dignitaries on 
the subject of intercountry adoption, from China to Russia, to Romania. 
Many countries have indicated that the United States ratification of 
the Hague Convention is the single most important thing we can do to 
strengthen the process of intercountry adoption. The United States 
adopts more children than any other country in the world. 
Unfortunately, this Nation and other large receiving nations have been 
sending the wrong message about our intentions regarding adoption.
  A nation like Romania, for instance, which has had a tortured history 
in the field of child welfare indicated the importance of this treaty 
by being the first nation to ratify. For that, they should be 
commended.
  Other sending countries have similarly stepped up to the plate, while 
receiving nations remain inactive. We must change that.
  Today, in the Senate, we send a new message to the world. The United 
States is serious about the Hague convention. We are serious about 
improving and reforming the intercountry adoption system, and we will 
encourage other nations of the world to join us in that effort.
  Habitat for Humanity's Millard Fuller, a man who has accomplished a 
great deal in the last few years, has a credo for his organization. He 
says everyone deserves a decent place to live. He is right. With that 
simple, but bold vision, Habitat for Humanity has been an incredible 
success story, building homes around the world for millions of 
families.
  This is another simple but bold idea. Every child deserves a 
nurturing family. This treaty doesn't guarantee that, but it will give 
millions of children their best chance for a family to call their own. 
Furthermore, it will give millions of would-be parents a better chance 
at the joy of parenthood. We cannot let arbitrary borders and national 
pride get in the way of this simple but powerful idea, that every child 
should have parents who can love and care for them. No child should 
have to be raised alone.
  The Hague Convention, by normalizing the process of intercountry 
adoption, brings this bold idea a step closer to reality.
  I will briefly touch upon several important pieces of this 
legislation. First, let me say that this treaty is not a Federal 
endeavor to take control of the adoption process. This system is 
working for the most, and in many parts of the country it works very 
well. The philosophy throughout has been to address the real need for 
reform of intercountry adoptions and leave the other debate to another 
day.

[[Page S3134]]

  This bill, however, does make several changes which will 
revolutionize the status quo. First, the State Department will finally 
be given legislative authority to track, monitor and report on 
intercountry adoptions. We will have hard figures on disruptions, 
adoption fees, and most importantly, the number of American children 
who are adopted by people abroad.
  Second, accredited agencies will need to provide some minimum 
services to continue operating in the intercountry field. Among these 
services are translated medical reports, 6 weeks of preadoption 
counseling, liability insurance and open examination of practices and 
records. By allowing public scrutiny in this area, we believe the Hague 
implementing legislation provides some basic consumer protection and 
will help eliminate the few bad actors who occasionally grab headlines 
in the arena of international adoption.
  Another significant feature of this treaty is the adoption 
certificate which will be provided by the Secretary of State. With the 
certificate, INS procedures and State court finalizations will become 
routine and quick rather than involved and costly. This will be a 
welcome relief for many families across this country waiting for 
children to come home.
  Americans provide loving families for nearly 15,000 children from 
around the world. If we pass this convention, those numbers are most 
certainly likely to increase, which will be an opportunity for families 
here in the United States, as well as many children who desperately 
need homes.
  Every day, my colleagues speak eloquently from this floor about ways 
to help our children and families grow and become stronger, but rarely 
do we have an opportunity to do something which can have a significant 
impact on actually creating loving homes for children who have no one. 
This is such an occasion. We should not miss this historic opportunity.
  I look forward to working with our chairman from North Carolina as 
this bill and treaty progress through the Senate in the months ahead. 
It is with high hopes that we proceed, hoping that we can pass a 
strong, bipartisan piece of legislation before the end of the year.
  Madame President, the need to help children find loving homes, is as 
old as human history. You can look all the way back to Muhammad who 
stated that ``the best house is the house in which an orphan receives 
care.'' I hope we can create many such houses with this bill. I would 
like to conclude with a quote I read in preparation for this speech 
that I found quite moving. It says that ``orphans, other than their 
innocence, have no sin, and other than their tears, they have no way of 
communication. They cannot explain the wars, the struggles, the 
political disputes, or the geographical disputes which have all made 
them homeless, helpless, fearful, and alone. Human history has never 
seen such a large number of orphan children in this world. Mankind has 
never seen such a large number of people in comfort. If you follow any 
religion, it is your religious duty to take care of orphans. If you do 
not follow any religion, it is your observation toward humanity that 
should convince you to support them.''
  I ask unanimous consent that documents involving those nations that 
have signed the treaty be printed in the Record as well as those that 
have ratified the treaty.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The Following States Have Ratified The Hague Convention of 
     29 May 1993 On Protection of Children and Co-Operation In 
     Respect of Intercountry:

     Entry Into Force
       Mexico, September 14, 1994, May 1, 1995
       Romania, December 28, 1994, May 1, 1995
       Sri Lanka, January 23, 1995, May 1, 1995
       Cyprus, February 20, 1995, June 1, 1995
       Poland, June 12, 1995, October 1, 1995
       Spain, July 11, 1995, November 1, 1995
       Ecuador, September 7, 1995, January 1, 1996
       Peru, September 14, 1995, January 1, 1996
       Costa Rica, October 30, 1995, February 1, 1996
       Burkina Faso, January 11, 1996, May 1, 1996
       Philippines, July 2, 1996, November 1, 1996
       Canada, December 19, 1996, April 1, 1997
       Venezuela, January 10, 1997, May 1, 1997
       Finland, March 27, 1997, July 1, 1997
       Sweden, May 28, 1997, September 1, 1997
       Denmark, July 2, 1997, November 1, 1997
       Total number of ratifications: 16,

       The Following States Have Signed The Hague Convention Of 29 
     May 1993 On Protection of Children and Co-Operation In 
     Respect of Intercountry Adoption:

       Costa Rica, 29 May 1993
       Mexico, 29 May 1993
       Romania, 29 May 1993
       Brazil, 29 May 1993
       Colombia, 1 September 1993
       Uruguay, 1 September 1993
       Israel, 2 November 1993
       Netherlands, 5 December 1993
       United Kingdom, 12 January 1994
       United States, 31 March 1994
       Canada, 12 April 1994
       Finland, 19 April 1994
       Burkina Faso, 19 April 1994
       Equador, 3 May 1994
       Sri Lanka, 24 May 1994
       Peru, 16 November 1994
       Cyprus, 17 November 1994
       Switzerland, 16 January 1995
       Spain, 27 March 1995
       France, 5 April 1995
       Luxembourg, 6 June 1995
       Poland, 12 June 1995
       Philippines, 17 July 1995
       Italy, 11 December 1995
       Norway, 20 May 1996
       Ireland, 19 June 1996
       Sweden, 10 October 1996
       El Salvador, 21 November 1996
       Venezuela, 10 January 1997
       Denmark, 2 July 1997

  Ms. LANDRIEU. It is my hope that we can work under the great 
leadership of Senator Helms on this issue to pass this implementing 
legislation and the treaty to provide hope to millions of children in 
families that would welcome it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 684. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to provide for 
family fishermen, and to make chapter 12 of title 11, United States 
Code, permanent; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               THE FISHERMEN'S BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION ACT

 Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
make reorganization under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code applicable 
to family fishermen. In brief, the bill would allow family fishermen 
the opportunity to apply for the protections of reorganization in 
bankruptcy and provide to them the same protections and terms as those 
granted the family farmer who enters bankruptcy.
  Like many Americans, I'm appalled by those who live beyond their 
means, and use the bankruptcy code as a tool to cure their self-induced 
financial ills. I have supported and will continue to support 
alterations to the bankruptcy code that ensure the responsible use of 
its provisions. All consumers bear the burden of irresponsible debtors 
who abuse the system. Therefore, I believe bankruptcy should remain a 
tool of last resort for those in severe financial distress.
  As those familiar with the bankruptcy code know, business 
reorganization in bankruptcy is a different creature than the 
forgiveness of debt traditionally associated with bankruptcy. 
Reorganization embodies the hope that by providing business a break 
from creditors, and allowing debt to be adjusted, the business will 
have an opportunity to get back on sound financial footing and thrive. 
In that vein, Chapter 12 was added to the bankruptcy code in 1986 by 
the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to provide for bankruptcy 
reorganization of the family farm and to give family farmers a 
``fighting chance to reorganize their debts and keep their land''.
  To provide the ``fighting chance'' envisioned by the authors of 
Chapter 12, Congress provided a distinctive set of substantive and 
procedural rules to govern effective reorganization of the family farm. 
In essence, Chapter 12 was a recognition of the unique situation of 
family owned businesses and the enormous value of the family farmer to 
the American economy and our cultural heritage.
  Chapter 12 was modeled on bankruptcy Chapter 13 which governs the 
reorganization of individual debt. However, to address the unique 
problems encountered by farmers, Chapter 12 provided for significant 
advantages over the standard Chapter 13 filer. These advantages include 
a longer period of time to file a plan for relief, greater flexibility 
for the debtor to modify the debts secured by their assets, and 
alteration of the statutory time limit to repay secured debts. The 
Chapter 12 debtor is also given the freedom to sell off parts of his or 
her property as part of a reorganization plan.
  Unlike Chapter 13, which applies solely to individuals, Chapter 12 
can

[[Page S3135]]

apply to individuals, partnerships or corporations which fall under a 
$1.5 million debt threshold--a recognition of the common use of 
incorporation even among small family held farms.
  Without getting too technical, I should also mention that Chapter 12 
also contains significant advantages over corporate reorganization 
which is governed by Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. For example, 
Chapter 12 creditors generally may not challenge a payment plan that is 
approved by the Court.

  Chapter 12 has been considered an enormous success in the farm 
community. According to a recent University of Iowa study, 74 percent 
of family farmers who filed Chapter 12 bankruptcy are still farming, 
and 61 percent of farmers who went through Chapter 12 believe that 
Chapter 12 was helpful in getting them back on their feet.
  Recognizing its effectiveness, my bill proposes that Chapter 12 
should be made a permanent part of the bankruptcy code, and equally 
important, my bill would extend Chapter 12's protections to family 
fishermen.
  In my own state of Maine, fishing is a vital part of our economy and 
our way of life. The commercial fishing industry is made up of proud 
and fiercely independent individuals whose goal is simply to preserve 
their business, family income and community.
  In my opinion, for too long the fishing industry has been treated 
like an oddity, rather than a business through which courses the life's 
blood of families and communities. This bill attempts to bridge that 
gap and afford fishermen the protection of business reorganization as 
it is provided to family farmers.
  There are many similarities between the family farmer and the family 
fisherman. Like the family farmer, the fisherman should not only be 
respected as a businessman, but for his or her independence in the best 
tradition of our democracy. Like farmers, fishermen face perennial 
threats from nature and the elements, as well as changes to laws which 
threaten their existence. Like family farmers, fishermen are not 
seeking special treatment or a hand-out from the federal government, 
they seek only ``the fighting chance'' to remain afloat so that they 
can continue in their way of life.
  Although fishermen do not seek special treatment from the government, 
they play a special role in seafaring communities on our coasts, and 
they deserve protections granted others who face similar, often 
unavoidable, problems. Fishermen should not be denied the bankruptcy 
protections accorded to farmers solely because they harvest the sea and 
not the land.
  I have proposed not only to make Chapter 12 a permanent part of the 
bankruptcy code, but also to apply its provisions to the family 
fisherman. The bill I have proposed mirrors Chapter 12 with very few 
exceptions. Its protections are restricted to those fishermen with 
regular income who have total debt less than $1.5 Million, the bulk of 
which, eighty percent, must stem from commercial fishing. Moreover, 
families must rely on fishing income for these provisions to apply.
  Those same protections and flexibility we grant to farmers should 
also be granted to the family fisherman. By making this modest but 
important change to the bankruptcy code, we will express our respect 
for the business of fishing, and our shared wish that this unique way 
of life should continue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 685. A bill to preserve the authority of States over water within 
their boundaries, to delegate to States the authority of Congress to 
regulate water, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


               the state water sovereignty protection act

 Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Water 
Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the 
States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority 
of the Congress to the States to regulate water, and for other 
purposes.
  Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the 
authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The 
Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the 
States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran 
amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal 
Water claims in State water courts.
  However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply 
concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the 
Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory 
provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The 
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy 
Management Act, and wilderness designations have all been vehicles used 
to erode State sovereignty over its water.
  It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and 
control of their water and river systems. All rights to water or 
reservations of rights for any purposes in States should be subject to 
the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal 
Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State 
Water Sovereignty Protection Act.
  The State Water Sovereignty Protection Act provides that whenever the 
United States seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it 
will be subject to State procedural and substantive water law. The Act 
further holds that States control the water within their boundaries and 
that the Federal Government may exercise management or control over 
water only in compliance with State law. Finally, in any administrative 
or judicial proceeding in which the United States participates pursuant 
to the McCarran Amendment, the United States is subject to all costs 
and fees to the same extent as costs and fees may be imposed on a 
private party.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Reed, 
        Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 686. A bill to regulate interstate commerce by providing a Federal 
cause of action against firearms manufactures, dealers, and importers 
for the harm resulting from gun violence; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


        the firearms rights, responsibilities, and remedies act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
protect the rights and interests of local communities in suing the gun 
industry. I am joined in this effort by Senators Chafee, Lautenberg, 
Reed, Schumer, and Torricelli.
  Frankly, I would prefer not to have to introduce legislation at all. 
But, it has become necessary because the gun industry has begun a 
concerted campaign to gag America's cities. In order to preserve local 
control and options, federal legislation is needed. The federal 
government must stand alongside our local communities to fight the gun 
violence plaguing too many of America's cities.
  So far, five cities--New Orleans, Atlanta, Chicago, Miami-Dade 
County, and Bridgeport, Connecticut--have filed lawsuits against the 
gun industry. Many more are considering such lawsuits, including, in my 
State of California, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. These 
cities are suing because they are being invaded by guns.
  Consider the city of Chicago. Chicago has one of the toughest handgun 
control ordinances in the country. And yet, this year, the Chicago 
police will confiscate some 17,000 illegal weapons. City officials 
acknowledge that's only a fraction of the guns on the streets. And 
there are now 242 million guns in America. That's almost one for every 
man, woman, and child in this country.
  The result is that each year, guns cause the death of about 35,000 
Americans. The number of handgun murders in this country far outpaces 
that of any other country--indeed, most other countries combined. Japan 
and Great Britain have fewer than one murder by a handgun per one 
million population. Canada has about three and a half per million 
people. But in the United States, there are over 35 handgun murders per 
year for every million people.
  In my state of California alone, there are five times as many handgun 
murders as there are in New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Great Britain, 
Canada, and Germany combined. Yet those six countries together have ten 
times the population of California.

[[Page S3136]]

  Over 11 years, nearly 400,000 Americans have been killed by gunfire. 
Compare that with the 11 years of the Vietnam War, where over 58,000 
Americans died.
  If this continues, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that in 
just four years, gun deaths will be the leading cause of injury-related 
death in America.
  And for every American who dies, another three are injured and end up 
in an emergency room. The cost to our health care system is estimated 
to be between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion per year. And 4 out of 
every 5 gunshot victims either have no health insurance or are on 
public assistance. U.S. News reported that one hospital in California--
the University of California-Davis Medical Center--lost $2.2 million 
over three years on gunshot victims. That means you and I and all 
taxpayers are paying the bills.
  That is why many cities want to sue. But, the NRA does not want to 
fight this in court. The gun industry wants to circumvent the legal 
process through special interest legislation--legislation imposed on 
our cities by big government.
  To preserve local control and individual rights, federal legislation 
is needed. Today, I am introducing such legislation, known as the 
Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies Act. This bill would 
ensure that individuals and entities harmed by gun violence--including 
our cities--have the right to sue gun manufacturers, dealers, and 
importers.
  Specifically, my bill would create a federal cause of action--the 
right to sue--for harms resulting from gun violence. A gun 
manufacturer, dealer, or importer could be held liable if it ``knew or 
reasonably should have known'' that its design, manufacturing, 
marketing, importation, sales, or distribution practices would likely 
result in gun violence. But, this is not an open-ended proposition. The 
term ``gun violence'' is defined specifically as the unlawful use of a 
firearm or the unintentional discharge of a firearm. It would not be 
possible to sue for every gun sold--or even for all violence and deaths 
that result. A suit would only be possible if there is some negligence 
on the part of a manufacturer, dealer, or importer. I believe this 
language is broad enough to allow cities to pursue their claims, but 
not so broad as to open the floodgates for every gun-related death and 
injury.
  Suits could be brought in federal or state court by States, units of 
local government--such as cities, towns, and counties--individuals, 
organizations, and businesses who were injured by or incurred costs 
because of gun violence. A prevailing plaintiff could recover actual 
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees.
  I am not saying that the gun industry should be required to pay any 
particular amount of damages, and I am not advocating any particular 
theory that would hold the gun industry liable. What I am saying is 
that the gun industry should not be exempt from the normal course of 
business in America. The right to redress grievances in court is older 
than America itself--older than the Second Amendment to the 
Constitution. But the NRA is now pushing legislation in many states and 
here in Congress to say that the gun industry should get special rights 
and special protections. I believe that the gun industry should be 
treated like everyone else, and I believe that our cities should have 
their day in court.
  My bill does not impose anything. It does not require anything. It is 
designed for one purpose: to preserve local control. As Jim Hahn, the 
City Attorney of Los Angeles, noted in a letter to me endorsing my 
bill, what many States are considering would ``represent a significant 
intrusion in to the authority of local governments.'' And my bill 
would, in the words of Alex Penelas, the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, 
``preserve access to the courts for local governments and individual 
citizens.''
  Now, Mr. President, there have been questions raised about the 
constitutionality of this measure. It was not easy drafting a 
constitutional measure, but in working with Kathleen Sullivan, the Dean 
of Stanford Law School, and Larry Tribe of Harvard, I believe we have a 
bill that is constitutional.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me just note a bit of irony in this whole 
debate. Some of the legislation that the NRA has worked so hard to 
defeat over the years--such as mandatory safety locks, smart 
technology, and product safety legislation--is the basis of some of 
these suits by the cities. If the NRA had let us pass such laws, they 
wouldn't be facing so many lawsuits today. The NRA and the gun industry 
do not want to be regulated and then they do not want to be held 
accountable. The NRA and the gun industry want to escape their 
responsibilities for what they are doing to America's cities--and all 
too often, to America's children.
  I sometimes wonder if N-R-A stands for ``No Responsibility or 
Accountability.''
  It has been said that some Americans have a love affair with guns. 
But we should not stand idly by when that love affair turns violent. 
Today we stand with America's cities to say enough is enough.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the letters from Mr. Hahn--
as well as other letters of support from the City Attorney of San 
Francisco, the Mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, a letter from Ms. 
Sullivan and Handgun Control--be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 686

       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 ``Firearms Rights, 
     Responsibilities, and Remedies Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of 
     firearms is inherently commercial in nature;
       (2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;
       (3) firearms trafficking is so prevalent and widespread in 
     and among the States that it is usually impossible to 
     distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate 
     trafficking;
       (4) to the extent firearms trafficking is intrastate in 
     nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with 
     a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the 
     aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;
       (5) gun violence results in great costs to society, 
     including the costs of law enforcement, medical care, lost 
     productivity, and loss of life;
       (6) to the extent possible, the costs of gun violence 
     should be borne by those liable for them, including 
     manufacturers, dealers, and importers;
       (7) in any action to recover the costs associated with gun 
     violence to a particular entity or to a given community, it 
     is usually impossible to trace the portion of costs 
     attributable to intrastate versus interstate commerce;
       (8) the law governing the liability of manufacturers, 
     dealers, and importers for gun violence is evolving 
     inconsistently within and among the States, resulting in a 
     contradictory and uncertain regime that is inequitable and 
     that unduly burdens interstate commerce;
       (9) the inability to obtain adequate compensation for the 
     costs of gun violence results in a serious commercial 
     distortion to a single national market and a stable national 
     economy, thereby creating a barrier to interstate commerce;
       (10) it is an essential and appropriate role of the Federal 
     Government, under the Constitution of the United States, to 
     remove burdens and barriers to interstate commerce;
       (11) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of 
     firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate 
     commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate 
     commerce; and
       (12) it is in the national interest and within the role of 
     the Federal Government to ensure that manufacturers, dealers, 
     and importers can be held liable under Federal law for gun 
     violence.
       (b) Purpose.--Based on the power of Congress in clause 3 of 
     section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States, the purpose of this Act is to regulate interstate 
     commerce by--
       (1) regulating the commercial activity of firearms 
     trafficking;
       (2) protecting States, units of local government, 
     organizations, businesses, and other persons from the adverse 
     effects of interstate commerce in firearms;
       (3) establishing a uniform legal principle that 
     manufacturers, dealers, and importers can be held liable for 
     gun violence; and
       (4) creating greater fairness, rationality, and 
     predictability in the civil justice system.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Gun violence.--The term ``gun violence'' means any--
       (A) actual or threatened unlawful use of a firearm; and
       (B) unintentional discharge of a firearm.

[[Page S3137]]

       (2) Incorporated definitions.--The terms ``firearm'', 
     ``importer'', ``manufacturer'', and ``dealer'' have the 
     meanings given those terms in section 921 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.
       (4) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local 
     government'' means any city, town, township, county, parish, 
     village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a 
     State.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal, State, or local law, a State, unit of local 
     government, organization, business, or other person that has 
     been injured by or incurred costs as a result of gun violence 
     may bring a civil action in a Federal or State court of 
     original jurisdiction against a manufacturer, dealer, or 
     importer who knew or reasonably should have known that its 
     design, manufacturing, marketing, importation, sales, or 
     distribution practices would likely result in gun violence.
       (b) Remedies.--In an action under subsection (a), the court 
     may award appropriate relief, including--
       (1) actual damages;
       (2) punitive damages;
       (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs 
     reasonably incurred, including the costs of expert witnesses; 
     and
       (4) such other relief as the court determines to be 
     appropriate.
                                  ____



                                          City of Los Angeles,

                                                   March 22, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Barbara: I write to express my strong support for the 
     Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies Act which 
     will assure the ability of local governments to sue the gun 
     industry by creating a federal cause of action for claims 
     brought against the gun industry. In so doing, the act is 
     critical to the goal of making the gun industry accountable 
     for the toll of gun violence on cities nationwide.
       The City of Los Angeles is exploring litigation against the 
     gun industry in order to recoup the City's costs in 
     addressing gun violence. Therefore, any attempt on the state 
     level to preclude local gun lawsuits would subvert cities and 
     counties' efforts in this regard and would also represent a 
     significant intrusion in to the authority of local 
     governments. The creation of a federal cause of action is 
     invaluable to guaranteeing that litigation remains available 
     to cities and counties.
       The Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies Act 
     represents a common-sense and reasonable approach to any 
     attempt to bar gun lawsuits by cities and counties. I am 
     pleased to offer my support for this important legislation.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    James K. Hahn,
     City Attorney.
                                  ____



                                          Office of the Mayor,

                            Miami-Dade County, FL, March 23, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your invitation to join 
     you today in Washington, DC, as you announce legislation 
     which will assist local governments, like Miami-Dade County, 
     on our legal efforts to compel the gun industry to 
     manufacture childproof guns. I regret that I am unable to 
     join you personally to offer my support and gratitude for 
     your efforts. Unfortunately, County business requires me to 
     be in our State Capitol today.
       On January 21, 1999, Miami-Dade County filed a lawsuit 
     against the gun industry seeking to compel gun manufacturers 
     to make safer, childproof guns. To achieve our objective we 
     are hitting the gun industry where it hurts--in their 
     wallets. Every year, gun violence and accidental deaths costs 
     our community hundreds of millions of dollars. Until now, 
     taxpayers have borne the responsibility for many of these 
     costs while the gun industry has washed its hands of the 
     blood of countless victims, including many children and 
     youths. However, our efforts are not about money. In fact, if 
     the gun industry agrees to make childproof guns, install load 
     indicators on guns and change its marketing practices my 
     community will crop its lawsuit.
       As you know, legislation has been filed in the Florida 
     Legislature that would not only preempt Miami-Dade County's 
     lawsuit, but would also make it a felony for any public 
     official to pursue such litigation. This NRA sponsored 
     legislation is undemocratic and hypocritical. If passed, 
     preemption legislation will effectively slam shut the doors 
     of justice and trample on the People's right to access the 
     judiciary in the name of defending the Second Amendment. 
     Additionally, while some Tallahassee and Washington 
     legislators claim to favor returning power to local 
     governments, they are the first to support legislation which 
     takes away our right to access an independent branch of 
     government.
       Clearly, the gun lobby is out of touch with the will of the 
     people. Flordia voters, like Americans nationwide, have 
     repeatedly sent a strong message that they favor commonsense 
     gun safety measures. For example:
       In 1991, Florida voters overwhelmingly supported requiring 
     criminal background checks and waiting periods on gun sales;
       Last November, 72% of Floridians voted to close the Gunshow 
     Loophole, by extending criminal background check and waiting 
     period requirements to gunshows and flea markets;
       Just last month a New York jury found the gun industry 
     civilly liable for saturating the market with guns.
       Unfortunately, our prospects for success in defeating this 
     misguided state legislation are dim. However, I am confident 
     that the pressure on the gun industry to reform increase with 
     each passing day. Your legislation will add additional 
     pressure by sending a message to the gun lobby that they 
     cannot block access to the courts by strong-arming state 
     legislatures.
       If successful, your legislation will preserve access to the 
     courts for local governments and individual citizens who are 
     demanding that the gun industry be held accountable for 
     callously favoring corporate profits over our children's 
     safety. I commend you for putting the public's interest ahead 
     of the powerful special interests that seek only to protect a 
     negligent industry that has ignored commonsense pleas to make 
     childproof guns. Be assured I stand ready to assist you in 
     advancing this significant legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alex Penelas,
     Mayor.
                                  ____



                                  Office of the City Attorney,

                                San Francisco, CA, March 22, 1999.
     Re: Proposed legislation

     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I write to endorse your proposed 
     legislation that will allow local governments to sue gun 
     manufacturers, dealers, and importers. Each year in San 
     Francisco we admit numerous gunshot victims to our hospitals 
     with staggering costs to the general public. Sadly enough, 
     all too often these victims are children and young people. 
     The gun industry must be held responsible for its role in the 
     emotional and financial distress caused to anyone affected by 
     gun violence--including local government.
       Your legislation would ensure that the normal legal 
     processes can be brought to bear upon a significant public 
     problem and that the gun industry would not be exempt from 
     the usual course of business in America. For these reasons, I 
     support your proposed legislation and commend you for your 
     ongoing efforts to stand with America's cities and its 
     people.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Louise H. Renne,
     City Attorney.
                                  ____

                                             Bridgeport City Hall,


                                        Mayor Joseph P. Ganim,

                                   Bridgeport, CT, March 23, 1999.

                     Ganim Supports Boxer Gun Bill

     The following is Bridgeport Mayor Joseph P. Ganim's statement 
         of support for Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposed federal 
         legislation:

       I am in full support of the legislation drafted by Sen. 
     Boxer to allow people, groups or governments to exercise 
     their constitutional rights to seek redress through the 
     courts, I regret that I am not able to be in Washington as 
     the Senator makes this important announcement.
       Bridgeport is one of five cities across the nation to file 
     a lawsuit against handgun manufacturers. We are seeking 
     damages to help lessen the financial burden Bridgeport must 
     carry due to the effects of gun violence in our City.
       A handgun is the most dangerous weapon placed into the 
     stream of commerce in the United States. Surprisingly, there 
     are more safety requirements and regulations regarding the 
     manufacture of toy guns than for real handguns.
       Sen. Boxer's bill will allow cities, states and individuals 
     to seek retribution for the economic strain that handgun 
     violence has caused. We are facing high medical and public 
     safety costs, but we are also battling drops in property 
     value in areas where handgun violence is most prevalent.
       Because of measures taken by the Georgia State Legislature 
     and attempts by Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia in the U.S. 
     Congress, Sen. Boxer's bill becomes even more critical and 
     its passage even more important. This bill ensures that 
     everyone will have the right to fight back and hold the gun 
     manufacturers accountable for the damage their products have 
     caused.
                                  ____



                                          Stanford Law School,

                                     Stanford, CA, March 23, 1999.
     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: You have asked me to review a draft of 
     a bill to enact the Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and 
     Remedies Act of 1999, and to comment briefly upon its 
     constitutionality. I am happy to do so, with the caveat that 
     I am not in a position to comment upon the bill as a matter 
     of tort or product liability policy.
       The bill appears to me to be within the authority of 
     Congress to enact under the interstate commerce power set 
     forth in the United States constitution, Article I, section 
     8. While the commerce power is not an unlimited one, Congress 
     is empowered to regulate both the flow of interstate commerce

[[Page S3138]]

     and any intrastate activity that substantially affects 
     interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 
     (1995). While one might fairly question whether any incident 
     of gun violence in and of itself constitutes an activity 
     substantially affecting interstate commerce, the bill does 
     not regulate gun violence but rather provides a federal cause 
     of action against the negligent ``design, manufacturing, 
     marketing, importation, sales, or distribution'' of guns. 
     Sec. 4(a). The ``design, manufacturing, marketing, 
     importation, sales, or distribution'' of guns plainly amounts 
     to economic activity that in the aggregate may in Congress's 
     reasonable judgment substantially affect interstate commerce. 
     Moreover, providing a uniform federal avenue of redress for 
     gun violence may in Congress's reasonable judgment help to 
     avert the diversion and distortion of interstate commerce 
     that, in the aggregate, accompanies any patchwork of separate 
     state regulations of firearm sales. Congress is entitled to 
     consider the interstate efforts of commercial gun 
     distribution in the aggregate without regard to whether any 
     particular gun sale that might be the subject of a civil 
     action is interstate or intrastate in nature. See, e.g., 
     Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (regulation of home-
     grown wheat consumption); Perez, v. United States, 402 U.S. 
     146 (1971) (regulation of extortionate intrastate loan 
     transactions).
       Nor does the bill appear to intrude upon state sovereignty 
     or the structural principles of federalism that are reflected 
     in the United States Constitution, Amendment X. To be sure, 
     one effect of the bill if enacted would be to allow cities or 
     other local governments to sue for damages incurred as a 
     result of gun violence, even if they are located in states 
     that had sought, through state legislation, to bar such city-
     initiated lawsuits. But Congress remains free even within our 
     federal system to regulate state and local governments under 
     laws of general applicability, see Garcia v. San Antonio 
     Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), and the 
     proposed bill does just that. Rather than singling out state 
     or city governments for special advantage or disadvantage, 
     the bill simply confers upon states and cities the same civil 
     litigation rights as it does upon any other ``organization, 
     business, or other person that has been injured by or 
     incurred costs as a result of gun violence.'' Sec. 4(a). 
     Moreover, the proposed bill does not in any way 
     ``commandeer'' the legislative or executive processes of 
     state government in a way that might offend principles of 
     federalism. See Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365 
     (1997); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). It 
     does not require that any state adopt any federally authored 
     law, but instead simply provides federal rights directly to 
     individuals and entitites including but not limited to states 
     and cities. To the extent that the proposed bill would permit 
     civil actions to be brought in state as well as federal 
     forums, it is entirely consistent with Congress's 
     longstanding power to pass laws enforceable in state courts, 
     see Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947), a power that neither 
     the Printz nor New York cases purported to disturb.
       I hope these brief remarks are helpful in your 
     deliberations.
           Very Truly yours,
     Kathleen M. Sullivan.
                                  ____



                                         Handgun Control Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of Handgun Control, I want to 
     commend you for your continued leadership on gun violence 
     prevention issues and to lend our support to the Frearms 
     Rights, Responsibilities and Remedies Act of 1999.
       Access to the courts is one of the most fundamental rights 
     accorded our citizens and our communities. The legislation 
     that is being introduced today will protect the right of 
     cities and counties to seek redress in the courts for the gun 
     violence that afflicts so many communities. Cities, like the 
     citizens they represent, should be able to seek compensation 
     for the damages that arise from the negligence or misconduct 
     of the gun industry in the design, manufacture, sale and 
     distribution of their product.
       The gun lobby, of course, believes that manufacturers 
     deserve special protection, that cities and counties should 
     be legally prohibited from suing manufacturers so long as 
     they don't knowingly and directly sell guns to convicted 
     felons and other prohibited purchasers. Such a grant of 
     immunity is not only unprecedented, it is wrong. The 
     manufacture of firearms is not subject to consumer 
     regulation. In fact, the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     is prohibited by law from overseeing the manufacture of guns. 
     As an unregulated industry, gun manufacturers produce guns 
     that all too often discharge when they are dropped. They 
     design guns with a trigger resistance so low that a two-year 
     old child can pull the trigger. Many guns lack essential 
     safety features like a safety, a load indicator or a magazine 
     disconnect safety. And, even though the technology for making 
     guns unusable by children and strangers is readily available, 
     virtually all guns are readily usable by unauthorized users. 
     Time and time again, the gun industry has ignored legitimate 
     concerns regarding consumer and public safety.
       But, at the urgent request of the gun lobby, one state has 
     already moved to prevent cities from filing complaints 
     against gun manufacturers and similar bills have been 
     introduced in at least ten states. A bill has even been 
     introduced in Congress that would bar cities from filing any 
     such action. Congress should move to ensure that the right of 
     cities to seek redress in the courts will be preserved. The 
     Firearms Rights, Responsibilities and Remedies Act of 1999 
     will do just that.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Sarah Brady,
                                                            Chair.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 687. A bill to direct the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the 
backlog in satisfying requests of former members of the Armed Forces 
for the issuance or replacement of military medals and decorations; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


    Eliminating the Backlog of Veterans Requests for Military Medals

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to address 
an unfulfilled obligation we have to our nation's veterans. The problem 
is a substantial backlog of requests by veterans for replacement and 
issuance of military medals. Today, I have introduced a bill, the 
``Veterans Expedited Military Medals Act of 1999,'' that would require 
the Department of Defense to end this backlog.
  I first became aware of this issue a few years ago after dozens of 
Iowa veterans began contacting my State offices requesting assistance 
in obtaining medals and other military decorations they earned while 
serving the country. These veterans had tried in vain--usually for 
months, sometimes for years--to navigate the vast Pentagon bureaucracy 
to receive their military decorations. The wait for medals routinely 
exceeded more than a year, even after intervention by my staff. I 
believe this is unacceptable. Our nation must continue its commitment 
to recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans in a timely manner. 
Addressing this simple concern will fulfill an important and solemn 
promise to those who served to preserve democracy both here and abroad.
  Let me briefly share the story of Mr. Dale Homes, a Korean War 
veteran. Mr. Holmes fired a mortar on the front lines of the Korean 
War. Stacy Groff, the daughter of Mr. Holmes, tried unsuccessfully for 
three years through the normal Department of Defense channels to get 
the medals her father deserved. Ms. Goff turned to me after her letter 
writing produced no results. My office began an inquiry in January of 
1997 and we were not able to resolve the issue favorably until 
September 1997.
  Ms. Groff made a statement about the delays her father experienced 
that sum up my sentiments perfectly: ``I don't think it's fair. . .My 
dad deserves --everybody deserves--better treatment than that.'' Ms. 
Groff could not be more correct. Our veterans deserve better than that 
from the country they served so courageously.
  Another example that came through my district offices is Mr. James 
Lunde, a Vietnam-era veteran. His brother in law contacted my Des 
Moines office last year for help in obtaining a Purple Heart and other 
medals Mr. Lunde earned. These medals have been held up since 1975. 
Unfortunately, there is still no determination as to when Mr. Lunde's 
medals will be sent.
  The numbers are disheartening and can sound almost unbelievable. For 
example, a small Army Reserve staff at the St. Louis Office faces a 
backlog of tens of thousands of requests for medals. So why the lengthy 
delays?
  The primary reason DOD officials cite for these unconscionable delays 
is personnel and other resource shortages resulting from budget cuts 
and hiring freezes. For example, the Navy Liaison Office has gone from 
5 or more personnel to 3 within the last 3 years. Prior to this, the 
turnaround time was 4-5 months. Budget shortages have delayed the 
agencies ability to replace employees who have left, and in cases where 
they can be replaced, the ``learning curve'' in training new employees 
leads to further delays.
  Last year, during the debate over the Defense Appropriations bill, I 
offered an amendment to move the Department of Defense to end the 
backlog of unfulfilled military medal requests. The amendment was 
accepted by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not 
moved to fix the problem. In fact, according to a recent communication 
from the Army, the problem has only worsened. The Army currently cites 
a backlog of 98,000 requests for medals.

[[Page S3139]]

  So today, I am introducing a bill to fix the problem once and for 
all. My bill directs the Secretary of Defense to allocate resources 
necessary to eliminate the backlog of requests for military medals. 
Specifically, the Secretary of Defense shall make available to the Army 
Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval Personnel, the Air Force 
Personnel Center, the National Archives and Records Administration, and 
any other relevant office or command, the resources necessary to solve 
the problem. These resources could be in the form of increased 
personnel, equipment or whatever these offices need for this problem. 
In addition, this reallocation of resources is only to be made in a way 
that ``does not detract from the performance of other personnel service 
and personnel support activities within the DOD.'' Representative Lane 
Evans of Illinois has introduced similar legislation in the House of 
Representatives.
  Veterans organizations have long recognized the huge backlog of medal 
requests. The Veterans of Foreign Wars supports my legislation. I ask 
that a copy of the letter of support be included in the record.
  Our veterans are not asking for much. Their brave actions in time of 
war deserve our highest respect, recognition, and admiration. My 
amendment will help expedite the recognition they so richly deserve. 
Our veterans deserve nothing less.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a letter in support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 687

       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 ``Veterans Expedited Military 
     Medals Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF BACKLOG IN REQUESTS FOR REPLACEMENT OF 
                   MILITARY MEDALS AND OTHER DECORATIONS.

       (a) Sufficient Resourcing Required.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall make available funds and other resources at the 
     levels that are necessary for ensuring the elimination of the 
     backlog of the unsatisfied requests made to the Department of 
     Defense for the issuance or replacement of military 
     decorations for former members of the Armed Forces. The 
     organizations to which the necessary funds and other 
     resources are to be made available for that purpose are as 
     follows:
       (1) The Army Reserve Personnel Command.
       (2) The Bureau of Naval Personnel.
       (3) The Air Force Personnel Center.
       (4) The National Archives and Records Administration
       (b) Condition.--The Secretary shall allocate funds and 
     other resources under subsection (a) in a manner that does 
     not detract from the performance of other personnel service 
     and personnel support activities within the Department of 
     Defense.
       (c) Replacement Decoration Defined.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term ``decoration'' means a medal or other 
     decoration that a former member of the Armed Forces was 
     awarded by the United States for military service of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 3. REPORT.

       Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the status of the backlog described in section 
     2(a). The report shall include a plan for eliminating the 
     backlog.
                                  ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the 2.1 million members 
     of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), I 
     thank you for introducing a bill to eliminate the backlog in 
     requests for the replacement of military medals and other 
     decorations. This bill would address an unfilled obligation 
     we have to our nation's veterans. The VFW realizes that the 
     substantial backlog of requests by veterans for medals needs 
     to be rectified in an auspicious manner.
       If passed, the Secretary of Defense will make available to 
     the Army Reserve Personnel Command, the Bureau of Naval 
     Personnel, the Air Force Personnel Center, the National 
     Archives and Records Administration, and any other relevant 
     office or command, the resources necessary to resolve the 
     problem. The VFW believes that addressing this concern will 
     fulfill an important and solemn promise to those who risked 
     their lives serving their country.
       The VFW thanks you for making veterans a number one 
     priority. They deserve the best from the country they served 
     so courageously.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dennis Cullinan,
                           Director, National Legislative Service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry, and 
        Mrs. Murray):
  S. 690. A bill to provide for mass transportation in national parks 
and related public lands; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                      transit in parks (trip) act

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, 
entitled the ``Transit in Parks Act'' or TRIP, to help ease the 
congestion, protect our nation's natural resources, and improve 
mobility and accessibility in our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. 
I am pleased to be joined by Senators Reid, Murkowski, Boxer, Kennedy, 
Moynihan, Schumer, Kerry, and Murray who are cosponsors of this 
important legislation.
  The TRIP legislation is a new federal transit grant initiative that 
is designed to provide mass transit and alternative transportation 
services for our national parks, our wildlife refuges, federal 
recreational areas, and other public lands managed by three agencies of 
the Department of the Interior. I first introduced similar legislation 
on Earth Day, 1998 and, during consideration of the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, part of my original bill 
was included as section 3039, authorizing a comprehensive study of 
alternative transportation needs in our national park lands. The 
objective of this study is to better identify those areas with existing 
and potential problems of congestion and pollution, or which can 
benefit from mass transportation services, and to identify and estimate 
the project costs for these sites. The fiscal year 1999 Transportation 
Appropriations bill included $2 million to help fund this important 
study. I am pleased to report that much important research that will 
more fully examine the park transportation and resource management 
needs and outline potential solutions and benefits is underway.
  Before discussing the bill in greater detail, let me first provide 
some background on the management issues facing the National Park 
System.
  When the national parks first opened in the second half of the 
nineteenth century, visitors arrived by stagecoach along dirt roads. 
Travel through parklands, such as Yosemite or Yellowstone, was 
difficult and long and costly. Not many people could afford or endure 
such a trip. The introduction of the automobile gave every American 
greater mobility and freedom, which included the freedom to travel and 
see some of our nation's great natural wonders. Early in this century, 
landscape architects from the National Park Service and highway 
engineers from the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads collaborated to produce 
many feats of road engineering that opened the national park lands to 
millions of Americans.
  Yet greater mobility and easier access now threaten the very 
environments that the National Park Service is mandated to protect. The 
ongoing tension between preservation and access has always been a 
challenge for our national park system. Today, record numbers of 
visitors and cars has resulted in increasing damage to our parks. The 
Grand Canyon alone has five million visitors a year. It may surprise 
you to know that the average visitor stay is only three hours. As many 
as 6,000 vehicles arrive in a single summer day. They compete for 2,000 
parking spaces. Between 32,000 and 35,000 tour buses go to the park 
each year. During the peak summer season, the entrance route becomes a 
giant parking lot.
  In the decade from 1984 to 1994, the number of visits to America's 
national parks increased 25 percent, rising from 208 million to 269 
million a year. This is equal to more than one visit by every man, 
woman, and child in this country. This has created an overwhelming 
demand on these areas, resulting in severe traffic congestion, visitor 
restrictions, and in some instances vacationers being shut-out of the 
parks altogether. The environmental damage at the Grand Canyon is 
visible at many other parks: Yosemite, which has more than four million 
visitors a year; Yellowstone, which has more than three million 
visitors a year

[[Page S3140]]

and experiences such severe traffic congestion that access has to be 
restricted; Zion; Acadia; Bryce; and many others. We need to solve 
these problems now or risk permanent damage to our nation's natural, 
cultural, and historical heritage.
  My legislation builds upon two previous initiatives to address these 
problems. First is the study of alternative transportation strategies 
in our national parks that was mandated by the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, ISTEA. This study, completed by 
the National Park Service nearly five years ago in May 1994, found that 
many of our most heavily visited national parks are experiencing the 
same problems of congestion and pollution that afflict our cities and 
metropolitan areas. Yet, overwhelmingly, the principal transportation 
systems that the Federal Government has developed to provide access 
into our national parks are roads primarily for private automobile 
access.
  Second, in November 1997, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater 
and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt signed an agreement to work 
together to address transportation and resource management needs in and 
around national parks. The findings in the Memorandum of Understanding 
entered into by the two departments are especially revealing:

       Congestion in and approaching many National Parks is 
     causing lengthy traffic delays and backups that substantially 
     detract from the visitor experience. Visitors find that many 
     of the National Parks contain significant noise and air 
     pollution, and traffic congestion similar to that found on 
     the city streets they left behind.
       In many National Park units, the capacity of parking 
     facilities at interpretive or science areas is well below 
     demand. As a result, visitors park along roadsides, damaging 
     park resources and subjecting people to hazardous safety 
     conditions as they walk near busy roads to access visitor use 
     areas.
       On occasion, National Park units must close their gates 
     during high visitation periods and turn away the public 
     because the existing infrastructure and transportation 
     systems are at, or beyond, the capacity for which they were 
     designed.

  The challenge for park management is twofold: to conserve and protect 
the nation's natural, historical, and cultural resources, while at the 
same time ensuring visitor access and enjoyment of these sensitive 
environments.
  The Transit in Parks Act will go far to meeting this challenge. The 
bill's objectives are to develop new and expanded mass transit services 
throughout the national parks and other public lands to conserve and 
protect fragile natural, cultural, and historical resources, to prevent 
adverse impact on those resources, and to reduce pollution and 
congestion, while at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor 
access and improving the visitor experience. This new federal transit 
grant program will provide funding to three Federal land management 
agencies in the Department of the Interior--the National Park Service, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management--
that manage the 378 various parks within the National Park System, 
including National Battlefields, Monuments and National Seashores, as 
well as the National Wildlife Refuges and federal recreational areas. 
The program will allocate capital funds for transit projects, including 
rail or clean fuel bus projects, joint development activities, 
pedestrian and bike paths, or park waterway access, within or adjacent 
to national park lands. The bill authorizes $50 million for this new 
program for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003. It is 
anticipated that other resources--both public and private--will be 
available to augment these amounts in the initial phase.
  The bill formalizes the cooperative arrangement in the 1997 MOU 
between the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the 
Interior to exchange technical assistance and to develop procedures 
relating to the planning, selection and funding of transit projects in 
national park lands. The projects eligible for funding would be 
developed through the TEA-21 planning process and selected in 
consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior. The 
bill provides funds for planning, research, and technical assistance 
that can supplement other financial resources available to the Federal 
land management agencies. It is anticipated that the Secretary of 
Transportation would select projects that are diverse in location and 
size. While major national parks such as the Grand Canyon or 
Yellowstone are clearly appropriate candidates for significant transit 
projects under this section, there are numerous small urban and rural 
Federal park lands that can benefit enormously from small projects, 
such as bike paths or improved connections with an urban or regional 
public transit system. Project selection should include the following 
criteria: the historical and cultural significance of a project; 
safety; and the extent to which the project would conserve resources, 
prevent adverse impact, enhance the environment, improve mobility, and 
contribute to livable communities.
  The bill also identifies projects of regional or national 
significance that more closely resemble the Federal transit program's 
New Starts projects. Where the project costs are $25 million or 
greater, the projects will comply with the transit New Starts 
requirements. No single project will receive more than 12 percent of 
the total amount available in any given year. This ensures a diversity 
of projects selected for assistance.
  I firmly believe that this program can create new opportunities for 
the Federal land management agency to partner with local transit 
agencies in gateway communities adjacent to the parks, both through the 
TEA-21 planning process and in developing integrated transportation 
systems. This will spur new economic development within these 
communities, as they develop transportation centers for park visitors 
to connect to transit links into the national parks and other public 
lands.
  Mr. President, the ongoing tension between preservation and access 
has always been a challenge for the National Park Service. Today, that 
challenge has new dimensions, with overcrowding, pollution, congestion, 
and resource degradation increasing at many of our national parks. This 
legislation--the Transit in Parks Act--will give our Federal land 
management agencies important new tools to improve both preservation 
and access. Just as we have found in metropolitan areas, transit is 
essential to moving large numbers of people in our national parks--
quickly, efficiently, at low cost, and without adverse impact. At the 
same time, transit can enhance the economic development potential of 
our gateway communities.
  As we begin the final countdown to a new millennium, I cannot think 
of a more worthy endeavor to help our environment and preserve our 
national parks, wildlife refuges, and federal recreational areas than 
by encouraging alternative transportation in these areas. My bill is 
strongly supported by the American Public Transit Association, the 
National Parks and Conservation Association, the Surface Transportation 
Policy Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Community 
Transportation Association of America, the Environmental Defense Fund, 
American Planning Association, Bicycle Federation of America, Friends 
of the Earth, Izaak Walton League of America, National Association of 
Counties, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Rails-to-Trails 
Conservancy, Scenic America, The Wilderness Society, and the 
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill, and a section-by-section analysis, and letters of 
support be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation and to recognize the enormous environmental and economic 
benefits that transit can bring to our national parks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 690

       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 ``Transit in Parks (TRIP) 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. MASS TRANSPORTATION IN NATIONAL PARKS AND RELATED 
                   PUBLIC LANDS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 5339. Mass transportation in national parks and 
       related public lands

       ``(a) Policies, Findings, and Purposes.--
       ``(1) Development of transportation systems.--It is in the 
     interest of the United

[[Page S3141]]

     States to encourage and promote the development of 
     transportation systems for the betterment of the national 
     parks and other units of the National Park System, national 
     wildlife refuges, recreational areas, and other public lands 
     in order to conserve natural, historical, and cultural 
     resources and prevent adverse impact, relieve congestion, 
     minimize transportation fuel consumption, reduce pollution 
     (including noise and visual pollution), and enhance visitor 
     mobility and accessibility and the visitor experience.
       ``(2) General findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(A) section 1050 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240) authorized a 
     study of alternatives for visitor transportation in the 
     National Park System which was released by the National Park 
     Service in May 1994;
       ``(B) the study found that--
       ``(i) increasing traffic congestion in the national parks 
     requires alternative transportation strategies to enhance 
     resource protection and the visitor experience and to reduce 
     congestion;
       ``(ii) visitor use, National Park Service units, and 
     concession facilities require integrated planning; and
       ``(iii) the transportation problems and visitor services 
     require increased coordination with gateway communities;
       ``(C) on November 25, 1997, the Department of 
     Transportation and the Department of the Interior entered 
     into a Memorandum of Understanding to address transportation 
     needs within and adjacent to national parks and to enhance 
     cooperation between the departments on park transportation 
     issues;
       ``(D) to initiate the Memorandum of Understanding, and to 
     implement President Clinton's `Parks for Tomorrow' 
     initiative, outlined on Earth Day, 1996, the Department of 
     Transportation and the Department of the Interior announced, 
     in December 1997, the intention to implement mass 
     transportation services in the Grand Canyon National Park, 
     Zion National Park, and Yosemite National Park;
       ``(E) section 3039 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century authorized a comprehensive study, to be 
     conducted by the Secretary of Transportation in coordination 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, and submitted to Congress 
     on January 1, 2000, of alternative transportation in national 
     parks and related public lands, in order to--
       ``(i) identify the transportation strategies that improve 
     the management of the national parks and related public 
     lands;
       ``(ii) identify national parks and related public lands 
     with existing and potential problems of adverse impact, high 
     congestion, and pollution, or which can benefit from 
     alternative transportation modes;
       ``(iii) assess the feasibility of alternative 
     transportation modes; and
       ``(iv) identify and estimate the costs of those alternative 
     transportation modes;
       ``(F) many of the national parks and related public lands 
     are experiencing increased visitation and congestion and 
     degradation of the natural, historical, and cultural 
     resources;
       ``(G) there is a growing need for new and expanded mass 
     transportation services throughout the national parks and 
     related public lands to conserve and protect fragile natural, 
     historical, and cultural resources, prevent adverse impact on 
     those resources, and reduce pollution and congestion, while 
     at the same time facilitating appropriate visitor mobility 
     and accessibility and improving the visitor experience;
       ``(H) the Federal Transit Administration, through the 
     Department of Transportation, can assist the Federal land 
     management agencies through financial support and technical 
     assistance and further the achievement of national goals to 
     enhance the environment, improve mobility, create more 
     livable communities, conserve energy, and reduce pollution 
     and congestion in all regions of the country; and
       ``(I) immediate financial and technical assistance by the 
     Department of Transportation, working with Federal land 
     management agencies and State and local governmental 
     authorities to develop efficient and coordinated mass 
     transportation systems within and adjacent to national parks 
     and related public lands is essential to conserve natural, 
     historical, and cultural resources, relieve congestion, 
     reduce pollution, improve mobility, and enhance visitor 
     accessibility and the visitor experience.
       ``(3) General purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(A) to develop a cooperative relationship between the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior 
     to carry out this section;
       ``(B) to encourage the planning and establishment of mass 
     transportation systems and nonmotorized transportation 
     systems needed within and adjacent to national parks and 
     related public lands, located in both urban and rural areas, 
     that enhance resource protection, prevent adverse impacts on 
     those resources, improve visitor mobility and accessibility 
     and the visitor experience, reduce pollution and congestion, 
     conserve energy, and increase coordination with gateway 
     communities;
       ``(C) to assist Federal land management agencies and State 
     and local governmental authorities in financing areawide mass 
     transportation systems to be operated by public or private 
     mass transportation authorities, as determined by local and 
     regional needs, and to encourage public-private partnerships; 
     and
       ``(D) to assist in the research and development of improved 
     mass transportation equipment, facilities, techniques, and 
     methods with the cooperation of public and private companies 
     and other entities engaged in the provision of mass 
     transportation services.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `Federal land management agency' means the 
     National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, or the Bureau of Land Management;
       ``(2) the term `national parks and related public lands' 
     means the national parks and other units of the National Park 
     System, national wildlife refuges, recreational areas, and 
     other public lands managed by the Federal land management 
     agencies;
       ``(3) the term `qualified participant' means a Federal land 
     management agency, or a State or local governmental 
     authority, acting alone, in partnership, or with another 
     Governmental or nongovernmental participant;
       ``(4) the term `qualified mass transportation project' 
     means a project--
       ``(A) that is carried out within or adjacent to national 
     parks and related public lands; and
       ``(B) that--
       ``(i) is a capital project, as defined in section 
     5302(a)(1) (other than preventive maintenance activities);
       ``(ii) is any activity described in section 5309(a)(1)(A);
       ``(iii) involves the purchase of rolling stock that 
     incorporates clean fuel technology or the replacement of 
     existing buses with clean fuel vehicles or the deployment of 
     mass transportation vehicles that introduce new technology;
       ``(iv) relates to the capital costs of coordinating the 
     Federal land management agency mass transportation systems 
     with other mass transportation systems;
       ``(v) involves nonmotorized transportation systems, 
     including the provision of facilities for pedestrians and 
     bicycles;
       ``(vi) involves the development of waterborne access within 
     or adjacent to national parks and related public lands, 
     including watercraft, as appropriate to and consistent with 
     the purposes described in subsection (a)(3); or
       ``(vii) is any transportation project that--

       ``(I) enhances the environment;
       ``(II) prevents adverse impact on natural resources;
       ``(III) improves Federal land management agency resources 
     management;
       ``(IV) improves visitor mobility and accessibility and the 
     visitor experience;
       ``(V) reduces congestion and pollution, including noise and 
     visual pollution;
       ``(VI) conserves natural, historical, and cultural 
     resources (other than through the rehabilitation or 
     restoration of historic buildings); and
       ``(VII) incorporates private investment; and

       ``(5) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation.
       ``(c) Federal Agency Cooperative Arrangements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     cooperative relationship with the Secretary of the Interior, 
     which shall provide for--
       ``(A) the exchange of technical assistance;
       ``(B) interagency and multidisciplinary teams to develop 
     Federal land management agency transportation policy, 
     procedures, and coordination; and
       ``(C) the development of procedures and criteria relating 
     to the planning, selection, and funding of qualified mass 
     transportation projects, and implementation and oversight of 
     the project plan in accordance with the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(2) Project selection.--The Secretary, after consultation 
     and in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     determine the final selection and funding of projects in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(d) Types of Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may contract for or enter 
     into grants, cooperative agreements, or other agreements with 
     a qualified participant to carry out a qualified mass 
     transportation project under this section.
       ``(2) Other uses.--A grant or cooperative agreement or 
     other agreement for a qualified mass transportation project 
     under this section also is available to finance the leasing 
     of equipment and facilities for use in mass transportation, 
     subject to regulations the Secretary prescribes limiting the 
     grant or cooperative arrangement or other agreement to 
     leasing arrangements that are more cost effective than 
     purchase or construction.
       ``(e) Limitation on Use of Available Amounts.--The 
     Secretary may not use more than 5 percent of the amount made 
     available for a fiscal year under section 5338(j) to carry 
     out planning, research, and technical assistance under this 
     section, including the development of technology appropriate 
     for use in a qualified mass transportation project. Amounts 
     made available under this subsection are in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available for planning, research, and 
     technical assistance under this title or any other provision 
     of law.
       ``(f) Planning Process.--In undertaking a qualified mass 
     transportation project under this section--
       ``(1) if the qualified participant is a Federal land 
     management agency--
       ``(A) the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     the Interior, shall develop transportation planning 
     procedures that are

[[Page S3142]]

     consistent with sections 5303 through 5305; and
       ``(B) the General Management Plans of the units of the 
     National Park System shall be incorporated into the planning 
     process;
       ``(2) if the qualified participant is a State or local 
     governmental authority, or more than 1 State or local 
     governmental authority in more than 1 State, the qualified 
     participant shall comply with sections 5303 through 5305;
       ``(3) if the national parks and related public lands at 
     issue lie in multiple States, there shall be cooperation in 
     the planning process under sections 5303 through 5305, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, as determined by the Secretary, 
     between those States and the Secretary of the Interior; and
       ``(4) the qualified participant shall comply with the 
     public participation requirements of section 5307(c).
       ``(g) Government's Share of Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish the 
     Federal Government share of assistance to a qualified 
     participant under this section.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In establishing the Government's 
     share of the net costs of a qualified transportation project 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) visitation levels and the revenue derived from user 
     fees in the national parks and related public lands at issue;
       ``(B) the extent to which the qualified participant 
     coordinates with an existing public or private mass 
     transportation authority;
       ``(C) private investment in the qualified mass 
     transportation project, including the provision of contract 
     services, joint development activities, and the use of 
     innovative financing mechanisms;
       ``(D) the clear and direct benefit to a qualified 
     participant assisted under this section; and
       ``(E) any other matters that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to carry out this section.
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, Federal funds appropriated to any Federal 
     land management agency may be counted toward the non-Federal 
     share of the costs of any mass transportation project that is 
     eligible for assistance under this section.
       ``(h) Selection of Qualified Mass Transportation 
     Projects.--In awarding assistance for a qualified mass 
     transportation project under this section, the Secretary 
     shall consider--
       ``(1) project justification, including the extent to which 
     the project would conserve the resources, prevent adverse 
     impact, and enhance the environment;
       ``(2) the location of the qualified mass transportation 
     project, to assure that the selection of projects--
       ``(A) is geographically diverse nationwide; and
       ``(B) encompasses both urban and rural areas;
       ``(3) the size of the qualified mass transportation 
     project, to assure a balanced distribution;
       ``(4) historical and cultural significance of a project;
       ``(5) safety;
       ``(6) the extent to which the project would enhance livable 
     communities;
       ``(7) the extent to which the project would reduce 
     pollution, including noise and visual pollution;
       ``(8) the extent to which the project would reduce 
     congestion and improve the mobility of people in the most 
     efficient manner; and
       ``(9) any other matters that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to carry out this section.
       ``(i) Projects of Regional or National Significance.--
       ``(1) General authority.--In addition to other qualified 
     mass transportation projects, the Secretary may select a 
     qualified mass transportation project that is of regional or 
     national significance, or that has significant visitation, or 
     that can benefit from alternative transportation solutions to 
     problems of resource management, pollution, congestion, 
     mobility, and accessibility. Such projects shall meet the 
     criteria set forth in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 
     5309(e), as applicable.
       ``(2) Project selection criteria.--
       ``(A) Considerations.--In selecting a qualified mass 
     transportation project described in paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall consider, as appropriate, in addition to the 
     considerations set forth in subsection (h)--
       ``(i) visitation levels;
       ``(ii) the use of innovative financing or joint development 
     strategies;
       ``(iii) coordination with the gateway communities; and
       ``(iv) any other matters that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Certain locations.--For fiscal years 2000 through 
     2003, projects described in paragraph (1) may include the 
     following locations:
       ``(i) Grand Canyon National Park.
       ``(ii) Zion National Park.
       ``(iii) Yosemite National Park.
       ``(iv) Acadia National Park.
       ``(C) Limit.--No project assisted under this subsection 
     shall receive more than 12 percent of the total amount made 
     available under this section in any fiscal year.
       ``(D) Full funding grant agreements.--A project assisted 
     under this subsection whose net project cost is greater than 
     $25,000,000 shall be carried out through a full funding grant 
     agreement in accordance with section 5309(g).
       ``(j) Undertaking Projects in Advance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may pay the Government's 
     share of the net project cost to a qualified participant that 
     carries out any part of a qualified mass transportation 
     project without assistance under this section, and according 
     to all applicable procedures and requirements, if--
       ``(A) the qualified participant applies for the payment;
       ``(B) the Secretary approves the payment; and
       ``(C) before carrying out that part of the project, the 
     Secretary approves the plans and specifications in the same 
     way as other projects assisted under this chapter.
       ``(2) Interest.--The cost of carrying out a part of a 
     project referred to in paragraph (1) includes the amount of 
     interest earned and payable on bonds issued by the State or 
     local governmental authority, to the extent proceeds of the 
     bond are expended in carrying out that part. However, the 
     amount of interest under this paragraph may not exceed the 
     most favorable interest terms reasonably available for the 
     project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall 
     certify, in a manner that is satisfactory to the Secretary, 
     that the applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking 
     the most favorable financial terms.
       ``(3) Cost change considerations.--The Secretary shall 
     consider changes in project cost indices when determining the 
     estimated cost under paragraph (2).
       ``(k) Project Management Oversight.--The Secretary may use 
     not more than 0.5 percent of amounts made available under 
     this section for a fiscal year to oversee projects and 
     participants in accordance with section 5327.
       ``(l) Relationship to Other Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided in this section, but subject to paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall require that all grants, 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, or other agreements under 
     this section shall be subject to the requirements of sections 
     5307(d), 5307(i), and any other terms, conditions, 
     requirements, and provisions that the Secretary determines 
     are necessary or appropriate to carry out this section, 
     including requirements for the distribution of proceeds on 
     disposition of real property and equipment resulting from the 
     project assisted under this section.
       ``(2) Labor standards.--Sections 5323(a)(1)(D) and 5333(b) 
     apply to assistance provided under this section.
       ``(m) State Infrastructure Banks.--A project assisted under 
     this section shall be eligible for funding through a State 
     Infrastructure Bank or other innovative financing mechanism 
     otherwise available to finance an eligible mass 
     transportation project under this chapter.
       ``(n) Asset Management.--The Secretary may transfer the 
     Department of Transportation interest in and control over all 
     facilities and equipment acquired under this section to a 
     qualified participant for use and disposition in accordance 
     with property management rules and regulations of the 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(o) Coordination of Research and Deployment of New 
     Technologies.--The Secretary may undertake, or make grants or 
     contracts (including agreements with departments, agencies, 
     and instrumentalities of the Federal Government) or other 
     agreements for research, development, and deployment of new 
     technologies that will conserve resources and prevent adverse 
     environmental impact, improve visitor mobility, accessibility 
     and enjoyment, and reduce pollution, including noise and 
     visual pollution, in the national parks and related public 
     lands. The Secretary may request and receive appropriate 
     information from any source. This subsection does not limit 
     the authority of the Secretary under any other provision of 
     law.
       ``(p) Report.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, shall report annually to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs of the Senate, on the allocation of amounts 
     to be made available to assist qualified mass transportation 
     projects under this section. Such reports shall be included 
     in each report required under section 5309(p).''.
       (b) Authorizations.--Section 5338 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Section 5339.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out section 5339 $50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2003.
       ``(2) Availability.--Amounts made available under this 
     subsection for any fiscal year shall remain available for 
     obligation until the last day of the third fiscal year 
     commencing after the last day of the fiscal year for which 
     the amounts were initially made available under this 
     subsection.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``5339. Mass transportation in national parks and related public 
              lands.''.

       (d) Technical Amendments.--Chapter 53 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 5309--

[[Page S3143]]

       (A) by redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q); and
       (B) by redesignating the second subsection designated as 
     subsection (o) (as added by section 3009(i) of the Federal 
     Transit Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 356-357)) as subsection (p);
       (2) in section 5328(a)(4), by striking ``5309(o)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``5309(p)(1)''; and
       (3) in section 5337, by redesignating the second subsection 
     designated as subsection (e) (as added by section 3028(b) of 
     the Federal Transit Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 367)) as 
     subsection (f).
                                  ____


             Section-by-Section of the Transit in Parks Act

       I. Amends Federal Transit laws by adding new section 5339, 
     ``Mass Transportation in National Parks and Related Public 
     Lands.''
       II. Statement of Policies, Findings, and Purposes:
       To encourage and promote the development of transportation 
     systems for the betterment of national parks and related 
     public lands and to conserve natural, historical, and 
     cultural resources and prevent adverse impact, relieve 
     congestion, minimize transportation fuel consumption, reduce 
     pollution and enhance visitor mobility and accessibility and 
     the visitor experience.
       To that end, this program establishes federal assistance to 
     certain Federal land management agencies and State and local 
     governmental authorities to finance mass transportation 
     capital projects, to encourage public-private partnerships, 
     and to assist in the research and deployment of improved mass 
     transportation equipment and methods.
       III. Definitions:
       (1) eligible ``Federal land management agencies'' are: 
     National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau 
     of Land Management (all under Department of the Interior).
       (2) ``national parks and related public lands'': eligible 
     areas under the management of these agencies
       (3) ``qualified mass transportation project'': a capital 
     mass transportation project carried out within or adjacent to 
     national parks and related public lands, including rail 
     projects, clean fuel vehicles, joint development activities, 
     pedestrian and bike paths, waterborne access, or projects 
     that otherwise better protect the national parks and related 
     public lands and increase visitor mobility and accessibility.
       IV. Federal Agency Cooperative Arrangements:
       Implements the Memorandum of Understanding between the 
     Departments of Transportation and the Interior for the 
     exchange of technical assistance, the development of 
     transportation policy and coordination, and the establishment 
     of criteria for planning, selection and funding of capital 
     projects under this section. The Secretary of Transportation 
     selects the projects, after consultation with Secretary of 
     the Interior.
       V. Assistance:
       To be provided through grants, cooperative agreements, or 
     other agreements, including leasing under certain conditions, 
     for an eligible capital project under this section. Not more 
     than 5% of the amounts available can be used for planning, 
     research and technical assistance, and these amounts can be 
     supplemented from other sources.
       VI. Planning Process:
       The Departments of Transportation and Interior shall 
     cooperatively develop a planning process consistent with the 
     TEA-21 planning process in sections 5303 through 5305 of the 
     Federal Transit laws.
       VII. Government's Share of the Costs:
       In determining the Federal Transit Administration share of 
     the project costs, the Secretary of Transportation must 
     consider certain factors, including visitation levels and 
     user fee revenues, the coordination in the project 
     development with a public or private transit authority, 
     private investment, and whether there is a clear and direct 
     financial benefit to the applicant. The intent is to 
     establish criteria for a sliding scale of assistance, with a 
     lower Government share for large projects that can attract 
     outside investment, and a higher Government share for 
     projects that may not have access to such outside resources. 
     In addition, funds from the Federal land management agencies 
     can be counted as the local share.
       VIII. Selection of Projects:
       The Secretary shall consider: (1) project justification, 
     including the extent to which the project conserves the 
     resources, prevents adverse impact and enhances the 
     environment; (2) project location to ensure geographic 
     diversity and both rural and urban projects; (3) project size 
     for a balanced distribution; (4) historical and cultural 
     significance; (5) safety; (6) the extent to which the project 
     would enhance livable communities; (7) the reduction of 
     pollution, including noise and visual pollution; (8) the 
     reduction of congestion and the improvement of the mobility 
     of people in the most efficient manner; and (9) any other 
     considerations the Secretary deems appropriate. Projects 
     funded under this section must meet certain transit law 
     requirements.
       IX. Projects of Regional or National Significance:
       This is a special category that sets forth criteria for 
     special, generally larger, projects or for those areas that 
     may have problems of resource management, pollution, 
     congestion, mobility, and accessibility that can be addressed 
     by this program. Additional project selection criteria 
     include: visitation levels; the use of innovative financing 
     or joint development strategies; coordination with the 
     gateway communities; and any other considerations the 
     Secretary deems appropriate. Projects under this section must 
     meet certain Federal Transit New Starts criteria. This 
     section identifies some locations that may fit these 
     criteria. Any project in this category that is $25 million or 
     greater in cost will have a full funding grant agreement 
     similar to Federal Transit New Starts projects. No project 
     can receive more than 12% of the total amount available in 
     any given year.
       X. Undertaking Projects in Advance:
       This provision applies current transit law to this section, 
     allowing projects to advance prior to receiving Federal 
     funding, but allowing the advance activities to be counted so 
     the local share as long as certain conditions are met.
       XI. Project Management Oversight:
       This provision applies current transit law to this section, 
     limiting oversight funds to 0.5% per year of the funds made 
     available for this section.
       XII. Relationship to Other Laws:
       This provision applies certain transit laws to all projects 
     funded under this section and permits the Secretary to apply 
     any other terms or conditions he deems appropriate.
       XIII. State Infrastructure Banks:
       A project assisted under this section can also use funding 
     from a State Infrastructure Bank or other innovative 
     financing mechanism that funds eligible transit projects.
       XIV. Asset Management:
       This provision permits the Secretary of Transportation to 
     transfer control over a transit asset acquired with Federal 
     funds under this section in accord with certain Federal 
     property management rules.
       XV. Coordination of Research and Deployment of New 
     Technologies:
       This provision allows grants for research and deployment of 
     new technologies to meet the special needs of the national 
     park lands.
       XVI. Report:
       This requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit a 
     report on projects funded under this section to the House 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, to be included 
     in the Department's annual project report.
       XVII. Authorization:
       $50,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Secretary to carry out this program for each of the fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2003.
       XVIII. Technical Amendments:
       Technical corrections to the transit title in TEA-21.
                                                   American Public


                                          Transit Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 1999.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
         Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: Thank you for forwarding us a copy 
     of the ``Transit in Parks (TRIP) Act'' which would amend 
     federal transit law at chapter 53, title 49 U.S.C.
       The Act would authorize federal assistance to certain 
     federal agencies and state and local entities to finance mass 
     transit projects generally for the purpose of addressing 
     transportation congestion and mobility issues at national 
     parks. Among other things, the bill would implement the 
     Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of 
     Transportation and Interior regarding joint efforts of those 
     federal agencies to encourage the use of public 
     transportation at national parks.
       We strongly supported that Memorandum of Understanding, and 
     I am just as pleased to support your efforts to improve 
     mobility in our national parks. Public transportation clearly 
     has much to offer citizens who visit these national 
     treasures, where congestion and pollution are significant--
     and growing--problems. Moreover, this legislation should 
     broaden the base of support for public transportation, a key 
     principle APTA has been advocating for many years. In that 
     regard, we will be reviewing your bill with APTA's 
     legislative leadership.
       We also look forward to participating in the study of these 
     issues you were successful in including in TEA 21.
       I applaud you for introducing the legislation, and look 
     forward to continuing to work with you and your staff. Let us 
     know what we can do to help your initiative!
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                February 24, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: This letter expresses our support 
     for the legislation you are introducing, the Transit in Parks 
     Act, which provides a direct funding source for alternative 
     transportation projects in our national parks and other 
     federally-managed public lands. As you know, many of these 
     areas are experiencing unprecedented numbers of visitors 
     resulting in severe traffic

[[Page S3144]]

     congestion and degradation of some of the country's most 
     valuable and treasured natural, cultural and historic 
     resources.
       You bill's establishment of a new program within the 
     Federal Transit Administration, dedicated to enhancing 
     transit options in and adjacent to these park lands, can have 
     a powerful, positive effect on the future integrity of the 
     park lands and their resources by reducing the need for 
     access by automobile, improving visitor access, and enhancing 
     the visitor experience.
       We appreciate your leadership, which has been critical in 
     bringing attention to this emerging issue. The programs 
     funded through TRIP will be a major building block in what we 
     hope will be a broad effort to lessen the impacts of 
     visitation on these most important natural areas. We look 
     forward to working with you to move this legislation to 
     enactment.
           Sincerely,
         American Planning Association; American Public Transit 
           Association; Bicycle Federation of America; Community 
           Transportation Association of America; Environmental 
           Defense Fund; Environmental and Energy Study Institute; 
           Friends of the Earth; Izaak Walton League of America; 
           National Association of Counties; National Trust for 
           Historic Preservation; Natural Resources Defense 
           Council; Rails-to-Trails Conservancy; Scenic America; 
           Surface Transportation Policy Project; The Wilderness 
           Society.
                                  ____

                                                National Parks and


                                     Conservation Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the National Parks and 
     Conservation Association (NPCA) and its nearly 400,000 
     members, I want to thank you for proposing a bill that will 
     enhance transit options for access to and within our national 
     parks. NPCA applauds your leadership and foresight in 
     recognizing the critical role that mass transit can play in 
     protecting our parks and improving the visitor experience.
       Visitation to America's national parks has skyrocketed 
     during the past two decades, from 190 million visitors in 
     1975 to approximately 270 million visitors last year. 
     Increased public interest in these special places has placed 
     substantial burdens on the very resources that draw people to 
     the parks. As more and more individuals crowd into our 
     national parks--typically by automobile--fragile habitat, 
     endangered plants and animals, unique cultural treasures, and 
     spectacular natural resources and vistas are being damaged 
     from air and water pollution, noise intrusion, and 
     inappropriate use.
       As outlined in your legislation, the establishment of a 
     program within the Federal Transit Administration dedicated 
     to enhancing transit options in and adjacent to the national 
     parks will have a powerful, positive effect on the future 
     ecological and cultural integrity of the parks. Your 
     initiative will boost the role of alternative transportation 
     solutions for national parks, particularly those most heavily 
     impacted by visitation such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, the 
     Grand Canyon, Acadia, Zion, and the Great Smoky Mountains. 
     For instance, development of transportation centers and auto 
     parking lots outside the parks, complemented by the use of 
     buses, vans, or rail systems, would provide much more 
     efficient means of handling the crush of visitation.
       Equally important, the legislation will provide an 
     excellent opportunity for the National Park Service (NPS) to 
     enter into public/private partnerships with states, 
     localities, and the private sector, providing a wider range 
     of transportation options than exists today. These 
     partnerships could leverage funds that NPS currently has 
     great difficulty accessing.
       NPCA wholeheartedly endorses your bill as a creative new 
     mechanism to fulfill the primary mission of the National Park 
     System: ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and 
     historic objects and the wildlife therein, and to provide for 
     the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as 
     will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
     generations.''
       We look forward to working with you to move this 
     legislation to enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas C. Kiernan,
     President.
                                  ____



                            Natural Resources Defense Council,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Paul Sarbanes: On behalf of the 450,000 
     members of the Natural Resources Defense Council, I am 
     writing to support your Transit in Parks Act. Many of our 
     national parks are suffering from the impacts of too many 
     automobiles: traffic congestion, air and water pollution, and 
     disturbance of natural ecosystems resulting in the 
     degradation of national park natural and cultural resources 
     and the visitor's experience. Providing dedicated funding for 
     transit projects in our national parks as your bill would do 
     is a priority solution to these problems in the National Park 
     System.
       It is essential in many parks to get visitors out of their 
     automobiles by providing attractive and effective transit 
     services to and within national parks. A sound practical 
     transit system in many of our national parks will improve the 
     visitor's experience--making it more convenient and enjoyable 
     for families and visitors of all ages. Improved transit is 
     critical to diversifying transportation choices and providing 
     better access for the benefit of all park visitors. Air 
     pollutants from automobiles driven by visitors can exacerbate 
     respiratory health problems, damage vegetation, and 
     contribute to haze which too often obliterates park vistas. 
     To reduce the reliance on automobiles your bill would 
     authorize the funding so our national parks can provide 
     efficient and convenient transit systems which cost money to 
     build and operate.
       We commend and thank you for your dedication and leadership 
     on this issue and more generally to the protection of our 
     national parks. Please look to us to help you establish 
     public transit in the national parks.
           Sincerely
                                                Charles M. Clusen,
     Senior Policy Analyst.
                                  ____



                                   Environmental Defense Fund,

                                   New York, NY, February 3, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Environmental Defense Fund and our 300,000 members to express 
     support for your bill, the Transit in Parks Act, which will 
     provide dedicated funding for transit projects in our 
     national parks. Too many of our parks suffer from the 
     consequences of poor transportation systems: traffic 
     congestion, air and water pollution, and disturbance of 
     natural ecosystems.
       Increased funding for attractive and effective transit 
     services to and within our national parks is essential to 
     mitigating these growing problems. A good working transit 
     system in a number of our national parks will make the park 
     experience not only more enjoyable for the many families that 
     travel there, it will help improve environmental conditions. 
     Having had the chance to experience the excellent transit 
     system in Denali National Park, I know how much of a 
     difference these systems can make.
       Air pollutants that exacerbate respiratory health problems, 
     damage vegetation, and contribute to haze which too often 
     obliterates the views at our parks, will be abated by 
     decreasing the number of cars and congestion levels in the 
     parks. Improved transit related to our parks is key to 
     diversifying transportation choices and access for the 
     benefit of all who might visit our national park system.
       We appreciate your leadership on this issue and your 
     dedication to the health of our national parks. We look 
     forward to working with you to move your legislation forward.
           Yours truly,
                                                       Fred Krupp,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                          Community Transportation


                                        Association of America

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1999.
     Hon. Paul Sarbanes,
     Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sarbanes: It is an honor to once again support 
     your efforts to provide alternative transportation strategies 
     in our national parks and other public lands. Our 
     Association's over thirteen hundred members provide public 
     and community transportation in many of the smaller 
     communities which border these national treasures. We 
     supported your proposal last year because we know as 
     neighbors of these facilities how transportation alternatives 
     will help keep these areas safe in the twenty-first century.
       All of us know the danger that congestion and the increase 
     in traffic pose for the future of these sites and locations. 
     Your efforts in the past, and more importantly this year, are 
     an important step forward to establish a dialogue on 
     protecting these areas that help make America's natural 
     beauty a continuous part of the nation's future. This work 
     was urgent last year and it remains urgent today. We support 
     your efforts because our need to begin is obviously overdue. 
     Every day that we fail to protect these areas diminishes 
     their future.
       We will work with you any way we can to help make your 
     proposed Transit in Parks legislation a reality. We look 
     forward to helping you move this important work forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dale J. Marsico,
                                               Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 692. A bill to prohibit Internet gambling, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   internet gambling prohibition act

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet 
Gambling Prohibition Act.
  From the beginning of time, societies have sought to prohibit most 
forms of gambling. There are reasons for this--and they are especially 
applicable to gambling on the Internet today. Consider the following.
  Youth. A recent New York Times article warned that ``Internet sports 
betting entices youthful gamblers into potentially costly losses.'' In 
the same

[[Page S3145]]

article, Kevin O'Neill, deputy director of the Council on Compulsive 
Gambling of New Jersey, said that ``Internet sports gambling appeals to 
college-age people who don't have immediate access to a neighborhood 
bookie. . . . It's on the Net and kids think it's credible, which is 
scary.''
  Listen to the testimony of Jeff Pash, the Executive Vice President of 
the National Football League, before the Senate Judiciary Committee: 
``Studies . . . indicate that sports betting is a growing problem for 
high school and college students. . . . As the Internet reaches more 
and more school children, Internet gambling is certain to promote even 
more gambling among young people.''
  Families. Gambling often has terrible consequences for families and 
communities. According to the Council on Compulsive Gambling, five 
percent of all gamblers become addicted. Many of those turn to crime 
and commit suicide. We all pay for those tragedies.
  Harm to Businesses and the Economy. Internet gambling is likely to 
have a deleterious effect on businesses and the economy. As Ted Koppel 
noted in a ``Nightline'' feature on Internet gambling, ``[l]ast year, 
1,333,000 American consumers filed for bankruptcy, thereby eliminating 
about $40 billion in personal debt. That's of some relevance to all of 
us because the $40 billion debt doesn't just disappear. It's 
redistributed among the rest of us in the form of increased prices on 
consumer goods. . . .'' He continued: ``If anything promises to 
increase the level of personal debt in this country, expanding access 
to gambling should do it.''
  Professor John Kindt testified before the House Small Business 
Committee that a business with 1,000 workers can anticipate increased 
personnel costs of $500,000 a year due to job absenteeism and declining 
productivity simply by having various forms of legalized gambling 
accessible.
  Addiction. Internet gambling enhances the addictive nature of 
gambling because it is so easy to do: you don't have to travel; you can 
just log on to your computer. Professor Kindt has described electronic 
gambling, like the type being offered in the ``virtual casinos'' on the 
Internet, as the ``hard-core cocaine of gambling.''
  As Bernie Horn, the Executive Director of the National Coalition 
Against Legalized Gaming, testified before the House Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime: ``The Internet not only makes highly addictive 
forms of gambling easily accessible to everyone, it magnifies the 
potential destructiveness of the addiction. Because of the privacy of 
an individual and his/her computer terminal, addicts can destroy 
themselves without anyone ever having the chance to stop them.
  Unfair payouts. As Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``[b]ecause [Internet gambling] 
is unregulated, consumers don't know who is on the other end of the 
connection. The odds can be easily manipulated and there is no 
guarantee that fair payouts will occur.'' ``Anyone who gambles over the 
Internet is making a sucker bet,'' says William A. Bible, the chair of 
an Internet gambling subcommittee on the National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission.
  Crime. Further, gambling on the Internet is apt to lead to criminal 
behavior. Indeed, ``Up to 90 percent of pathological gamblers commit 
crimes to pay off their wagering debts.'' A University of Illinois 
study found that for every dollar that states gain from gambling, they 
pay out three dollars in social and criminal costs.
  Cost. According to an article in the March 1999 ABA Journal, ``Online 
wagering is generating a $600-million-a-year kitty that some analysts 
say could reach as high as $100 billion a year by 2006.'' I want to 
repeat that: ``$100 BILLION a year.'' The article continues: ``The 
number of Web sites offering Internet gambling is growing at a similar 
rate. In just one year, that number more than quadrupled, going from 
about 60 in late 1997 to now more than 260 according to some 
estimates.'' And a recent HBO in-depth report by Jim Lampley noted that 
virtual sports books will collect more money from the Super Bowl than 
all the sports books in Las Vegas combined.
  This affects all of us.
  Not every problem that is national is also necessarily federal. 
Internet gambling is a national problem AND a federal problem. The 
Internet is, of course, interstate in nature. States cannot protect 
their citizens from Internet gambling if anyone can transmit it into 
their states. That is why the State Attorneys General asked for federal 
legislation to prohibit Internet gambling. In a letter to the Judiciary 
Committee members, the Chairs of the Association's Internet Working 
Group stressed the need for federal involvement: ``[M]ore than any 
other area of the law, gambling has traditionally been regulated on a 
state-by-state basis, with little uniformity and minimal federal 
oversight. The availability of gambling on the Internet, however, 
threatens to disrupt each state's careful balancing of its own public 
welfare and fiscal concerns, by making gambling available across state 
and national boundaries, with little or no regulatory control.''
  Further, in reaffirming his support for the bill, the former 
President of NAAG, Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, wrote: 
``Internet gambling poses a major challenge for state and local law 
enforcement officials. I strongly support Senator Kyl's Internet 
Gambling Prohibition Act. Prohibiting this form of unregulated gambling 
will protect consumers from fraud and preserve state policies on 
gambling that have been established by our citizens and our 
legislators.''
  In 1961, Congress passed the Wire Act to prohibit using telephone 
facilities to receive bets or send gambling information. [18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1084.] In addition to penalties imposed upon gambling businesses 
that violate the law, the Wire Act gives local and state law 
enforcement authorities the power to direct telecommunication providers 
to discontinue service to proprietors of gambling services who use the 
wires to conduct illegal gambling activity. But, as pointed out in the 
March 1999 ABA Journal, ``The problem with current federal law is that 
the communications technology it specifies is dated and limited.'' The 
advent of the Internet, a communications medium not envisioned by the 
Wire Act, requires enactment of a new law to address activities in 
cyberspace not contemplated by the drafters of the older law.
  The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act ensures that the law keeps pace 
with technology. The bill bans gambling on the Internet, just as the 
Wire Act prohibited gambling over the wires. And it does not limit the 
subject of gambling to sports. The bill is similar to the one that the 
Senate, by an overwhelming 90-10 vote, attached to the Commerce-
Justice-State Appropriations bill last year. Let me take a moment to 
explain the bill.
  The bill covers sports gambling and casino games. Businesses that 
offer gambling over the Internet can be fined in an amount equal to the 
amount that the business received in bets via the Internet or $20,000, 
whichever is greater, and/or imprisoned for not more than four years. 
To address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, the bill (like 
the Wire Act) does not contain penalties for individual bettors. Such 
betting will, of course, still be the subject of state law.
  The bill contains a strong enforcement mechanism. At the request of 
the United States or a State, a district court may enter a temporary 
restraining order or an injunction against any person to prevent a 
violation of the bill, following due notice and based on a finding of 
substantial probability that there has been a violation of the law. In 
effect, the illegal website will have its service cut off. I have 
worked with the Internet service providers to address concerns they 
raised about how they would cut off service, and, as a result, the 
provisions dealing with the civil remedies have been revised along the 
lines of the WIPO legislation.
  In sum, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings federal law up 
to date. With the advent of new, sophisticated technology, the Wire Act 
is becoming outdated. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act corrects 
that problem.
  I would like to take a moment to review the consideration of the bill 
during the last Congress. In July 1997, the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Technology held a hearing on S. 474. A wide variety of people testified 
in support of the legislation: Senator Richard Bryan; Wisconsin 
Attorney General Jim Doyle, the then-President of the

[[Page S3146]]

National Association of Attorneys General; Jeff Pash, Counsel to the 
National Football League; Ann Geer, Chair of the National Coalition 
Against Gambling Expansion; and Anthony Cabot, professor at the 
International Gaming Institute.
  Ann Geer stated that ``Internet gambling would multiply addiction 
exponentially, increasing access and magnifying the potential 
destructiveness of the addiction. Addicts would literally click their 
mouse and bet the house.''
  As I noted earlier, Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle testified 
that ``gambling on the Internet is a very dumb bet. Because it is 
unregulated . . . odds can be easily manipulated and there is no 
guarantee that fair payouts will occur. . . . Internet gambling 
threatens to disrupt the system. It crosses state and national borders 
with little or no regulatory control. Federal authorities must take the 
lead in this area.''
  Additionally, in June, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on FBI 
oversight at which I said to FBI Director Louis Freeh: ``the testimony 
from other Department of Justice and FBI witnesses has supported our 
legislation to conform the crime of gambling on the Internet to 
existing law. And I would just like a reconfirmation of the FBI's 
support for that legislation.'' Director Freeh replied ``yes, I think 
it's a very effective change. We certainly support it.''
  The Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology passed S. 474 by a unanimous 
poll and sent the bill to the full Committee for consideration. The 
Judiciary Committee passed S. 474 by voice vote.
  In July 1998, by a 90 to 10 vote, the Internet Gambling Prohibition 
Act was attached to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. In 
the House, the bill passed Representative McCollum's Crime Subcommittee 
unanimously, but due to the lateness of the session, the bill failed to 
move farther in the House and was not included in the final CJS bill.
  The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the strong 
support of law enforcement. As I just mentioned, FBI Director Freeh has 
testified that the bill makes a ``very effective change'' to the law 
and the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter 
supporting S. 474 to all Senators.
  Further, the President of NAAG, Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, 
wrote a letter expressing his support of the bill: ``Internet gambling 
poses a major challenge for state and local law enforcement officials. 
I strongly support Senator Kyl's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. 
Prohibiting this form of unregulated gambling will protect consumers 
from fraud and preserve state policies on gambling that have been 
established by our citizens and our legislators.''
  Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth also wrote a letter 
stressing the support of the states for this bill: ``The adoption of a 
resolution on this issue by NAAG represents overwhelming support from 
the states for a bill which, in essence, increases the federal presence 
in an area of primary state concern. However, it is clear that the 
federal government has an important role in this issue which crosses 
state as well as international boundaries.''
  In the 105th Congress, S. 474 was strongly supported by professional 
and amateur sports. The National Football League, the National 
Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League, the 
National Basketball Association, Major League Soccer, and Major League 
Baseball sent a joint letter of support to all Senators.
  I would like to read a passage from this letter:

       Despite exiting federal and state laws prohibiting gambling 
     on professional and college sports, sports gambling over the 
     Internet has become a serious--and growing--national problem. 
     Many Internet gambling operations originate from offshore 
     locations outside the U.S. The number of offshore Internet 
     gambling websites has grown from two in 1996 to over 70 
     today. It is estimated that Inernet sites will book over $600 
     million in sports bets in 1998, up from $60 million just two 
     years ago. These websites not only permit offshore gambling 
     operations to solicit and take bets from the United States in 
     defiance of federal and state law but also enable gamblers 
     and would-be gamblers in the U.S. to place illegal sports 
     wagers over the Internet from the privacy of their own home 
     or office.

  The letter concludes: ``We strongly urge you to vote in favor of S. 
474 when it is considered on the Senate floor.''
  On behalf of the NCAA, Bill Saum testified in February before the 
National Gambling Impact Study Commission on the dangers of Internet 
gambling:

       Internet gambling provides college students with the 
     opportunity to place wagers on professional and college 
     sporting events from the privacy of his or her campus 
     residence. Internet gambling offers the student virtual 
     anonymity. With nothing more than a credit card, the 
     possibility exists for any student-athlete to place a wager 
     via the Intenet and then attempt to influence the outcome of 
     the contest while participating on the court or the playing 
     field. There is no question the advent of Internet sports 
     gambling poses a direct threat to all sports organizations 
     that, first and foremost, must ensure the integrity of each 
     contest played.

  Today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, I chaired a 
hearing on Internet gambling. The testimony in today's hearing 
confirmed that Internet gambling is addictive, accessible to minors, 
subject to fraud and other criminal use, and evasive of state gambling 
laws. State Attorneys General from Wisconsin and Ohio asked for federal 
legislation to address the mushrooming problem of online gambling, and 
representatives of the National Football League and the National 
Collegiate Athletic Association expressed their concerns over the 
effect of Internet gambling on athletes, fans, and the integrity of 
sporting contests.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Bryan for his hard work 
on this bill. His support and assistance have been invaluable. I would 
also like to extend a special thanks to the NFL, NCAA, and the National 
Association of Attorneys General.
  The Internet offers fantastic opportunities. Unfortunately, some 
would exploit those opportunities to commit crimes and take advantage 
of others. Indeed, as Professor Kindt stated on ``Nightline,'' ``Once 
you go to Internet gambling, you've maximized the speed you've 
maximized the acceptability and the accessibility. It's going to be in-
your-face gambling, which is going to have severe detrimental effects 
to society. . . . it's the crack cocaine of creating new pathological 
gamblers.''
  Internet gambling is a serious problem. Society has always prohibited 
most forms of gambling because it can have a devastating effect on 
people and families, and it often leads to crime and other corruption. 
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act will curb the spread of online 
gambling.

                          ____________________