Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 54 (Tuesday, April 20, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 54 (Tuesday, April 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3914-S3942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Burns):
S. 832. A bill to extend the commercial space launch damage
indemnification provisions of section 70113 of title 49, United States
Code; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

commercial space launch industry indemnification extension

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to extend the
commercial space launch indemnification.
As a result of the discussions over the last year on the alleged
China technology transfer situation, the need to ensure that the United
States launch companies maintain a competitive position in the
International launch market has never been greater. One of the more
important features of the Commercial Space Launch Act (``CSLA'') to the
commercial industry is the comprehensive risk allocation provisions.
The provisions are comprised of: (1) cross-waivers of liability among
launch participants; (2) a demonstration of financial responsibility;
and (3) a commitment (subject to appropriations) by the U.S. Government
to pay successful third party claims above $500 million.
Since its establishment, this three-pronged approach has been
extremely attractive to the customers, contractors, and subcontractors
of the U.S. launch licensee and to the contractors and subcontractors
of its customers, as they are all participants in and beneficiaries of
CSLA. As such, it has enabled the U.S. launch services industry to
compete effectively with its foreign counterparts who offer similar
coverage.

[[Page S3915]]

This ability to compete effectively will be threatened on December
31, 1999. At that time, the most important element of the CSLA
insurance section, the U.S. Government payment of claims provision, is
scheduled to sunset. Without this provision, the advances in market
share that this burgeoning U.S. industry has made--an industry that is
critical to U.S. national security, foreign policy and economic
interests--will be lost.
The indemnification has been extended previously for a period of 5
years. This bill extends the authorization for this indemnification for
an additional 10 years. With this length of extension, companies will
be able to finalize strategic plans in a more stable environment.
Therefore, I, along with my cosponsors, urge the Members of this body
to support this bill and to provide the needed legislation which will
allow this key industry continuous operation in a safe and responsible
manner.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Sessions):
S. 834. A bill to withhold voluntary proportional assistance for
programs and projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency
relating to the development and completion of the Bushehr nuclear power
plant in Iran, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

the iran nuclear nonproliferation act of 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I address an issue that is of
vital importance to the national security of our country and the
stability of the Middle East. While Iran's development of nuclear
technologies has been a growing concern for the last few years, recent
developments demand a response to this serious situation.
Last November, Iran signed an accord with Russia to speed up
completion of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, calling for an expansion
of the current design and construction of the $800 million, 1,000
megawatt light-water reactor in southern Iran. Despite serious United
States objections and concerns about the project, Russia maintains its
longstanding support for the project and the development of Iran's
nuclear program. Though Russian and Iranian governments insist that the
reactor will be used for civilian energy purposes, the United States
national security community believes that the project is too easy a
cover for Iran to obtain vital Russian nuclear weapons technology.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu condemned the Iranian-Russian
nuclear cooperation accord as a threat to the entire region, stating:

The building of a nuclear reactor in Iran only makes it
likelier that Iran will equip its ballistic missiles with
nuclear warheads. . . . Such a development threatens peace,
the whole region and in the end, the Russians themselves.

On January 13 of this year, the administration underscored the
gravity of this situation and imposed economic sanctions against three
Russian institutes for supplying Iran with nuclear technology. But, I
believe more needs to be done.
While the Khatami government in Iran has made some reform efforts
since it was elected in 1997, Iran continues to oppose the Middle East
peace process, has broadened its efforts to increase its weapons of
mass destruction, and remains subject to the influences of its hard-
line defense establishment. As reports of Iran's human rights
violations continue, State Department reports on international
terrorism indicate Iran's continued assistance to terrorist forces such
as Hamas, Hizballah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This clear and
consistent record of behavior seriously calls to question Iran's active
pursuit to enhance its nuclear facilities.
Though Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction have
been a growing global concern for several years, international fears
were confirmed when in July of last year, Iran demonstrated the
strength of its offensive muscle by test-firing its latest Shahab-3
missle. Capable of propelling a 2,200-pound warhead for a range of 800
miles, this missile now allows Iran to pose a significant threat to our
allies in the Middle East.
The potential results of Iran's successful development of effective
nuclear technologies hold horrific implications for the stability of
the Middle East. As an original cosponsor of the Iran Missile
Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, and signatory of two letters in
the 105th Congress to the administration to raise this issue with the
Russian leadership, I believe the Senate must continue the effort in
light of this growing threat.
Today I am joined by Senator Sessions in introducing the Iran Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Act of 1999 as a means to hinder the
development of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The House version of
this legislation is also being introduced today by Congressman Menendez
of New Jersey. This bill requires the withholding of proportional
voluntary United States assistance to the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) for programs and projects supported by the Agency in
Iran. This legislation specifically aims to limit the Agency's
assistance of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.
Last October, this legislation was passed in the House by a recorded
vote of 405 to 13, but was not considered by the Senate before the
adjournment of the 105th Congress. In the interest of United States
national security and for that of our allies, it is vital we ensure
that United States funds are not promoting the development of Iran's
nuclear capabilities.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record
following my remarks and I urge my colleagues to support passage of
this bill.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 834

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 ``Iran Nuclear Proliferation
Prevention Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Iran remains the world's leading sponsor of
international terrorism and is on the Department of State's
list of countries that provide support for acts of
international terrorism.
(2) Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of
Israel and Iran supports organizations, such as Hizballah,
Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad, which are responsible
for terrorist attacks against Israel.
(3) Iranian officials have stated their intent to complete
at least three nuclear power plants by 2015 and are currently
working to complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant located
on the Persian Gulf coast.
(4) The United States has publicly opposed the completion
of reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant because the
transfer of civilian nuclear technology and training could
help to advance Iran's nuclear weapons program.
(5) In an April 1997 hearing before the Subcommittee on
Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, the former Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey, stated that
through the operation of the nuclear power reactor at the
Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran will develop substantial
expertise relevant to the development of nuclear weapons.
(6) Construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant was
halted following the 1979 revolution in Iran because the
former West Germany refused to assist in the completion of
the plant due to concerns that completion of the plant could
provide Iran with expertise and technology which could
advance Iran's nuclear weapons program.
(7) In January 1995, Iran signed a $780,000,000 contract
with the Russian Federation for Atomic Energy (MINATOM) to
complete a VVER-1000 pressurized-light water reactor at the
Bushehr nuclear power plant and in November 1998, Iran and
Russia signed a protocol to expedite the construction of the
nuclear reactor, setting a new timeframe of 52 months for its
completion.
(8) In November 1998, Iran asked Russia to prepare a
feasibility study to build 3 more nuclear reactors at the
Bushehr site.
(9) Iran is building up its offensive military capacity in
other areas as evidenced by its recent testing of engines for
ballistic missiles capable of carrying 2,200 pound warheads
more than 800 miles, within range of strategic targets in
Israel.
(10) Iran ranks tenth among the 105 nations receiving
assistance from the technical cooperation program of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
(11) Between 1995 and 1999, the International Atomic Energy
Agency has provided and is expected to provide a total of
$1,550,000 through its Technical Assistance and Cooperation
Fund for the Iranian nuclear power program, including
reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
(12) In 1999 the International Atomic Energy Agency
initiated a program to assist Iran in the area of uranium
exploration. At the same time it is believed that Iran is
seeking to acquire the requisite technology to enrich uranium
to weapons-grade levels.

[[Page S3916]]

(13) The United States provides annual contributions to the
International Atomic Energy Agency which total more than 25
percent of the annual assessed budget of the Agency, and the
United States also provides annual voluntary contributions to
the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund of the Agency
which total approximately 32 percent ($18,250,000 in 1999) of
the annual budget of the program.
(14) The United States should not voluntarily provide
funding for the completion of nuclear power reactors which
could provide Iran with substantial expertise to advance its
nuclear weapons program and potentially pose a threat to the
United States or its allies.
(15) Iran has no need for nuclear energy because of its
immense oil and natural gas reserves which are equivalent to
9.3 percent of the world's reserves, and Iran has
73,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas, an amount second
only to the natural gas reserves of Russia.

SEC. 3. WITHHOLDING OF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY FOR PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS IN IRAN.

Section 307 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the limitations of
subsection (a) shall apply to programs and projects of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Iran, unless the
Secretary of State determines, and reports in writing to the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, that such programs and projects are consistent with
United States nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals, will
not provide Iran with training or expertise relevant to the
development of nuclear weapons, and are not being used as a
cover for the acquisition of sensitive nuclear technology. A
determination made by the Secretary of State under the
preceding sentence shall be effective for the 1-year period
beginning on the date of the determination.''.

SEC. 4. ANNUAL REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY
AGENCY; UNITED STATES OPPOSITION TO PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS OF THE AGENCY IN IRAN.

(a) Annual Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall undertake a
comprehensive annual review of all programs and projects of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in the countries
described in section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) to determine if such programs and
projects are consistent with United States nuclear
nonproliferation and safety goals.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter for 5
years, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report containing the results of the review under paragraph
(1).
(b) Opposition to Certain Programs and Projects of
International Atomic Energy Agency.--The Secretary of State
shall direct the United States representative to the
International Atomic Energy Agency to oppose programs of the
Agency that are determined by the Secretary pursuant to the
review conducted under subsection (a)(1) to be inconsistent
with nuclear nonproliferation and safety goals of the United
States.

SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter for 5
years, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
United States representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, shall prepare and submit to Congress a report
that--
(1) describes the total amount of annual assistance to Iran
provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a list of
Iranian officials in leadership positions at the Agency, the
expected timeframe for the completion of the nuclear power
reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, and a summary of
the nuclear materials and technology transferred to Iran from
the Agency in the preceding year which could assist in the
development of Iran's nuclear weapons program; and
(2) contains a description of all programs and projects of
the International Atomic Energy Agency in each country
described in section 307(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2227(a)) and any inconsistencies between the
technical cooperation and assistance programs and projects of
the Agency and United States nuclear nonproliferation and
safety goals in these countries.
(b) Additional Requirement.--The report required to be
submitted under subsection (a) shall be submitted in an
unclassified form, to the extent appropriate, but may include
a classified annex.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the United States should
pursue internal reforms at the International Atomic Energy
Agency that will ensure that all programs and projects funded
under the Technical Cooperation and Assistance Fund of the
Agency are compatible with United States nuclear
nonproliferation policy and international nuclear
nonproliferation norms.
______

By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kerry,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Moynihan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Robb, Mr. Sarbanes, and
Mr. Warner):
S. 835. A bill to encourage the restoration of estuary habitat
through more efficient project financing and enhanced coordination of
Federal and non-Federal restoration programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

estuary habitat restoration partnership act of 1999

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
protect our nation's estuaries--the Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act of 1999. I am pleased to introduce this bill with
Senator Breaux and so many other distinguished members of the Senate. I
am particularly pleased that there is strong bipartisan support among
the 16 cosponsors of this bill. Such support underscores the importance
of estuaries to our economy and to our environment.
To understand the importance of this bill, we must first understand
exactly what estuaries are and why they are so significant. Estuaries
are the bays, lagoons, and inlets created when rivers and oceans meet,
mixing fresh and salt water, creating one of our most economically and
environmentally valuable natural resources. They support diverse
habitats--from shellfish beds to beaches to sea grass meadows.
Estuaries are a crucial component of unique and fragile ecosystems that
support marine mammals, birds, and wildlife.
There are many commercial and recreational uses that depend upon
estuaries, making them integral to our economy as well. Coastal waters
generate $54 billion in goods and services annually. The fish and
shellfish industries alone contribute $83 million per year to the
nation's economy. Estuaries are vital to more than 75 percent of marine
fisheries in the United States, making those regions important centers
for commercial and sport fishing, while supporting business and
creating jobs.
The great natural beauty of estuaries coupled with the sporting,
fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities they provide make
coastal regions important areas for tourism. People come to hike, swim,
boat, and enjoy nature in the 44,000 square miles of outdoor public
recreation areas along our coasts. In fact, 180 million Americans visit
our nation's coasts each year. That is almost 70 percent of the entire
U.S. population. The large number of visitors has a strong economic
impact. Coastal recreation and tourism generate $8 to $12 billion
annually.
Estuaries are home to countless species unique to these ecosystems,
including many that are threatened or endangered. From birds such as
the bald eagle, to shellfish such as the American Oyster, to vegetation
such as eelgrass--an amazing variety of wildlife relies upon those
areas.
It's not only plants and animals that make their homes near
estuaries. People are moving to these areas at a rapid rate. While
coastal counties account for 11 percent of the land area of the
continental U.S., at least half of all Americans call coastal and
estuarine regions home. Coastal counties are growing at three times the
rate of non-coastal counties. It is estimated that 100 million people
live in such areas now, and by 2010 that number is expected to jump to
127 million.

Unfortunately, because so many of us enjoy living, working, and
playing near estuaries, we have stressed the once-abundant resources of
many of these water bodies. Population growth has been difficult to
manage in a manner that protects estuaries. Housing developments,
roads, and shopping centers have moved into areas crucial to the
preservation of estuaries. They have also placed a more concentrated
burden on estuaries from pollution caused by infrastructure required by
greater number of people: more sewers, cars, and paved roads, among
other things.
The result of this population growth is painfully evident. Estuary
habitats across the nation are vanishing. Almost three-quarters of the
original salt marshes in the Puget Sound have been destroyed. Ninety-
five percent of the original wetlands in the San Francisco

[[Page S3917]]

Bay are gone. Louisiana estuaries are losing 25,000 areas of coastal
marshes each year. That's an area about the size of Washington, D.C.
Those habitats that remain are beleaguered by problems and signs of
distress can be seen in virtually every estuary. The 1996 National
Water Quality inventory reported that nearly 40 percent of the nation's
surveyed estuarine waters are too polluted for basic uses, such as
fishing and swimming. Falling finfish and shellfish stocks due to over-
harvesting and pollution from nutrients and chemicals, proliferation of
toxic algal blooms, and a reduction in important aquatic vegetation has
signaled a decline in the condition of many estuaries.
Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen carried from city treatment
works and agricultural land flow down our rivers and into our
estuaries, leading to over-enrichment of these waters. As a result,
algal blooms flourish. These blooms rob the water of the dissolved
oxygen and light that is crucial to the survival of grass beds that
support shellfish and birds.
Nutrients have also contributed to the disappearance of eelgrass beds
in Narragansett Bay on Rhode Island. While once eelgrass beds covered
thousands of acres of the Bay floor, today that figure has fallen to
only 100 acres or so. Sadly, the disappearance of eelgrass is not the
only problem facing the Bay. Its valuable fish runs are disappearing.
Salt marshes are also in decline. Fifty percent of the salt marsh
acreage that once existed has been filled, and 70 percent is cut off
from full tidal flow.
Nowhere has the problem of nutrient over-enrichment been demonstrated
more dramatically of late than in the nation's largest estuary: the
Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient pollution in the Bay has contributed to the
toxic outbreak of the algae pfiesteria, or ``fish killer'', which has
been responsible for massive fish kills in the Bay's waterways. While
scientists believe pfiesteria has existed for thousands of years, only
recently have we witnessed an alarming escalation in the appearance of
the algae in its toxic, predatory form.

Unfortunately, the effects of pfiesteria have not been confined to
the Chesapeake Bay region. Pfiesteria has also been identified in
waters off the coast of North Carolina, indicative of a longer trend of
harmful algal blooms in the U.S. and around the world. This trend
correlates to an increase in nutrients in our waterways. Perhaps more
distressing than the environmental threat posed by pfiesteria is the
fact that pfiesteria has also been linked to negative health effects in
humans.
Estuaries are also endangered by pathogens. Microbes from sewage
treatment works and other sources have contaminated waters, making
shellfish unfit for human consumption. In Peconsic Bay on Long Island,
for instance, more than 4,700 acres of bay bottom is closed either
seasonally or year-round due to pathogens.
Toxic chemicals such as PCBs, heavy metals, and pesticides degrade
the environment of estuaries as well. Runoff from lawns, streets, and
farms, sewage treatment plants, atmospheric deposition, and industrial
discharges expose finfish and shellfish to the chemicals. The chemicals
are persistent and tend to bioaccumulate, concentrating in the tissues
of the fish. The fish may then pose a risk to human health if consumed.
In Massachusetts Bays, for instance, diseased lobster and flounder
have been discovered in certain areas, prompting consumption
advisories. Unfortunately, this problem is not an isolated one. In many
of our nation's urban harbors polluted runoff creates ``hot spots'' of
toxic contamination so severe that nothing can survive.
Estuaries are also threatened by newly introduced species.
Overpopulation of new species can eradicate native populations.
Eradication of even one native species has the potential to alter the
food web, increase erosion, and interfere with navigation, agriculture,
and fishing. In Tampa Bay, for example, native plant species have been
replaced by newly introduced species, altering the Bay's ecological
balance.
All of these changes to the condition of our estuaries threaten not
only our environment, but the economies and jobs that rely upon
estuaries. Indeed, the stresses we have placed on estuaries in the past
may jeopardize our future enjoyment of the benefits they provide,
unless we continue to strengthen the commitments we have made to
protecting this resource. Thankfully, the fate of the nation's
estuaries is far from decided. We are beginning to see signs that
efforts made by many to restore and protect our estuaries are having a
positive effect and turning the tide against degradation.

Nutrient levels in the Chesapeake Bay are declining due in part to
programs designed to better manage fertilizer applications to farmland
and lawns and to reduce point source discharges. People in New York
have targeted sewer overflows, non-point runoff, and sewage treatment
plants by implementing techniques to prevent stormwater pollution and
mitigate runoff. By doing so, they hope to reduce the threat of
pathogen contamination in Long Island Sound.
In Rhode Island, a non-profit group, Save the Bay, has partnered with
school kids to do something about the loss of eelgrass beds in
Narragansett Bay. The children are growing eelgrass in their schools
and it is then planted in the Bay by Save the Bay. In this way, they
hope to encourage growth of the beds that provide a home for shellfish
and a food source for countless other Bay creatures.
In Florida, a partnership of volunteers, students, businesses, and
federal, state, and local governments prepared sites and planted native
vegetation on six acres of newly-constructed wetlands in a park
adjacent to Tampa Bay. The students received job training, education,
and summer employment, and the Bay received a helping hand fighting the
invasive species that threaten those native to it.
The ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act'' will further
these efforts to preserve and restore estuaries. The Act is designed to
make the best use of scarce resources by channeling them directly to
those citizens and organizations that best know how to restore
estuaries. It will help groups like those in Rhode Island and Tampa Bay
continue their work while encouraging others to join them in projects
of their own.
The ultimate goal is to restore 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by
2010. To achieve this goal, the bill establishes a streamlined council
consisting of representatives from citizen organizations and state and
federal governments. This ``Collaborative Council'' will serve two
functions. The first function is to develop a comprehensive national
estuary habitat restoration strategy. The strategy will be the basis
for the second function of the Council: efficient coordination of
federal and non-federal estuary restoration activities by providing a
means for prioritizing and selecting habitat restoration projects.
In developing the strategy, the Council will review existing federal
estuary restoration plans and programs, create a set of proposals for
making the most of incentives to increase private-sector participation
in estuary restoration, and make certain that the strategy is developed
and implemented consistent with existing federal estuary management and
restoration programs.
The Council's second function is to select habitat restoration
projects presented to the Council by citizen organizations and other
non-federal entities, based on the priorities outlined under the
strategy. Those projects that have a high degree of support from non-
federal sources for development, maintenance, and funding, fall within
the restoration strategy developed by the Council, and are the most
feasible will have the greatest degree of success in receiving funding.

A project must receive at least 35 percent of its funding from non-
federal sources in order to be approved. Priority will be given to
those projects where more than 50 percent of its support comes from
non-federal sources. Priority status also requires that the project is
part of an existing federal estuary plan and that it is located in a
watershed that has a program in place to prevent water pollution that
might re-impair the estuary if it were restored.
To achieve its 1,000,000 acre goal, the Act does not establish
mandates or create a new bureaucracy. Instead, the Act encourages
partnerships between

[[Page S3918]]

government and those that are most concerned and best able to
effectively preserve estuaries--citizens. It will make the most of
federal dollars by providing those citizens and organizations that are
most affected by the health of our estuaries the opportunity and the
incentive to continue their efforts to improve them through projects
that they develop, implement, and monitor themselves.
This approach has several advantages. All estuaries are not the same,
nor are the problems that face each estuary the same. Therefore, the
Act allows citizens to tailor a project targeted to meet the specific
challenges posed by the particular estuary in their region. In this
way, we are doing the most to help protect estuaries while wasting none
of our scarce federal funds. The Act also ensures the continued prudent
use of funds through information-gathering, monitoring, and reporting
on the projects.
Estuaries contribute to our economy and to our environment, and for
these reasons alone they should be protected. But, they also contribute
to the fabric of many of the communities that surround them. They
define much of a region's history and cultures as well as the way
people live and work there today.
For all of these reasons, then, we must make efficient use of the
resources we have in order to assist those people that are protecting
and restoring our estuaries. The Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act is the best, most direct way to do just that.
Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title
This section cites provides that the Act may be cited as
``The Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1999''.
Section 2. Findings
This section establishes Congress' findings. Congress finds
that estuaries provide some of the most ecologically and
economically productive habitat for an extensive variety of
plants, fish, wildlife, and waterfowl. It also finds that
estuaries and coastal regions of the United States are home
to one-half the population of the United States and provide
essential habitat for 75 percent of the Nation's commercial
fish catch and 80 to 90 percent of its recreational fish
catch.
It further finds that estuaries are gravely threatened by
habitat alteration and loss from pollution, development, and
overuse. Congress finds that successful restoration of
estuaries demands the coordination of Federal, State, and
local estuary habitat restoration programs and that the
Federal, State, local, and private cooperation in estuary
habitat restoration activities in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act should be strengthened. Also, new
public and public-private estuary habitat restoration
partnerships should be established.
Section 3. Purposes
The bill establishes a program to restore one million acres
of estuary habitat by the year 2010. the bill requires the
coordination of existing Federal, State and local plans,
programs, and studies. It authorizes partnerships among
public agencies at all levels of government and between the
public and private sectors. The bill authorizes estuary
habitat restoration activities, and it requires monitoring
and research capabilities to assure that restoration efforts
are based on sound scientific understanding.
This measure will give a real incentive to existing State
and local efforts to restore and protect estuary habitat.
Although there are numerous estuary restoration programs
already in existence, non-Federal entities have had trouble
sifting through the often small, overlapping and fragmented
habitat restoration programs. The bill will coordinate these
programs and restoration plans, combine State, local and
Federal resources and supplement needed additional funding to
restore estuaries.
Section 4. Definitions
This section defines terms used throughout the Act. Among
the most important definitions are:
``Estuary'' is defined as a body of water and its
associated physical, biological, and chemical elements, in
which fresh water from a river or stream meets and mixes with
salt water from the ocean.
``Estuary Habitat'' is defined as the complex of physical
and hydrologic features within estuaries and their associated
ecosystems, including salt and fresh water coastal
marshes, coastal forested wetlands and other coastal
wetlands, tidal flats, natural shoreline areas, sea grass
meadows, kelp beds, river deltas, and river and stream
banks under tidal influence.
``Estuary Habitat Restoration Activity'' is defined as an
activity that results in improving an estuary's habitat,
including both physical and functional restoration, with a
goal toward a self-sustaining ecologically-based system that
is integrated with its surrounding landscape. Examples of
restoration activities include: the control of non-native and
invasive species; the reestablishment of physical features
and biological and hydrologic functions; the cleanup of
contamination; and the reintroduction of native species,
through planting or natural succession.
Section 5. Establishment of the Collaborative Council
This section establishes an interagency Collaborative
Council composed of the Secretary of the Army, the Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife
Service. The two principal functions of the Council are: (1)
to develop a national strategy to restore estuary habitat;
and (2) to select habitat restoration projects that will
receive the funds provided in the bill.
The Army Corps of Engineers is to chair the Council. The
Corps is to work cooperatively with the other members of the
Council.
Section 6. Duties of the Collaborative Council
This section establishes a process to coordinate existing
Federal, State and local resources and activities directed
toward estuary habitat restoration. It also sets forth the
process by which projects are to be selected by the Council
for funding under this Title.
Habitat Restoration Strategy.--This section requires the
Council to draft a strategy that will serve as a national
framework for restoring estuaries. The strategy should
coordinate Federal, State, and local estuary plans programs
and studies.
In developing the strategy, the Council should consult with
State, local and tribal governments and other non-Federal
entities, including representatives from coastal States
representing the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico;
local governments from coastal communities; and nonprofit
organizations that are actively participating in carrying out
estuary habitat restoration projects.
Selection of Projects.--This section also requires the
Council to establish application criteria for restoration
projects. The Council is required to consider a number of
factors in developing criteria. In addition to the factors
mentioned in the legislation, the Council is to consider both
the quantity and quality of habitat restored in relation to
the overall cost of a project. The consideration of these
factors will provide the information required to evaluate
performance, at both the project and program levels, and
facilitate the production of biennial reports in the
strategy.
Subsection (b) of section 105 requires the project
applicant to obtain the approval of State or local agencies,
where such approval is appropriate. In States such as Oregon,
where coastal beaches and estuaries are publicly owned and
managed, proposals for estuary habitat restoration projects
require the approval of the State before being submitted to
the Council.
Priority Projects.--Among the projects that meet the
criteria listed above, the Council shall give priority for
funding to those projects that meet any of the factors
cited in subsection(b)(4) of this section.
One of the priority factors is that the project be part of
an approved estuary management or restoration plan. It is
envisioned that funding provided through this legislation
would assist all local communities in meeting the goals and
objectives of estuary restoration, with priority given to
those areas that have approved estuary management plans. For
example, the Sarasota Bay area in Florida is presently
implementing its Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP), which focuses on restoring lost habitat. This is
being accomplished by: reducing nitrogen pollution to
increase sea grass coverage; constructing salt water
wetlands; and building artificial reefs for juvenile fish
habitat. Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island also is in the
process of implementing its CCMP. Current efforts to improve
the Bay's water quality and restore its habitat address the
uniqueness of the Narraganset Bay watershed.
Section 7. Cost sharing of estuary habitat restoration
projects
This section strengthens local and private sector
participation in estuary restoration efforts by building
public-private restoration partnerships. This section
establishes a Federal cost-share requirement of no more than
65 percent of the cost of a project. The non-Federal share is
required to be at least 35 percent of the cost of a project.
Lands, easements, services, or other in-kind contributions
may be used to meet non-Federal match requirement.
Section 8. Monitoring and maintenance
This section assures that available information will be
used to improve the methods for assuring successful long-term
habitat restoration. The Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere (NOAA) shall maintain a database of restoration
projects carried out under this Act, including information on
project techniques, project completion, monitoring data, and
other relevant information.
The Council shall publish a biennial report to Congress
that includes program activities, including the number of
acres restored; the percent of restored habitat monitored
under a plan; and an estimate of the long-term success of
different restoration techniques used in habitat restoration
projects.

[[Page S3919]]

Section 9. Cooperative agreements and memoranda of
understanding
This section authorizes the Council to enter into
cooperative agreements and execute memoranda of understanding
with Federal and State agencies, private institutions, and
tribal entities, as is necessary to carry out the
requirements of the bill.
Section 10. Distribution of appropriations for estuary
habitat restoration activities
This section authorizes the Secretary to disburse funds to
the other agencies responsible for carrying out the
requirements of this Act. The Council members are to work
together to develop an appropriate mechanism for the
disbursement of funds between Council members. For instance,
section 107 of the bill requires the Under Secretary to
maintain a data base of restoration projects carried out
under this legislation. NOAA shall utilize funds disbursed
from the Secretary to maintain the data base.
Section 11. Authorization of appropriations
The total of $315,000,000 for fiscal years 2000 through
2004 is authorized to carry out estuary habitat restoration
projects under this section. The $315,000,000 would be
distributed as follows: $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $75,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Section 12. National estuary program
This section amends section 430(g)(2) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide explicit authority for the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue
grants not only for assisting activities necessary for the
development of comprehensive conservation and management
plans (CCMPs) but also for the implementation of CCMPs.
Implementation for purposes of this section includes managing
and overseeing the implementation of CCMPs consistent with
section 320(b)(6) of the Act, which provides that management
conferences, among other things, are to `monitor the
effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the [CCMP].'
Examples of implementation activities include: enhanced
monitoring activities; habitat mapping; habitat acquisition;
best management practices to reduce urban and rural polluted
runoff; and the organization of workshops for local elected
officials and professional water quality managers about
habitat and water quality issues.
The National Estuary Program is an important partnership
among Federal, State, and local governments to protect
estuaries of national significance threatened by pollution. A
major goal of the program has been to prepare CCMPs for the
28 nationally designated estuaries. To facilitate preparation
of the plans, the Federal Government has provided grant
funds, while State and local governments have developed the
plans. The partnership has been a success in that 18 of 28
nationally designated estuaries have completed plans.
In order to continue and strengthen this partnership, grant
funds should be eligible for use in the implementation of the
completed plans as well as for their development.
Appropriations for grants for CCMPs are authorized at
$2,5000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001. This
increase reflects the growth in the National Estuary Program
since the program was last authorized in 1987. In 1991 when
the authorization expired, 17 local estuary programs existed;
now there are 28 programs. The cost of implementing the 28
estuary programs will require significant resources. However,
State and local governments should take primary
responsibility for implementing CCMPs.
Section 13. General provisions
This section provides the Secretary of the Army with the
authority to carry out responsibilities under this Act, and
it clarifies that habitat restoration is one of the Corps'
mission.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to join with my
friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee, Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, to introduce legislation to
restore America's estuaries. Our bill is entitled the ``Estuary Habitat
Restoration Partnership Act of 1999.''
In the 105th Congress, on October 14, 1998, the Senate passed by
unanimous consent S. 1222, the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration
Partnership Act of 1998.'' I joined with Senator Chafee and 15 other
Senators to introduce the bill on September 25, 1997. On July 9, 1998,
I testified on its behalf during hearings held by Senator Chafee and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
I am pleased that the Senate gave its unanimous approval to the
bill's passage in the last Congress and look forward to such consent in
the 106th Congress.
Estuaries are a national resource and treasure. As a nation,
therefore, we should work together at all levels and in all sectors to
help restore them.
Other Senators have joined with Senator Chafee and me as original
cosponsors of the bill. Together, we want to draw attention to the
significant value of the nation's estuaries and the need to restore
them.
It is also my distinct pleasure today to say with pride that
Louisianians have been in the forefront of this movement to recognize
the importance of estuaries and to propose legislation to restore them.
The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, an organization which is
well-known for its proactive work on behalf of the Louisiana coast, has
been from the inception an integral part of the national coalition,
Restore America's Estuaries, which has proposed and supports the
restoration legislation.
The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana and Restore America's
Estuaries are to be commended for their leadership and initiative in
bringing this issue to the nation's attention.
In essence, the bill introduced today proposes a single goal and has
one emphasis and focus. It seeks to create a voluntary, community-
driven, incentive-based program which builds partnerships between the
federal government, state and local governments and the private sector
to restore estuaries, including sharing in the cost of restoration
projects.
In Louisiana, we have very valuable estuaries, including the
Ponchartrain, Barataria-Terrebonne, and Vermilion Bay systems.
Louisiana's estuaries are vital because they have helped and will
continue to help sustain local communities, their cultures and their
economies.
I encourage Senators from coastal and non-coastal states alike to
evaluate the bill and to join in its support with Senator Chafee, me
and the other Senators who are original bill cosponsors.
I look forward to working with Senator Chafee and other Senators on
behalf of the bill and with the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana
and Restore American's Estuaries.
By working together at all levels of government and in the private
and public sectors, we can help to restore estuaries. We can, together,
help to educate the public about the important roles which estuaries
play in our daily lives through their many contributions to public
safety and well-being, to the environment and to recreation and
commerce.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Robb):
S. 836. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to require that group health plans and health insurance issuers
provide women with adequate access to providers of obstetric and
gynecological services; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.

access to women's health care act of 1999

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss an
issue of great importance, and an issue on which I believe we can all
agree. Regardless of health insurance type, payer, or scope, it is
critical that women have direct access to caregivers who are trained to
address their unique health needs. To help us ensure that all women
have direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care
within their health plans, I am joined by Senator Bob Graham in
introducing the ``Access to Women's Health Care Act of 1999.'' This
legislation will allow women direct access to providers of obstetric
and gynecological care, without requiring them to secure a time-
consuming and cumbersome referral from a separate primary care
physician. Senator Graham and I are also pleased to have Senators
Cochran and Robb as original cosponsors of this vital legislation. I
would like to extend thanks to the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, whose members have worked diligently with Senator
Graham and myself in crafting this bill.
While many managed care plans provide some form of direct access to
women's health specialists, some plans limit this access. Other plans
deny direct access altogether, and require a referral from a primary
care physician. Under the ``Access to Women's Health Care Act of
1999,'' women would be permitted to see a provider of obstetric and
gynecological care without prior authorization. This approach is
prudent and effective because it ensures that women have access to the
benefits they pay for, without mandating a structural change in the
plan's particular ``gatekeeper'' system.

[[Page S3920]]

It is important to note that 37 states have enacted laws promoting
women's access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care.
However, women in other states or in ERISA-regulated health plans are
not protected from access restrictions or limitations. For many women,
direct access to providers of obstetric and gynecological care is
crucial because they are often the only providers that women see
regularly during their reproductive years. These providers are often a
woman's only point of entry into the health care system, and are
caregivers who maintain a woman's medical record for much of her
lifetime.
I believe it is clear that access to women's health care cuts across
the intricacies of the complicated and often divisive managed care
debate. During the past few years, Congress has debated many proposals
which attempt to address growing problems in managed health care
insurance. These proposals have been diverse, not only in their
approach to the problems, but in the scope of the problems they seek to
address. Most recently, during the 105th Congress, the House of
Representatives passed a managed care reform proposal which, among many
other reforms, included provisions requiring health plans to allow
women direct access to obstetrician/gynecologists which participate in
the plan. I would also note that this direct access provision has been
included, in varying forms, in all of the major managed care reform
proposals introduced in the Senate this year, including the bipartisan
managed care reform bill, the ``Promoting Responsible Managed Care Act
of 1999'' (S. 374), which I cosponsored. It is for these reasons that I
offer this legislation today.
Only through bipartisanship and consensus-building can we come to an
agreement on the difficult issue of addressing managed care reform. I
believe that cutting through the cumbersome gatekeeper system to ensure
women have access to the care they need is a good place to start, and I
urge swift adoption of this legislation.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Specter,
Cochran and Robb, to introduce the Access to Women's Health Care Act of
1999. This important legislation would provide women with direct access
to providers of obstetric and gynecological services. It is critical
that women have direct access to health care providers who are trained
to address their unique health care needs.
Women's health has historically received little attention and it is
time that we correct that. An obstetrician/gynecologist provides health
care that encompasses the woman as a whole patient, while focusing on
their reproductive systems. Access to obstetrician/gynecologists would
improve the health of women by providing routine and preventive health
care throughout the woman's lifetime. In fact, 60 percent of all visits
to obstetrician/gynecologists are for preventive care.
According to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, preventive care is
better when women have access to obstetrician/gynecologists. The
specialty of obstetrics/gynecology is devoted to the health care of
women. Primary and preventive care are integral services provided by
obstetrician/gynecologists. Complete physical exams, family planning,
hypertension and cardiovascular surveillance, osteoporosis and smoking
cessation counseling, are all among the services provided by
obstetrician/gynecologists. For many women, an obstetrician/
gynecologist is often the only physician they see regularly during
their reproductive years.
Congress, so far, has been more reluctant to ensure direct access to
women's health care providers than states. Thirty-seven states have
stepped up to the plate and required at least some direct access for
women's health care. We should commend these states for their efforts
and work together so that women across the nation are afforded this
important right.
I hope that with the help of my colleagues in Congress we will be
able to improve women's health, by increasing their access to providers
of obstetric/gynecological care. This provision has been included in
varying forms in many of the managed care reform proposals this
Congress.
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lieberman, and
Mr. McCain):
S. 837. A bill to enable drivers to choose a more affordable form of
auto insurance that also provides for more adequate and timely
compensation for accident victims, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

auto choice reform act

Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a
progressive, bipartisan bill to allow hard-working Americans to keep
more of what they earn.
Imagine for a moment a tax cut that could save families $193 billion
over the next five years. Better yet, this tax cut would not add a
single penny to the deficit. Sound impossible? Not really. It's called
Auto Choice.
The Auto Choice Reform Act offers the equivalent of a massive across-
the-board tax cut to every American motorist. Based on a study by the
RAND Institute for Civil Justice, the Joint Economic Committee
(``JEC'') in Congress issued a 1998 report estimating that Auto Choice
could save consumers as much as $35 billion a year--at no cost to the
government.
In fact, the 5-year net savings described in the JEC report could
reach $193 billion. Let me say that again, Mr. President: a potential
savings of $193 billion--that is $50 million more than five-year tax
cut savings projected in our budget resolution.
So what does this mean for the average American?
It would mean that the average American driver could keep more of
what he or she earns to the tune of nearly $200 per year, per vehicle.
And, Mr. President, low-income families would be the greatest
beneficiaries of this bill. According to the JEC, the typical low-
income household spends more on auto insurance in two years than the
entire value of their car. Auto choice would change that by allowing
low-income drivers to save 36 percent on their overall automobile
premium. For a low-income household, these savings are the equivalent
of five weeks of groceries or nearly four months of electric bills.
And, Mr. President, let me say again--Auto Choice would not add one
penny to the deficit. It wouldn't cost the government a cent.
I expect that there will be a good deal of discussion over the next
few months about Auto Choice and the effort to repair the broken-down
automobile insurance tort system. But, Mr. President, everything you
will hear about Auto Choice can be summed up in two words: Choice and
Savings.
Consumers want, need, and deserve both.
Very simply, the Auto Choice Reform Act offers consumers the choice
of opting out of the current pain and suffering litigation lottery. The
consumers who make this choice will achieve a substantial savings on
automobile insurance premiums by reducing fraud, pain-and-suffering
litigation and lawyer fees.
Mr. President, before you can truly comprehend the benefits of this
pro-consumer, pro-inner city, pro-tax cut bill, you must understand the
terrible costs of the current tort liability system.
The current trial-lawyer insurance system desperately needs an
overhaul. And nobody knows this better than the American motorist--who
is now paying on average nearly $800 per year per vehicle for
automobile insurance. Between 1987 and 1994, average premiums rose 44
percent--nearly one-and-a-half times the rate of inflation.
Why are consumers forced to pay so much?
Because the auto insurance tort system is fundamentally flawed. It is
clogged and bloated by fraud, wasteful litigation, and abuse.
Fundamental flaw #1: The first flaw of the current system is rampant
fraud and abuse. In 1995, the F.B.I. announced a wave of indictments
stemming from Operation Sudden Impact, the most wide-ranging
investigation of criminal fraud schemes involving staged car accidents
and massive fraud in the health care system. The F.B.I uncovered
criminal enterprises staging bus and car accidents in order to bring
lawsuits and collect money from innocent people, businesses and
governments. In fact, F.B.I. Director Louis Freeh has estimated that
every American household is burdened by an additional $200 in
unnecessary insurance premiums to cover this enormous amount of fraud.
In addition to the pervasive criminal fraud that exists, the
incentives of our

[[Page S3921]]

litigation system encourage injured parties to make excessive medical
claims to drive up their damage claims in lawsuits. The RAND institute
for Civil Justice, in a study released in 1995, concluded that 35 to 42
percent of claimed medical costs in car accident cases are excessive
and unnecessary. Let me repeat that in simple English: well over one-
third of doctor, hospital, physical therapy and other medical costs
claimed in car accident cases are for nonexistent injuries or for
unnecessary treatment.
The value of this wasteful health care? Four billion dollars
annually. I don't need to remind anyone of the ongoing local and
national debate over our health care system. While people have
strongly-held differences over the causes and solutions to that
problem, the RAND data make one thing certain--lawsuits, and the
potential for hitting the jackpot, drive overuse and abuse of the
health care system. Reducing those costs by $4 billion annually,
without depriving one person of needed medial care, is clearly in our
national interest.
Why would an injured party inflate their medical claims, you might
ask. It's simple arithmetic. For every $1 of economic loss, a party
stands to recover up to $3 in pain and suffering awards. In short, the
more you go to the chiropractor, the more you get from the jury. And,
the more you get from the jury, the more money your attorney puts in
his own pocket.
Which leads us to Fundamental Flaw #2--that is, the excessive amounts
of consumer dollars that are wasted on lawsuits and trial lawyers.
Based on data from the Insurance Information Institute and the Joint
Economic Committee, it is estimated that lawyers rake in nearly two
times the amount of money that injured parties receive for actual
economic losses. Surely we would all agree that a system is broken down
when it pays lawyers more than it pays injured parties for actual
economic losses.
Fundamental Flaw #3: Seriously injured people are grossly
undercompensated under the tort system. A 1991 RAND study reveals that
people with economic losses $25,000 and $100,000 recover on average
barely half of their economic losses--and no pain-and-suffering
damages. People with losses in excess of $100,000 recover only 9
percent of their economic losses--and no pain-and-suffering damages.
So, the hard facts demonstrate that seriously-injured victims do not
receive pain-and-suffering damages today--event though they are paying
to play in a system that promises pain-and-suffering damages.
Fundamental Flaw #4: Not only does the current system force you to
typically hire a lawyer just to recover from a car accident, it also
forces you to wait for that payment. One study indicates that the
average time to recover is 16 months, and of course, it takes much
longer in serious injury cases.
Auto Choice gives consumers a way out of this system of high
premiums, rampant fraud, and slow, inequitable compensation. Our bill
would remove the perverse incentives of lawsuits, while ensuring that
accident victims recover fully for their economic loss.
So, what is auto choice? Let me first answer with what it is not. It
does not abolish lawsuits, and it does not eliminate the concept of
fault within the legal system. Undoubtedly, there will be more
equitable compensation of injured parties, and thus less reason to go
to court--but the right to sue will not be abolished.
Auto Choice allows drivers to decide how they want to be insured. In
establishing the choice mechanism, the bill unbundles economic and non-
economic losses and allows the driver to choose whether to be covered
for non-economic losses (that is, pain and suffering losses).
In other words, if a driver wants to have the chance to recover pain
and suffering, he says in the current system. If he wants to opt-out of
the pain and suffering regime and receive lower premiums with prompt,
guaranteed compensation for economic losses, then he chooses the
personal injury protection system.
This choice, which sounds amazingly simple and imminently reasonable,
is, believe it or not, currently unavailable anywhere in our country.
Auto Choice will change that.
Let me briefly explain the choices that our bill will offer every
consumer. A consumer will be able to choose one of two insurance
systems.
The first choice in the Tort Maintenance System. Drivers who wish to
stay in their current system would choose this system and be able to
sue each other for pain and suffering. These drivers would essentially
buy the same type of insurance that they currently carry--and would
recover, or fail to recover, in the same way that they do today. The
only change for these tort drivers would be that, in the event that
they are hit by a personal protection driver, the tort driver would
recover both economic and noneconomic damages from his own insurance
policy. This supplemental first-party policy for tort drivers will be
called tort maintenance coverage.
The second choice is the Personal Injury Protection System. Consumers
choosing this system would be guaranteed prompt recovery of their
economic losses, up to the levels of their own insurance policy.
Personal protection drivers would achieve substantially reduced
premiums because the personal injury protection system would
dramatically reduce: (1) fraud, (2) pain and suffering lawsuits, and
(3) attorney fees. These drivers would give up the chance to sue for
pain and suffering damages in exchange for lower premiums, guaranteed
compensation of economic losses, and relief from pain and suffering
lawsuits.
Under both insurance systems--tort maintenance and personal
protection--the injured party whose economic losses exceed his own
coverage will have the chance to sue the other driver for excess
economic losses. Moreover, tort drivers will retain the chance to sue
each other for both economic and noneconomic loss. Critics who say the
right to sue is abolished by this bill are plain wrong.
The advantages of personal protection coverage are enormous.
First, personal protection coverage assures that those who suffer
injury, regardless of whether someone else is responsible, will be paid
for their economic losses. The driver does not have to leave
compensation up to the vagaries of how an accident occurs and how much
coverage the other driver has. A driver whose car goes off a slippery
road will be able to recover for his economic losses. Such a blameless
driver could not recover under the tort system because no other person
was at fault. No matter when and how a driver or a member of his family
is injured, the driver will have peace of mind knowing that his
insurance will help protect his family.

Second, the choice as to how much insurance protection to purchase is
in the hands of the driver, who is in the best position to know how
much coverage he and his family need. He can choose as much or as
little insurance as his circumstances require, from $20,000 to $1
million of protection.
Third, people who elect the personal protection option will, in the
event they are injured, be paid promptly, as their losses accrue.
Fourth, we will have more rational use of precious health care
resources. Insuring on a first-party basis helps eliminate the
incentives for excess medical claiming. When a person chooses to be
compensated for actual economic loss, the tort system's incentives for
padding one's claims disappear. If there's no pain-and-suffering
lottery, then there's no reason to play the game.
Fifth, Auto Choice offers real benefits for low-income drivers
because the savings are both dramatic and progressive. Low-income
drivers will see the biggest savings because they pay a higher
proportion of their disposal income in insurance costs. A study of low
income residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, revealed that households
below 50 percent of the poverty line spent an amazing 31.6 percent of
disposable income on car insurance.
For many low-income families the choices are stark: car insurance and
the ability to get to the job, or medicine, new clothing and extra food
for the children. Too often these families feel forced to drive without
any insurance. In fact, some areas in our country have uninsured
motorist rates exceeding ninety percent. I would hope that this Senate
would not sit back and allow our litigation system to promote this kind
of lose-lose scenario for consumers.
Moreover, Auto Choice offers benefits to all taxpayers, even those
who don't

[[Page S3922]]

drive. For example, local governments will save taxpayer dollars
through decreased insurance and litigation costs. This will allow
governments to use our tax dollars to more directly benefit the
community. Think of all the additional police and firefighters that
could be hired with money now spent on lawsuits, Or, schools and
playgrounds that could be better equipped. New York City spends more on
liability claims than it spends on libraries, botanical gardens, the
Bronx Zoo, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Department of Youth
Services, combined. Imagine the improved quality of life in our urban
areas if governments were free of spending on needless lawsuits.
The bottom line? We think that consumers should be able to make one
simple choice: ``Do you want to continue to pay nearly $800 per year
per vehicle for auto insurance and have the chance to recover pain and
suffering damages? Or would you rather save roughly $200 per year per
vehicle, be promptly reimbursed for your economic losses, and forego
pain and suffering damages?''
It's really that simple. And, we're not even going to tell them which
answer is the right one. Because that's not up to us. It's up to the
consumer. We simply want to give them the choice.
In closing, I'd like to quote The New York Times, which has summed up
the benefits, and indeed, the simplicity of our bill: ``[Auto Choice]
would give families the option of foregoing suits for nonmonetary
losses in exchange for quick and complete reimbursement for every blow
to their pocketbook. Everyone would win--except the lawyers.''
Mr. President, this bill is bipartisan and bicameral. I am proud
today to again have the support of Senators Moynihan and Lieberman. We
first introduced this bill in the 104th Congress, and I want to take a
minute to say how much I appreciate their ongoing commitment to provide
meaningful relief for consumers across the country, especially low-
income families. And, we have now added another heavy hitter to our
list of original cosponsors, Senator John McCain, the chairman of the
Senate Commerce Committee.
I also want to thank House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Congressman
Jim Moran. They joined our team in the last Congress, and I am pleased
to say that they will again be leading the charge in the House.
Auto Choice has broad support from across the spectrum. It should be
obvious by the support and endorsements that Auto Choice is not
conservative or liberal legislation. It is consumer legislation. To
show this range of support, I ask unanimous consent that the Record
include the statements in support of Auto Choice from the Republican
Mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani; the former Massachusetts
Governor and Democratic presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis; and
award-winning consumer advocate Andrew Tobias. I also ask unanimous
consent that the Record include statements on behalf of Americans for
Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The City of New York,

Office of the Mayor,

New York, NY, April 13, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing to you in support of
Auto-Choice insurance reform, which will dramatically reduce
automobile insurance premiums for American motorists.
Drivers across the country are struggling with the burden
of unjustly high automobile insurance premiums caused by
excessive pain and suffering damages awarded in personal
injury actions. Three out of every four dollars awarded in
these actions are spent on this subjective component of tort
recovery. Also contributing to high premiums are inflated and
fraudulent insurance claims. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation has estimated that more than $200 of an
American family's average annual premiums go to pay for
automobile insurance fraud. Because insurance companies have
to cover these payments, our premiums are significantly
higher than they ought to be.
New York City has proposed State legislation to remedy some
of the ills afflicting our tort recovery system, such as
capping pain and suffering awards. However, your assistance
is needed nationwide to protect ordinary drivers who suffer
from the incentives that invite plaintiff attorneys to sue
without restraint, in the hope of obtaining a large, unearned
contingency fee from a large pain and suffering recovery.
Attorneys receive one third or more of a tort recovery, a sum
that often bears no relationship to the amount of time or
effort invested by the attorney, while drivers often pay
premiums that are not commensurate with the protection
actually afforded. That is grossly unfair.
I support Auto-Choice because it would be a major step
forward in tort reform and would provide billions of dollars
in relief to taxpayers. Auto-Choice gives motorists the
option to choose between two insurance coverage plans. The
personal protection plan permits drivers to insure for
economic loss only. Under this option, injured drivers
recover from their own insurance carrier for economic loss
without regard to fault. No lawsuit would be required unless
an injured driver seeks recovery of economic loss exceeding
his or her own policy's coverage. Under the second plan,
traditional tort liability coverage, motorists insure for
economic and non-economic damages, and recover both from
their own insurance carrier. Under either plan, drivers may
sue uninsured or inebriated drivers for economic and non-
economic damages. The result is a first party recovery
framework that separates pain and suffering damages from tort
recovery. With litigation incentives eliminated, motorists
will pay only for protection actually provided at a price
they can better afford. Injured drivers recover medical
bills, lost wages and other pecuniary loss without the
headache of protracted litigation. For those that think pain
and suffering recovery is an important part of insurance
coverage, that option is available to them in the bill--at
the price they are willing to pay, for the amount of coverage
they wish to have.
Families throughout the country would benefit considerably
from savings on automobile insurance premiums generated by
this bill. According to the Congressional Joint Economic
Committee, within a five year period, Auto-Choice could give
motorists a total of over $190 billion in disposable income
that otherwise would go to insurance companies. The average
annual premium nationwide would be reduced by $184, and in
New York, drivers would see a $385 decrease in the average
annual insurance premium. That means more disposable income
available to spend and more incentive to save. Until now, the
insured have had to endure paying what is, for all intents
and purposes, an ``automobile insurance tax'' to subsidize
non-economic tort awards and inflated insurance claims. With
these new reforms, drivers will realize what is essentially a
huge tax cut, without any countervailing decrease in
government service delivery.
Without the benefits of Auto-Choice, drivers will continue
to pay high premiums. As I have stated previously in
testimony submitted in 1997 to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation concerning the
introduction of Auto-Choice legislation in the Senate:
``Residents, as taxpayers, lose money that could otherwise be
spent on essential services. Residents, as individuals, lose
money otherwise available as disposable income. Residents, as
consumers, lose money because the cost of goods and services
increases as businesses have to pay higher insurance
premiums. Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, residents
lose faith in our judicial system as a result of courts
clogged with tort litigation only to be out-done by hospital
emergency rooms clogged with ambulance-chasing lawyers.''
In short, Auto-Choice would make an important difference in
the lives of New Yorkers and drivers throughout the country.
I look forward to opportunities to work with you in support
of this important reform.
Sincerely,
Rudolph W. Giuliani,
Mayor.
____

Northeastern University,

Department of Political Science,

Boston, MA, April 7, 1999.
I enthusiastically endorse the ``choice'' auto insurance
bill you are jointly sponsoring. Your action is an important
act of bipartisan leadership on an issue that significantly
affects all Americans.
The issue you address has been a great concern of mine
throughout my political career ever since I sponsored the
first no-fault auto insurance bill in the nation.
Given the horrendous high costs of auto insurance, coupled
with its long delays, high overhead, and rank unfairness when
it comes to payment, your ``choice'' reform takes the
sensible approach of allowing consumers to choose how to
insure themselves. In other words, your reform trusts the
American people to decide for themselves whether to spend
their money on ``pain and suffering'' coverage or food,
medicine, life insurance or any other expenditure they deem
more valuable for themselves and their families.
The bill is particularly important to the people who live
in American cities where premiums are the highest. It is no
surprise that the cost studies done by the Joint Economic
Committee indicate that while your reform will make stunning
cost savings available to all American consumers, its largest
benefit will go to low income drivers living in urban areas.
The bill will also help resolve the country's problems with
runaway health costs. By allowing consumers to remove
themselves from a system whose perverse incentives trigger
the cost of health care costs, your reform will lower the
cost of health care for all Americans while ensuring that
health care

[[Page S3923]]

expenditures are more clearly targeted to health care needs.
I look forward to assisting you to the fullest degree as
you exercise your vitally needed leadership on behalf of
America's consumers.
Michael S. Dukakis.
____

Miami, FL,

March 25, 1999.
To Whom It May Concern: As an independent journalist and
private citizen, I have been studying and working for
automobile insurance reform for twenty years. I have written
a book on the subject.
It astounds and saddens me that the system in Michigan--a
state that knows something about automobiles--has not been
adopted anywhere else in America. Michigan's coverage
provides the seriously injured accident victim VASTLY better
insurance protection than anywhere else. Yet it costs less
than average. It has worked well for 25 years, more than
proving itself. It is not perfect, but most consumer
advocates agree it is by far the most humane, efficient, and
least fraud-ridden system in the country.
And yet the coalition of labor unions and consumer groups
that helped pass the Michigan law has failed to duplicate
this success anywhere else. And over time, things in most
states have only gotten worse. More uninsured motorists, more
fraud, higher premiums, and even more shamefully inadequate
compensation to those most seriously injured.
Given that reality, Senators Lieberman and Moynihan, and
Jim Moran in the House, have got it absolutely right in
supporting Auto Choice legislation. It is not perfect either.
But it allows the man or woman who earns $9 an hour, let
alone less, to opt out of a system that forces him or her, in
effect, to shoulder the cost of the $125-an-house insurance
company lawyer who will fight his claim . . . shoulder also,
the enormous cost of padded and fraudulent claims . . . and
then, if he wins, typically fork over 33% or 40% of the
settlement, plus expenses, to his own attorney.
These attorneys are good people. But as virtually every
disinterested observer from Richard Nixon in 1934 to
Consumers Union in 1962 and periodically thereafter has said,
the current lawsuit system of auto insurance makes no sense.
It makes no sense that more auto-injury premium dollars in
many states go to lawyers than to doctors, hospitals,
chiropractors and rehabilitation specialists combined. Yet
that is the case. Give consumers the choice to opt out of
this system. The only difference from 1934 and 1962 and 1973
(when Michigan enacted its good system) is . . . it's gotten
worse.
Sincerely,
Andrew Tobias.
____

Americans For Tax Reform,

Washington, DC, March 29, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Russell Senate
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: Americans for Tax Reform
wholeheartedly endorses the ``Auto Choice Reform Act''
legislation to provide consumer choice in automobile
insurance.
Automobile insurance rates have skyrocketed during the last
ten years. Between 1987 and 1994, premiums rose more than 40
percent--one-and-a-half time the rate of inflation. In 1995,
the average policy cost more than $750. Clearly, these costs
must be reduced, and we believe your legislation will achieve
this goal.
Auto choice provides savings of about 45 percent on average
for personal injury premiums for drivers that choose the PIP
option. Especially, auto choice aids low-income drivers, who
would save about 36 percent on their overall premiums. Not
only does this plan give savings, but it will enable more
low-income workers to get better paying jobs.
Most importantly, your bill gives consumers something they
really want--a chance to choose the kind of auto insurance
that fits their individual needs.
Auto choice is an idea whose time has come. ATR supports
your efforts to make it a reality.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist,
President.
____

Citizens for a Sound Economy,

Washington, DC, April 13, 1999.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of Citizens for a Sound
Economy and its 250,000 members, I wish to convey our strong
support for the Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999.
Most Americans rightly believe that they pay too much for
auto insurance. And year after year, state legislatures and
insurance departments respond with price controls and
underwriting restrictions, which only make matters worse. The
Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999 is based on the realization
that to reduce the cost of auto insurance, two elements of
the accident compensation system must be addressed: Losses
resulting from bodily injury, including damages for ``pain
and suffering''; and the tort-based system for redressing
those losses.
Under the tort-based compensation system that operates in
most states, accident victims may not file bodily injury
claims with their own insurance company. Instead, they must
try to collect from the other driver's insurer--which they
can do only if they succeed in establishing that the other
driver was legally at fault for their injuries. Compensating
accident victims in this way is costly, inefficient, and time
consuming. Trial lawyers, who constitute one of the most
powerful special interests in America, are the primary
beneficiaries of the current system.
Those eligible for compensation under the current tort-
based system are subject to a perverse pattern of recovery.
People with minor injuries are often vastly overcompensated,
while in many cases the seriously injured cannot recover
nearly enough to cover their economic losses.
``Contingency'' fee arrangements, whereby insureds agree to
pay their attorneys a percentage of whatever sum they receive
as compensation for their losses, siphon away about a third
of an injured person's recovery award. Meanwhile, insurance
costs are driven up because of the tort system's promise to
compensate victims for their ``noneconomic damages.'' A
catchall term that generally refers to ``pain and
suffering,'' noneconomic damages are wildly subjective and
impossible to quantify. Usually the successful claimant
simply collects some multiple of his economic losses--
typically three times--as compensation for pain and
suffering.
This system creates a powerful incentive to inflate
economic damages, typically by claiming unverifiable soft-
tissue injuries. In Michigan, where third-party liability for
pain and suffering has been virtually eliminated thanks to
the state's strong no-fault law, auto accident victims suffer
about seven soft-tissue injuries (sprains, strains, pains and
whiplash) for every 10 ``hard'' injuries (such as broken
bones). By contrast, in California, where auto accident
victims are compensated through the tort system, injured
motorists claim about 25 soft-tissue injuries for every 10
verifiable hard injuries. The ratio of soft-tissue injuries
to hard-tissue injuries is similar in other tort states and
states with weak no-fault laws. Obviously, these disparities
raise troubling questions about the legitimacy of many soft-
tissue injury claims--troubling, because ultimately the cost
of inflated medical damages is passed on to all drivers in
the form of higher premiums.
If the Auto Choice Reform Act becomes law, drivers will be
able to choose either pure no-fault coverage, or a package
that would allow them to collect pain and suffering damages
from their own insurer, or from the insurers of other drivers
with similar premium coverage. ``Pain and suffering'' would
thus become an insurable risk, limiting legal liability to
cases involving egregious behavior, or where both parties
have agreed to pay, in the form of higher premiums, for the
privilege of engaging the legal system. Meanwhile, truly
negligent drivers--those who cause accidents intentionally,
or while impaired by drugs or alcohol--would continue to be
liable for their behavior, in addition to being subject to
criminal sanctions.
By curtailing litigation and attorney involvement in the
claim-settlement process, the Auto Choice Reform Act would
have a dramatic impact on auto insurance rates. The RAND
Institute for Civil Justice estimates that drivers choosing
the no-fault option would reduce their premiums by 21 percent
on average.
The Auto Choice Reform Act would yield even greater
benefits to low-income motorists, who are increasingly
dependent upon personal auto transportation at a time when
welfare rolls are being cut and jobs are being transferred
from the central city to the suburbs. Happily, the
Congressional Joint Economic Committee has determined that
low-income drivers could cut their premiums by as much as 48
percent if the Auto Choice Reform Act becomes law.
In sum, by allowing policyholders to opt out of the tort
system, the Auto Choice Insurance Reform Act would rely on
market forces--rather than price controls and hidden cross-
subsidies--to drive down auto insurance premiums.
Serious efforts to reform auto insurance at the state level
have been stymied repeatedly by the trial lawyers' lobby.
Inflated medical bills, attorney fees, court costs, and
exorbitant pain-and-suffering awards continue to impose
tremendous costs on the automobile insurance system--costs
that insurers must pass on to consumers in the form of
escalating premiums. Because they profit handsomely from the
inefficiencies wrought by this system, trial lawyers and
their political allies will doubtless make every effort to
defeat the Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999. Their desire to
maintain the status quo must not be permitted to prevail over
the interests of America's motorists.
Sincerely yours,

Robert R. Detlefsen, Ph.D.,

Director, Insurance
Reform Project.
____

Chamber of Commerce,

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, April 15, 1999.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation,
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region, to commend
you for your continued leadership and sponsorship of the Auto
Choice Reform Act.

[[Page S3924]]

This legislation would provide motorists and businesses
with a very valuable option. They could cut their automobile
insurance premiums by over 20 percent by voluntarily opting
out of coverage for pain and suffering injuries in auto
accidents. Those choosing this option would continue to
receive full compensation for medical bills, lost wages and
other economic losses, and would receive payment quickly--
within 30 days. Those who wish to retain coverage similar to
that presently available could do simply by paying higher
rates.
As the largest business federation, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce supports this legislation and a similar bill in the
House of Representatives because they provide a more
affordable and efficient insurance option for businesses and
motorists. Last year, the Joint Economic Committee (JEC)
estimated that enactment of Auto Choice legislation could
allow consumers to receive an annual auto insurance premium
reduction of over $27 billion. This amounts to an average
annual savings of $184 per car. Of particular importance to
businesses, the JEC also estimated that commercial vehicle
owners could see their auto insurance premiums decline by
over 27 percent for a total business savings of $8 billion
per year. This is equivalent to a huge tax cut for all
Americans.
The U.S. Chamber pledges to continue to support this
important legislation. Through our grassroots network and
media outreach, we will inform the business community and
public about the key benefits of this proposal. We thank and
commend you for your leadership on the Auto Choice Reform Act
and look forward to working with you for its successful
passage.
Sincerely,
B. Bruce Josten.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor
of the Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999, a bill submitted by my
distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell. This legislation is
designed to create a new option in auto insurance for consumers who
would prefer a system that guarantees quick and complete compensation.
This alternative system would change most insurance coverage to a
first-party system from a third-party system and it would separate
economic and noneconomic compensation by unbundling the premium.
Therefore, drivers would be allowed to insure themselves for only
economic loss or for both economic and noneconomic loss.
I simply would remark that this issue has been with us for 30-odd
years and I wish to provide some of the background and a particular
perspective.
The automobile probably has generated more externalities, as
economists and authors Alan K. Campbell and Jesse Burkhead remarked,
than any other device or incident in human history. And one of them is
the issue of insurance, litigation, and compensation in the aftermath
of what are called ``accidents'' but are nothing of the kind and are
the source of so much misunderstanding.
When a certain number of ``accidents'' occur (I think that in 1894,
if memory serves, there were two automobiles in St. Louis, MO, and they
managed to collide--at least, it has been thought thus ever since),
they become statistically predictable collisions--foreseeable events--
in a complex transportation system such as the one we have built.
This began to be a subject of epidemiology in the 1940's, and by the
1950's, we had the hang of it. We knew what we were dealing with and
how to approach it.
The first thing that we did--I think it fair to say it was done in
New York under the Harriman administration, of which I was a member--
was to introduce the concept of passenger safety into highway and
vehicle design. Safety initiatives were undertaken, first at the State
level. The, in 1966, Congress passed two bills, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act, to establish
pervasive Federal regulation. At the time, the last thing in the world
an automobile manufacturer would suggest was that its product was a car
in which one could safely have an accident! Perhaps other motorists,
driving other companies cars, had accidents. It took quite a bit of
learning--social learning--but eventually it happened: safety features
such as padded steering wheels and dashboards, seat belts, and airbags
became integral design considerations. Now it is routine; we take such
features for granted. It wasn't always thus. Social learning.
And then the issue of insurance and litigation and so forth arose. In
1967, if I could say, which would be 32 years ago, I wrote an article
for The New York Time Magazine, which simply said, ``Next, a new auto
insurance policy.'' By ``next,'' I meant a natural evolution, building
on the epidemiological knowledge we had developed regarding the
incidence of collisons and the trauma they caused to drivers,
passengers, and pedestrians. And I had a good line here, I think:
``Automobile accident litigation has become a twentieth-century
equivalent of Dickens's Court of Chancery, eating up the pittance of
widows of orphans, a vale from which few return with their respect for
justice undiminished.''

The are several fundamental problems with the current system of auto
insurance, as I explained back then. First, determining fault,
necessary in a tort system, is no easy task in most instances.
Typically, there are few witnesses. And the witnesses certainly aren't
``expert.'' The collisions are too fast, too disorienting. And
adjudicating a case typical occurs long after the collision. Memories
fade.
More important, as I remarked at the time, is that ``no one involved
(in the insurance system) has any incentive to moderation or
reasonableness. The victim has every reason to exaggerate his losses.
It is some other person's insurance company that must pay. The company
has every reason to resist. It is somebody else's customer who is
making the claim.'' This leads to excessive litigation, costly legal
fees, and inefficient, inequitable compensation.
A 1992 survey of the nation's most populous counties by the U.S.
Department of Justice found that tort cases make up about one-half of
all civil cases filed in state courts. Auto collision-related lawsuits
account for 60 percent of these tort cases--more than all other types
of tort lawsuits combined. Such lawsuits are time consuming: 31 percent
of automobile tort cases take over one year to process. They are
clogging our courts, displacing other types of civil litigation far
more important to society.
And for all the time, money, and effort these lawsuits consume, they
do not compensate victims adequately. On average, victims with losses
between $25,000 and $100,000 recover just over half (56 percent) of
their losses, and those persons with losses over $100,000 receive just
nine cents on the dollar in compensation.
``Auto Choice,'' as our legislation is known, will curtail excessive
litigation by changing insurance coverage to a first-party system--at
the driver's option. Individuals will insure themselves against
economic damages regardless of fault. They can, if they wish, insure
for non-economic losses, too. They simply pay a higher premium. In the
event they sustain damages in a collision, under Auto Choice, they
bypass litigation altogether, and they receive just and adequate
compensation in a timely fashion.
I earnestly hope that Congress will enact this important legislation
this year. It will benefit all American motorists. Its savings are
bigger than any tax cut Congress is likely to enact, and they won't
affect our ability to balance the budget. But even more important, I
think, is the fact that ``auto choice'' will take some of the strain
off our overburdened judiciary. I don't know if we can calculate the
value of such a benefit.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill we
are introducing today: the Auto Choice Reform Act of 1999. If enacted,
this bill would save American consumers tens of billions of dollars,
while at the same time producing an auto insurance system that operates
more efficiently and promises drivers better and quicker compensation.
America's drivers are plagued today by an auto accident insurance and
compensation system that is too expensive and that does not work. We
currently pay an average of approximately $775 annually for our auto
insurance per car. This is an extraordinarily large sum, and one that
is particularly difficult for people of modest means--and almost
impossible for poor people--to afford. A study of Maricopa County, AZ,
drives this point home. That study found that families living below 50
percent of the poverty line spend nearly one-third of their household
income on premiums when they purchase auto insurance.
Perhaps those costs would be worth it if they meant that people
injured in

[[Page S3925]]

car accidents were fully compensated for their injuries. But under the
current tort system, that often is not the case, particularly for
people who are seriously injured. Because of the need to prove fault
and the ability to receive compensation only through someone else's
insurance policy, some injured drivers--like those in one car accidents
or those who are found to have been at fault themselves--are left
without any compensation at all. Others must endure years of litigation
before receiving compensation for their injuries. In the end, many
people who suffer minimal injuries in auto accidents end up
overcompensated, while victims of serious injuries often fail to
receive full restitution. Indeed, the extent to which seriously injured
drivers are undercompensated in the current tort system is staggering:
victims with economic losses--things like lost wages and medical
bills--between $25,000 and $100,000 recover only 56 percent of their
losses on average, while those with over $100,000 in economic losses
get only about 9 percent back on average. Recite those numbers to
anyone who tells you the current system works just fine the way it is.
The current system most hurts the very people who can afford it the
least--the nation's poor and drivers who live in the nation's inner
cities. The $775 average premium I mentioned is already far too much
for people of modest means to afford. But for many residents of the
inner cities a $775 premium is just a dream. As a report issued by
Congress' Joint Economic Committee last year starkly detailed, inner
city residents pay what can only be called a ``tort tax''--insurance
rates that are often double those of their suburban neighbors. For
example, a married man with no accidents or traffic violations living
in Philadelphia pays $1,800 for an insurance policy that would cost him
less than half that if he moved just over the line, out of Philadelphia
County. The average annual premium for a 38-year old woman with a clean
driving record living in central Los Angeles approaches $3,500. The
statistic that I think best drives home the disproportionate amount
poor people spend on auto insurance is this one: the typical low-income
household spends more on auto insurance over two years than the entire
value of their car.

The results of these high costs shouldn't surprise us. They lead many
inner-city drivers to choose to drive uninsured, which is to say our
auto insurance system makes outlaws of them and puts the rest of us in
jeopardy, because people injured by an uninsured driver may have no
place to go for compensation. Other inner-city residents simply decide
not to own cars, something that in itself should trouble us. As the
JEC's Report details, the lack of car ownership, combined with the
dearth of jobs in the inner-cities, severely limits the ability of many
city residents to find employment and lift themselves out of poverty.
The Auto Choice bill would go a long way towards solving all of these
problems. By simply giving consumers a choice to opt out of the tort
system, Auto Choice would bring all drivers who want it lower premiums.
Auto Choice would save drivers nationally an average of 23 percent, or
$184, annually--a total of over $35 billion. Connecticut drivers would
see an average savings of $217 annually. Low-income drivers would see
even more dramatic savings--an average of 36 percent nationally or 33
percent in Connecticut.
Here's how our plan would work: All drivers would be required to
purchase a certain minimum level of insurance, but they would get to
choose the type of coverage they want. Those drivers who value
immediate compensation for their injuries and lower premiums would be
able to purchase what we call ``personal injury protection insurance.''
If the driver with that type of coverage is injured in an accident, he
or she would get immediate compensation for economic losses up to the
limits of his or her policy, without regard to who was at fault in the
accident.
If their economic losses exceeded those policy limits, the injured
party could sue the other driver for the extra economic loss on a fault
basis; The only thing the plaintiff could not do is sue the other
driver for noneconomic losses, the so-called pain and suffering
damages.
Those drivers who did not want to give up the ability to collect pain
and suffering damages could choose a different option, called tort
maintenance coverage. Drivers with that type of policy would be able to
cover themselves for whatever level of economic and noneconomic damages
they want, and they would then be able to collect those damages, also
from their own insurance company, after proving fault.
As I mentioned earlier, the savings from this new Choice system would
be dramatic--again, an average of $184 annually nationally, up to $35
billion each and every year under our proposal.
Our Auto Choice plan ensures that most injured people would be
compensated immediately and that we all can purchase auto insurance at
a reasonable rate. Mr. President, this bill would be a boon to the
American driver and to the American economy. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to see it enacted into law.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in
introducing legislation to provide consumers with a true choice when
they purchase auto insurance. Not simply a choice between to insurance
companies, but a choice between two different systems of insurance.
The current tort based liability system is expensive and inefficient.
It pays more money to lawyers than for victims legitimate medical bills
and lost wages. A study conducted in my home state of Arizona found
that a low-income family spends as much as 31 percent of their
disposable income on car insurance. As a result, families put off basic
necessities such as rent, medical care and sometimes groceries. The
current system needs to be changed.
The system proposed in our bill would allow consumers a more
affordable alternative designed to provide adequate and timely
compensation for accident victims and less need for layers. Under the
new system when an accident occurs, the consumer's insurance company
would compensate them for their economic losses, such as repair costs,
medical bills and lost wages. In exchange, the consumer forgoes the
right to sue for non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.
Consumers choosing to remain in the current system can bring suit as
they do now. These consumers would purchase additional coverage to
cover their non-economic damages in the event they have an accident
with someone in the new system.
The purpose of this legislation is to allow consumers to choose the
type of insurance that meets their needs. It also provides state
legislatures a choice. This legislation allows states to ``opt out''
should they disagree with this proposal. States can ``opt out'' in two
ways. First, the legislature can enact legislation declaring they will
not participate in the new system. Secondly, the state insurance
commissioner can find that the measure will not reduce bodily injury
premiums by 30 percent. This opt out provision is reasonable and will
give states a true choice.
Again, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing this
measure. I look forward to moving it through the legislative process.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 838. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

juvenile crime control and community protection act of 1999

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Juvenile
Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1999.'' I believe that
juvenile crime is one of the most important issues facing our nation
today. It's one we should address in the 106th Congress.

In recent years, I have held field hearings in my home state of New
Mexico to hear the concerns and problems faced by all of the people
affected by juvenile crime--the police, prosecutors, judges, social
workers and most importantly--the victims who reside in our
communities.
I think that the sentiments expressed by most of my constituents at
the hearing are the same ones felt by people all over the country:
(1) many of our nation's youth are out of control;
(2) other children and teenagers do not have enough constructive
things to

[[Page S3926]]

do to keep them from falling into delinquent or criminal behavior;
(3) the current system does very little, if anything, to protect the
public from youth violence; and
(4) the current system has failed victims.
The time has come for a new federal role to assist the states with
their efforts to get tough on violent young criminals.
The federal government can play a larger role in punishing and
preventing youth violence without tying the hands of state and local
governments or preventing them from implementing innovative solutions
to the problem.
This new federal role should, however, expect states to get tough on
youth violence and reward them for enacting law enforcement and
prosecution policies designed to take violent juvenile criminals off of
the street.
With those goals in mind, the bill I introduce today makes some
fundamental changes to the crime fighting partnership which exists
between the states and the federal government.
It combines strict law enforcement and prosecution policies for the
most violent offenders with more federal resources--more than three
times the amount available under current law--to help states fight
crime and prevent juveniles from entering the justice system in the
first place.
This bill authorizes a total of $500 million to provide the states
with two separate grant programs--one, with virtually no strings
attached, based on the current state formula grants--and a second new
incentive grant program for states which enact certain ``best
practices'' to combat and prevent juvenile violence. I want to talk a
little bit about each.
The bill authorizes $300 million, divided into two $150 million pots,
for a new grant program for states which enact certain ``get tough''
reforms to their juvenile justice systems. States will have access to
the first $150 million if they enact three practices:
(1) Mandatory adult prosecution for juveniles age 14 and older who
commit certain serious violent crimes;
(2) Graduated sanctions, so that every offense, no matter how small,
receives some punishment; and
(3) Adult records, including fingerprints and photographs, for
juvenile criminals.
States which implement these practices and enact another five of 20
suggested reforms will be eligible to receive additional funds from the
second $150 million. Some of these suggested reforms include:
(1) Victims' rights, including the right to be notified of the
sentencing and release of the offender;
(2) Mandatory victim restitution;
(3) Public access to juvenile proceedings;
(4) Parental responsibility laws for acts committed by juveniles
released to their parents' custody;
(5) Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents--a requirement that
juveniles released from custody attend school or vocational training
and support their children;
(6) Zero tolerance for truancy;
(7) Character counts training programs; and
(8) Mentoring.
These programs are a combination of reforms which will positively
impact victims, get tough on juvenile offenders, and provide states
with resources to implement prevention programs to keep juveniles out
of trouble in the first place.
The bill also increases to $200 million the amount available to
states under the current OJJDP grant program. It also eliminates many
of the strings placed on states as a condition of receiving those
grants.
While the Justice Department has said that the overall juvenile crime
rate in the United States dropped again last year, the juvenile crime
statistics also tell us that our young people are more violent than
ever. In 1996 in my home state of New Mexico, there were 36,927
referrals to the state juvenile parole and probation office. 39% of
those referred have a history of 10 or more contacts with the justice
system. The number of these referrals for VIOLENT offenses, including
murder, robbery, assault and rape increased 64 percent from 1993 to
1997.
I mention these numbers not only because they make it clear that many
of our children are more violent than ever, but also because they have
led to a growing problem in my home state, a problem which this bill
will help fix. More juvenile arrests create the need for more space to
house juvenile criminals. But, because of burdensome federal ``sight
and sound separation'' rules, New Mexico has been unable to implement a
safe, reasonable solution to alleviate overcrowding at its juvenile
facilities.
Instead, the state has been forced to consider sending juvenile
prisoners to Iowa and Texas to avoid violating the federal rules and
losing their funding. That is unacceptable and this bill will fix that.
Mr. President, juvenile crime is the number one concern in my state.
From Albuquerque to Las Cruces, Roswell to Farmington, and in even
smaller cities like Clovis and Silver City, I hear the same thing from
my constituents: our children are out of control and we need help. This
bill will provide that help, in a way which will preserve the
traditional role state and local law enforcement authorities play in
the fight against crime. More resources to get tough on violent
offenders and provide youth with more constructive things to do to keep
them out of trouble, with fewer strings from the federal government.
That's what this bill will do, and I hope my colleagues will support my
efforts to make this a priority issue for this Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 838

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile
Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Severability.

TITLE I--REFORM OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sec. 104. Annual report.
Sec. 105. Block grants for State and local programs.
Sec. 106. State plans.
Sec. 107. Repeals.

TITLE II--INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED REFORMS

Sec. 201. Incentive grants for accountability-based reforms.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any
person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the
remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and
the application of the provisions of such to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

TITLE I--REFORM OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) the Nation's juvenile justice system is in trouble,
including dangerously overcrowded facilities, overworked
field staff, and a growing number of children who are
breaking the law;
``(2) a redesigned juvenile corrections program for the
next century should be based on 4 principles, including--
``(A) protecting the community;
``(B) accountability for offenders and their families;
``(C) restitution for victims and the community; and
``(D) community-based prevention;
``(3) existing programs have not adequately responded to
the particular problems of juvenile delinquents in the
1990's;
``(4) State and local communities, which experience
directly the devastating failure of the juvenile justice
system, do not have sufficient resources to deal
comprehensively with the problems of juvenile crime and
delinquency;
``(5) limited State and local resources are being
unnecessarily wasted complying with overly technical Federal
requirements for `sight and sound' separation currently in
effect under the 1974 Act, while prohibiting the commingling
of adults and juvenile populations would achieve this
important purpose without imposing an undue burden on State
and local governments;
``(6) limited State and local resources are being
unnecessarily wasted complying with the overly restrictive
Federal mandate that no juveniles be detained or confined in
any jail or lockup for adults, which mandate is particularly
burdensome for rural communities;

[[Page S3927]]

``(7) the juvenile justice system should give additional
attention to the problem of juveniles who commit serious
crimes, with particular attention given to the area of
sentencing;
``(8) local school districts lack information necessary to
track serious violent juvenile offenders, information that is
essential to promoting safety in public schools;
``(9) the term `prevention' should mean both ensuring that
families have a greater chance to raise their children so
that those children do not engage in criminal or delinquent
activities, and preventing children who have engaged in such
activities from becoming permanently entrenched in the
juvenile justice system;
``(10) in 1994, there were more than 330,000 juvenile
arrests for violent crimes, and between 1985 and 1994, the
number of juvenile criminal homicide cases increased by 144
percent, and the number of juvenile weapons cases increased
by 156 percent;
``(11) in 1994, males age 14 through 24 constituted only 8
percent of the population, but accounted for more than 25
percent of all homicide victims and nearly half of all
convicted murderers;
``(12) in a survey of 250 judges, 93 percent of those
judges stated that juvenile offenders should be
fingerprinted, 85 percent stated that juvenile criminal
records should be made available to adult authorities, and 40
percent stated that the minimum age for facing murder charges
should be 14 or 15;
``(13) studies indicate that good parenting skills,
including normative development, monitoring, and discipline,
clearly affect whether children will become delinquent, and
adequate supervision of free-time activities, whereabouts,
and peer interaction is critical to ensure that children do
not drift into delinquency;
``(14) school officials lack the information necessary to
ensure that school environments are safe and conducive to
learning;
``(15) in the 1970's, less than half of our Nation's cities
reported gang activity, while 2 decades later, a nationwide
survey reported a total of 23,388 gangs and 664,906 gang
members on the streets of United States cities in 1995;
``(16) the high incidence of delinquency in the United
States results in an enormous annual cost and an immeasurable
loss of human life, personal security, and wasted human
resources; and
``(17) juvenile delinquency constitutes a growing threat to
the national welfare, requiring immediate and comprehensive
action by the Federal Government to reduce and eliminate the
threat.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``further''; and
(B) by striking ``Federal Government'' and inserting
``Federal, State, and local governments''.
(b) Purposes.--Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5602) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 102. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this title and title II are--
``(1) to assist State and local governments in promoting
public safety by supporting juvenile delinquency prevention
and control activities;
``(2) to give greater flexibility to schools to design
academic programs and educational services for juvenile
delinquents expelled or suspended for disciplinary reasons;
``(3) to assist State and local governments in promoting
public safety by encouraging accountability through the
imposition of meaningful sanctions for acts of juvenile
delinquency;
``(4) to assist State and local governments in promoting
public safety by improving the extent, accuracy,
availability, and usefulness of juvenile court and law
enforcement records and the openness of the juvenile justice
system to the public;
``(5) to assist teachers and school officials in ensuring
school safety by improving their access to information
concerning juvenile offenders attending or intending to
enroll in their schools or school-related activities;
``(6) to assist State and local governments in promoting
public safety by encouraging the identification of violent
and hardcore juveniles and in transferring such juveniles out
of the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system and into
the jurisdiction of adult criminal court;
``(7) to provide for the evaluation of federally assisted
juvenile crime control programs, and training necessary for
the establishment and operation of such programs;
``(8) to ensure the dissemination of information regarding
juvenile crime control programs by providing a national
clearinghouse; and
``(9) to provide technical assistance to public and private
nonprofit juvenile justice and delinquency prevention
programs.''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``punishment,'' after
``control,'';
(2) in paragraph (22)(iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) the term `serious violent crime' means--
``(A) murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, or robbery;
``(B) aggravated assault committed with the use of a
dangerous or deadly weapon, forcible rape, kidnaping, felony
aggravated battery, assault with intent to commit a serious
violent crime, and vehicular homicide committed while under
the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled
substance; or
``(C) a serious drug offense;
``(25) the term `serious drug offense' means an act or acts
which, if committed by an adult subject to Federal criminal
jurisdiction, would be punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A)
or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
841(b)(1)(A), 848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A));
and
``(26) the term `serious habitual offender' means a
juvenile who--
``(A) has been adjudicated delinquent and subsequently
arrested for a capital offense, life offense, first degree
aggravated sexual offense, or serious drug offense;
``(B) has had not fewer than 5 arrests, with 3 arrests
chargeable as felonies if committed by an adult and not fewer
than 3 arrests occurring within the most recent 12-month
period;
``(C) has had not fewer than 10 arrests, with 2 arrests
chargeable as felonies if committed by an adult and not fewer
than 3 arrests occurring within the most recent 12-month
period; or
``(D) has had not fewer than 10 arrests, with 8 or more
arrests for misdemeanor crimes involving theft, assault,
battery, narcotics possession or distribution, or possession
of weapons, and not fewer than 3 arrests occurring within the
most recent 12-month period.''.

SEC. 103. OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION.

Section 204 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5614) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``shall develop'' and inserting the
following: ``shall--
``(A) develop'';
(B) by inserting ``punishment,'' before ``diversion''; and
(C) in the first sentence, by striking ``States'' and all
that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting
the following: ``States; and
``(B) annually submit the plan required by subparagraph (A)
to the Congress.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) through (7) and inserting
the following:
``(2) reduce duplication among Federal juvenile delinquency
programs and activities conducted by Federal departments and
agencies.'';
(3) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (f); and
(4) by striking subsection (i).

SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.

Section 207 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5617) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 207. ANNUAL REPORT.

``Not later than 180 days after the end of a fiscal year,
the Administrator shall submit to the President, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of
the Senate, and the Governor of each State, a report that
contains the following with respect to such fiscal year:
``(1) Summary and analysis.--A detailed summary and
analysis of the most recent data available regarding the
number of juveniles taken into custody, the rate at which
juveniles are taken into custody, the number of repeat
juvenile offenders, the number of juveniles using weapons,
the number of juvenile and adult victims of juvenile crime
and the trends demonstrated by the data required by
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). Such summary and analysis
shall set out the information required by subparagraphs (A),
(B), (C), and (D) separately for juvenile nonoffenders,
juvenile status offenders, and other juvenile offenders. Such
summary and analysis shall separately address with respect to
each category of juveniles specified in the preceding
sentence--
``(A) the types of offenses with which the juveniles are
charged, data on serious violent crimes committed by
juveniles, and data on serious habitual offenders;
``(B) the race and gender of the juveniles and their
victims;
``(C) the ages of the juveniles and their victims;
``(D) the types of facilities used to hold the juveniles
(including juveniles treated as adults for purposes of
prosecution) in custody, including secure detention
facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and
lockups;
``(E) the number of juveniles who died while in custody and
the circumstances under which they died;
``(F) the educational status of juveniles, including
information relating to learning disabilities, failing
performance, grade retention, and dropping out of school;
``(G) the number of juveniles who are substance abusers;
and
``(H) information on juveniles fathering or giving birth to
children out of wedlock, and whether such juveniles have
assumed financial responsibility for their children.

[[Page S3928]]

``(2) Activities funded.--A description of the activities
for which funds are expended under this part.
``(3) State compliance.--A description based on the most
recent data available of the extent to which each State
complies with section 223 and with the plan submitted under
that section by the State for that fiscal year.
``(4) Summary and explanation.--A summary of each program
or activity for which assistance is provided under part C or
D, an evaluation of the results of such program or activity,
and a determination of the feasibility and advisability of
replacing such program or activity in other locations.
``(5) Exemplary programs and practices.--A description of
selected exemplary delinquency prevention programs and
accountability-based youth violence reduction practices.''.

SEC. 105. BLOCK GRANTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS.

Section 221 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5631) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Administrator''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including--
``(A) initiatives for holding juveniles accountable for any
act for which they are adjudicated delinquent;
``(B) increasing public awareness of juvenile proceedings;
``(C) improving the content, accuracy, availability, and
usefulness of juvenile court and law enforcement records
(including fingerprints and photographs); and
``(D) education programs such as funding for extended hours
for libraries and recreational programs which benefit all
juveniles''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Of amounts made available to carry out this part in
any fiscal year, $10,000,000 or 1 percent (whichever is
greater) may be used by the Administrator--
``(A) to establish and maintain a clearinghouse to
disseminate to the States information on juvenile delinquency
prevention, treatment, and control; and
``(B) to provide training and technical assistance to
States to improve the administration of the juvenile justice
system.''.

SEC. 106. STATE PLANS.

Section 223 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking the second sentence;
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) provide for an advisory group, which--
``(A) shall--
``(i)(I) consist of not less than 5 members appointed by
the chief executive officer of the State; and
``(II) consist of a majority of members (including the
chairperson) who are not full-time employees of the Federal
Government, or a State or local government;
``(ii) include members who have training, experience, or
special knowledge concerning--

``(I) the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency;
``(II) the administration of juvenile justice, including
law enforcement; and
``(III) the representation of the interests of the victims
of violent juvenile crime and their families; and

``(iii) include as members at least 1 locally elected
official representing general purpose local government;
``(B) shall participate in the development and review of
the State's juvenile justice plan prior to submission to the
supervisory board for final action;
``(C) shall be afforded an opportunity to review and
comment, not later than 30 days after the submission to the
advisory group, on all juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention grants submitted to the State agency designated
under paragraph (1);
``(D) shall, consistent with this title--
``(i) advise the State agency designated under paragraph
(1) and its supervisory board; and
``(ii) submit to the chief executive officer and the
legislature of the State not less frequently than annually
recommendations regarding State compliance with this
subsection; and
``(E) may, consistent with this title--
``(i) advise on State supervisory board and local criminal
justice advisory board composition;
``(ii) review progress and accomplishments of projects
funded under the State plan; and
``(iii) contact and seek regular input from juveniles
currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice
system;'';
(C) in paragraph (10)--
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(P) programs implementing the practices described in
paragraphs (6) through (12) and (17) and (18) of section
242(b);'';
(D) by striking paragraph (13) and inserting the following:
``(13) provide assurances that, in each secure facility
located in the State (including any jail or lockup for
adults), there is no commingling in the same cell or
community room of, or any other regular, sustained, physical
contact between any juvenile detained or confined for any
period of time in that facility and any adult offender
detained or confined for any period of time in that facility,
except that this paragraph may not be construed to prohibit
the use of a community room or other common area of the
facility by such juveniles and adults at different times, or
to prohibit the use of the same staff for both juvenile and
adult inmates;'';
(E) by striking paragraphs (8), (9), (12), (14), (15),
(17), (18), (19), (24), and (25);
(F) by redesignating paragraphs (10), (11), (13), (16),
(20), (21), (22), and (23) as paragraphs (8) through (15),
respectively;
(G) in paragraph (14), as redesignated, by adding ``and''
at the end; and
(H) in paragraph (15), as redesignated, by striking the
semicolon at the end and inserting a period; and
(2) by striking subsections (c) and (d).

SEC. 107. REPEALS.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in title II--
(A) by striking parts C, E, F, G, and H;
(B) by striking part I, as added by section 2(i)(1)(C) of
Public Law 102-586; and
(C) by amending the heading of part I, as redesignated by
section 2(i)(1)(A) of Public Law 102-586, to read as follows:

``Part E--General and Administrative Provisions''; and

(2) by striking title V, as added by section 5(a) of Public
Law 102-586.

TITLE II--INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED REFORMS

SEC. 201. INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED REFORMS.

Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after part B the following:

``Part C--Incentive Grants for Accountability-Based Reforms

``SEC. 241. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

``The Administrator shall provide juvenile delinquent
accountability grants under section 242 to eligible States to
carry out this title.

``SEC. 242. ACCOUNTABILITY-BASED INCENTIVE GRANTS.

``(a) Eligibility for Grant.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under section 241, a State shall submit to the
Administrator an application at such time, in such form, and
containing such assurances and information as the
Administrator may require by rule, including assurances that
the State has in effect (or will have in effect not later
than 1 year after the date on which the State submits such
application) laws, or has implemented (or will implement not
later than 1 year after the date on which the State submits
such application)--
``(1) policies and programs that ensure that all juveniles
who commit an act after attaining 14 years of age that would
be a serious violent crime if committed by an adult are
treated as adults for purposes of prosecution, unless on a
case-by-case basis, as a matter of law or prosecutorial
discretion, the transfer of such juveniles for disposition in
the juvenile system is determined to be in the interest of
justice, except that the age of the juvenile alone shall not
be determinative of whether such transfer is in the interest
of justice;
``(2) graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, ensuring
a sanction for every delinquent or criminal act, ensuring
that the sanction is of increasing severity based on the
nature of the act, and escalating the sanction with each
subsequent delinquent or criminal act; and
``(3) a system of records relating to any adjudication of
juveniles less than 15 years of age who are adjudicated
delinquent for conduct that if committed by an adult would
constitute a serious violent crime, which records are--
``(A) equivalent to the records that would be kept of
adults arrested for such conduct, including fingerprints and
photographs;
``(B) submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
the same manner in which adult records are submitted;
``(C) retained for a period of time that is equal to the
period of time that records are retained for adults; and
``(D) available to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors,
the courts, and school officials.
``(b) Standards for Handling and Disclosing Information.--
School officials referred to in subsection (a)(3)(D) shall be
subject to the same standards and penalties to which law
enforcement and juvenile justice system employees are subject
under Federal and State law for handling and disclosing
information referred to in that paragraph.
``(c) Additional Amount Based on Accountability-Based Youth
Violence Reduction Practices.--A State that receives a grant
under subsection (a) is eligible to receive an additional
amount of funds added to such grant if such State
demonstrates that the State has in effect, or will have in
effect, not later than 1 year after the deadline established
by the Administrator for the submission of applications under
subsection (a) for the fiscal year at issue, not fewer than 5
of the following practices:
``(1) Victims' rights.--Increased victims' rights,
including--
``(A) the right to be treated with fairness and with
respect for the dignity and privacy of the victim;

[[Page S3929]]

``(B) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused
offender;
``(C) the right to be notified of court proceedings; and
``(D) the right to information about the conviction,
sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender.
``(2) Restitution.--Mandatory victim and community
restitution, including statewide programs to reach
restitution collection levels of not less than 80 percent.
``(3) Access to proceedings.--Public access to juvenile
court delinquency proceedings.
``(4) Parental responsibility.--Juvenile nighttime curfews
and parental civil liability for serious acts committed by
juveniles released to the custody of their parents by the
court.
``(5) Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents.--A
requirement as conditions of parole that--
``(A) any juvenile offender who is a parent demonstrates
parental responsibility by working and paying child support;
and
``(B) the juvenile attends and successfully completes
school or pursues vocational training.
``(6) Serious habitual offenders comprehensive action
program (shocap).--
``(A) In general.--Implementation of a serious habitual
offender comprehensive action program which is a
multidisciplinary interagency case management and information
sharing system that enables the juvenile and criminal justice
system, schools, and social service agencies to make more
informed decisions regarding early identification, control,
supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly commit
serious delinquent or criminal acts.
``(B) Multidisciplinary agencies.--Establishment by units
of local government in the State under a program referred to
in subparagraph (A), of a multidisciplinary agency comprised
of representatives from--
``(i) law enforcement organizations;
``(ii) school districts;
``(iii) State's attorneys offices;
``(iv) court services;
``(v) State and county children and family services; and
``(vi) any additional organizations, groups, or agencies
deemed appropriate to accomplish the purposes described in
subparagraph (A), including--

``(I) juvenile detention centers;
``(II) mental and medical health agencies; and
``(III) the community at large.

``(C) Identification of serious habitual offenders.--Each
multidisciplinary agency established under subparagraph (B)
shall adopt, by a majority of its members, criteria to
identify individuals who are serious habitual offenders.
``(D) Interagency information sharing agreement.--
``(i) In general.--Each multidisciplinary agency
established under subparagraph (B) shall adopt, by a majority
of its members, an interagency information sharing agreement
to be signed by the chief executive officer of each
organization and agency represented in the multidisciplinary
agency.
``(ii) Disclosure of information.--The interagency
information sharing agreement shall require that--

``(I) all records pertaining to serious habitual offenders
shall be kept confidential to the extent required by State
law;
``(II) information in the records may be made available to
other staff from member organizations and agencies as
authorized by the multidisciplinary agency for the purposes
of promoting case management, community supervision, conduct
control, and tracking of the serious habitual offender for
the application and coordination of appropriate services; and
``(III) access to the information in the records shall be
limited to individuals who provide direct services to the
serious habitual offender or who provide community conduct
control and supervision to the serious habitual offender.

``(7) Community-wide partnerships.--Community-wide
partnerships involving county, municipal government, school
districts, appropriate State agencies, and nonprofit
organizations to administer a unified approach to juvenile
delinquency.
``(8) Zero tolerance for truancy.--Implementation by school
districts of programs to curb truancy and implement certain
and swift punishments for truancy, including parental
notification of every absence, mandatory Saturday school
makeup sessions for truants or weekends in jail for truants
and denial of participation or attendance at extracurricular
activities by truants.
``(9) Alternative schooling.--A requirement that, as a
condition of receiving any State funding provided to school
districts in accordance with a formula allocation based on
the number of children enrolled in school in the school
district, each school district shall establish one or more
alternative schools or classrooms for juvenile offenders or
juveniles who are expelled or suspended for disciplinary
reasons and shall require that such juveniles attend the
alternative schools or classrooms. Any juvenile who refuses
to attend such alternative school or classroom shall be
immediately detained pending a hearing. If a student is
transferred from a regular school to an alternative school
for juvenile offenders or juveniles who are expelled or
suspended for disciplinary reasons such State funding shall
also be transferred to the alternative school.
``(10) Judicial jurisdiction.--A system under which
municipal and magistrate courts have--
``(A) jurisdiction over minor delinquency offenses such as
truancy, curfew violations, and vandalism; and
``(B) short term detention authority for habitual minor
delinquent behavior.
``(11) Elimination of certain ineffective penalties.--
Elimination of `counsel and release' or `refer and release'
as a penalty for juveniles with respect to the second or
subsequent offense for which the juvenile is referred to a
juvenile probation officer.
``(12) Report back orders.--A system of `report back'
orders when juveniles are placed on probation, so that after
a period of time (not to exceed 2 months) the juvenile
appears before and advises the judge of the progress of the
juvenile in meeting certain goals.
``(13) Penalties for use of firearm.--Mandatory penalties
for the use of a firearm during a violent crime or a drug
felony.
``(14) Street gangs.--A prohibition on engaging in criminal
conduct as a member of a street gang and imposition of severe
penalties for terrorism by criminal street gangs.
``(15) Character counts.--Establishment of character
education and training for juvenile offenders.
``(16) Mentoring.--Establishment of mentoring programs for
at-risk youth.
``(17) Drug courts and community-oriented policing
strategies.--Establishment of courts for juveniles charged
with drug offenses and community-oriented policing
strategies.
``(18) Recordkeeping and fingerprinting.--Programs that
provide that, whenever a juvenile who has not achieved his or
her 14th birthday is adjudicated delinquent (as defined by
Federal or State law in a juvenile delinquency proceeding)
for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute
a felony under Federal or State law, the State shall ensure
that a record is kept relating to the adjudication that is--
``(A) equivalent to the record that would be kept of an
adult conviction for such an offense;
``(B) retained for a period of time that is equal to the
period of time that records are kept for adult convictions;
``(C) made available to prosecutors, courts, and law
enforcement agencies of any jurisdiction upon request; and
``(D) made available to officials of a school, school
district, or postsecondary school where the individual who is
the subject of the juvenile record seeks, intends, or is
instructed to enroll, and that such officials are held liable
to the same standards and penalties that law enforcement and
juvenile justice system employees are held liable to, for
handling and disclosing such information.
``(19) Evaluation.--Establishment of a comprehensive
process for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of
State juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs in
reducing juvenile crime and recidivism.
``(20) Boot camps.--Establishment of State boot camps with
an intensive restitution or work and community service
requirement as part of a system of graduated sanctions.

``SEC. 243. GRANT AMOUNTS.

``(a) Allocation and Distribution of Funds.--
``(1) Eligibility.--Of the total amount made available to
carry out part C for each fiscal year, subject to subsection
(b), each State shall be eligible to receive the sum of--
``(A) an amount that bears the same relation to one-third
of such total as the number of juveniles in the State bears
to the number of juveniles in all States;
``(B) an amount that bears the same relation to one-third
of such total as the number of juveniles from families with
incomes below the poverty line in the State bears to the
number of such juveniles in all States; and
``(C) an amount that bears the same relation to one-third
of such total as the average annual number of part 1 violent
crimes reported by the State to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for which
such data are available, bears to the number of part 1
violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for such years.
``(2) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall be eligible to
receive not less than 3.5 percent of one-third of the total
amount appropriated to carry out part C for each fiscal year,
except that the amount for which the Virgin Islands of the
United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands is eligible shall be not less
than $100,000 and the amount for which Palau is eligible
shall be not less than $15,000.
``(3) Unavailability of information.--For purposes of this
subsection, if data regarding the measures governing
allocation of funds under paragraphs (1) and (2) in any State
are unavailable or substantially inaccurate, the
Administrator and the State shall utilize the best available
comparable data for the purposes of allocation of any funds
under this section.
``(b) Allocated Amount.--The amount made available to carry
out part C for any fiscal year shall be allocated among the
States as follows:
``(1) 50 percent of the amount for which a State is
eligible under subsection (a) shall be allocated to that
State if it meets the requirements of section 242(a).
``(2) 50 percent of the amount for which a State is
eligible under subsection (a) shall be

[[Page S3930]]

allocated to that State if it meets the requirements of
subsections (a) and (c) of section 242.
``(c) Availability.--Any amounts made available under this
section to carry out part C shall remain available until
expended.

``SEC. 244. ACCOUNTABILITY.

``A State that receives a grant under section 241 shall use
accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to
guidelines prescribed by the Administrator, and shall ensure
that any funds used to carry out section 241 shall represent
the best value for the State at the lowest possible cost and
employ the best available technology.

``SEC. 245. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

``(a) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available
under section 241 shall not be used to supplant State funds,
but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would,
in the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State
sources.
``(b) Administrative and Related Costs.--Not more than 2
percent of the funds appropriated under section 299(a) for a
fiscal year shall be available to the Administrator for such
fiscal year for purposes of--
``(1) research and evaluation, including assessment of the
effect on public safety and other effects of the expansion of
correctional capacity and sentencing reforms implemented
pursuant to this part; and
``(2) technical assistance relating to the use of grants
made under section 241, and development and implementation of
policies, programs, and practices described in section 242.
``(c) Carryover of Appropriations.--Funds appropriated
under section 299(a) shall remain available until expended.
``(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this part may not exceed 90 percent of the
costs of a proposal, as described in an application approved
under this part.''.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 299 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671) is amended by
striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.--There are authorized to be appropriated for each
of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, such sums
as may be necessary to carry out part A.
``(b) Block Grants for State and Local Programs.--There is
authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, to carry out part B.
``(c) Incentive Grants for Accountability-Based Reforms.--
There is authorized to be appropriated $300,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, to carry
out part C.
``(d) Source of Appropriations.--Funds authorized to be
appropriated by this section may be appropriated from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.''.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 840. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to provide for
health care and employee benefits, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

bankruptcy legislation

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that would modify our bankruptcy laws to deal with bankruptcies in the
health care sector. According to testimony I received in the
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, almost one-
third of our hospitals could face foreclosure because they are not
financially sound. And a number of nursing homes are in terrible
financial trouble. I believe that chapter 11 and chapter 9 of the
Bankruptcy Code could be vitally important in keeping troubled
hospitals in business. The bill we are proposing will ensure that
chapter 11 will work fairly and efficiently in the unfortunate event
that we face a rash of health care bankruptcies. The bill will also
make sure the health care businesses which liquidate under Chapter 7
don't just throw patients by the wayside in a rush to sell assets and
pay creditors.
Currently, the Bankruptcy Code does an adequate job of helping
debtors reorganize and helping creditors recover losses. However, the
code does not provide protection for the interests of patients. This
bill contains several important reforms to protect patients when health
care providers declare bankruptcy. Specifically, the bill addresses the
disposal of patient records, the costs associated with closing a health
care business, the duty to transfer patients upon the closing of a
health care facility and the appointment of an ombudsman to protect
patient rights.
Section 102 covers the disposal of patient records. The legislation
provides clear and specific guidance to trustees who may not be aware
of state law requirements for maintaining the patient records or the
confidentiality issues associated with patient records. Section 102 is
necessary given the patient's need for the records and the apparent
lack of clear instruction, whether statutory or otherwise, describing a
proper procedure in dealing with patient records when closing a
facility.
Section 103 brings the costs associated with closing a health care
business, including any expenses incurred by disposing of patient
records and transferring patients to another health care facility,
within the administrative expense umbrella of the Bankruptcy Act.
Section 104 provides for an ombudsman to act as an advocate for the
patient. This change will ensure that judges are fully aware of all the
facts when they guide a health care provider through bankruptcy. Prior
to a chapter 11 filing or immediately thereafter, the debtor employs a
health care crisis consultant to help it in its reorganization effort.
The first step is usually cutting costs. Sometimes, this step may
result in a lower quality of patient care. The appointment of an
ombudsman should balance the interests between the creditor and the
patient. These interests need balancing because the court appointed
professionals owe fiduciary duties to creditors and the estate but not
necessarily to the patients. There will be occasions which illustrate
that what may be in the best interest of creditors may not always be
consistent with the patients' best interest. The trustee's interest,
for example, is to maximize the amount of the estate to pay off the
creditors. The more assets the trustees disburses, the more his payment
will be. On the other hand, the ombudsman is designed to insure
continued quality of care at least above some minimum standard. Such
quality of care standards currently exist throughout the health care
environment, from the health care facility itself to State standards
and Federal standards.
Consider the following excerpt from the Los Angeles Times on
September 28, 1997 which describes the unconscionable, pathetic, and
traumatizing consequences of sudden nursing home closings:

It could not be determined Saturday how many more elderly
and chronically ill patients may be affected by the health
care company's financial problems. Those at the Reseda Care
Center in the San Fernando Valley, including a 106-year-old
woman, were rolled into the street late Friday in wheelchairs
and on hospital beds, bundled in blankets as relatives
scurried to gather up clothes and other personal belongings.

The presence of an ombudsman probably would result in fewer instances
similar to what I just described, where trustees quickly close health
care facilities without notifying appropriate state and federal
agencies and without notifying the bankruptcy court.
Section 1105 requires a trustee to use reasonable and best efforts to
transfer patients in the face of a health care business closing. This
provision is both useful and necessary in that it outlines a trustee's
duty with respect to a transfer of vulnerable patients.
For all these reasons, I urge you to join me and my colleagues in
supporting this bill which will protect the interests of patients in
health care bankruptcies.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley and
Senator Torricelli in introducing legislation to protect patient
privacy when a hospital, nursing home, HMO or other institution holding
medical records is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding that leads to
liquidation.
Of course, in the best case scenario any institution holding patient
health care records would continue to follow applicable state or
federal law requiring proper storage and safeguards. The fact is,
however, under current law during a business liquidation an individual
would have to wait until there has been a serious breach of their
privacy rights before anyone stepped in to ensure that patient privacy
is protected. Under current law it is questionable what protection
these most sensitive personal records would have during a liquidation.
The reality of this situation and the practical questions of what
recourse an individual would have if their personal medical records
were not properly safeguarded against a business that is going out of
business makes this provision essential. Our legislation would

[[Page S3931]]

set in law the procedure that an institution holding medical records
would have to follow during a liquidation proceeding.
The bottom line is that we do not want to have to wait until there
has been a breach of privacy before steps are taken to protect patient
privacy. Once privacy is breached--there is nothing one can really do
to give that back to an individual.
I have been working on the overall issue of medical privacy for many
years. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley and Senator
Torricelli on this issue to make sure that patient privacy rights are
protected in bankruptcy.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 841. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage of outpatient prescription drugs under the
Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.

ACCESS TO Rx MEDICATIONS IN MEDICARE ACT OF 1999

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Jay Rockefeller and I are
introducing the Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act. This
legislation will add a long overdue benefit to Medicare--coverage of
prescription drugs. Medicare is a promise to senior citizens. It says
``Work hard, contribute to Medicare during your working years, and you
will be guaranteed health security in your retirement years.'' But too
often that promise is broken, because of Medicare's failure to protect
the elderly against the high cost of prescription drugs.
Our legislation will provide every senior citizen or disabled person
with Medicare coverage for up to $1,700 worth of prescription drugs a
year, and additional coverage for those with very high drug costs.
Medicare will contract with the private sector organizations in regions
across the country to administer and deliver the new coverage.
Beneficiaries in traditional Medicare will select an organization to
provide them with the benefit. Beneficiaries enrolled in
Medicare+Choice organizations will receive coverage through their plan.
Seniors who have equivalent or greater coverage through retiree health
plans can continue that coverage or enroll in the new program. The bill
will also required private Medigap plans to include supplemental
coverage.
Fourteen million beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage.
Millions more have coverage that is unaffordable, inadequate, or
uncertain. The average senior citizen fills 18 prescriptions a year,
and takes four to six prescription drugs daily. Many of them face
monthly bills of $100, $200, or even more to fill their prescriptions.
The lack of prescription drug coverage condemns many senior citizens to
second-class medicine. Too often, they decide to go without the
medication essential for effective health care, because they have to
pay other bills for food or heat or shelter. These difficult choices
will only worsen in the years ahead, since so many of the miracle cures
of the future will be based on pharmaceutical products.

This legislation is a lifeline for every senior citizen who needs
prescription drugs to treat an illness or maintain their health. It
assures that today's and tomorrow's senior citizens will be able to
share in the medical miracles that we can expect in the new century of
the life sciences. It addresses the greatest single gap in Medicare--
and the one that is the greatest anachronism in Medicare today.
When Medicare was first enacted in 1965, its coverage was patterned
after typical private insurance policies at the time--when only a
minority of such policies covered prescription drugs. Today,
prescription drug coverage is virtually universal in private plans, but
Medicare is still caught in its 1965 time warp.
This legislation has been carefully developed to respond to the
legitimate concerns of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.
We have consulted with many leading firms on the development of this
plan, and we believe that the industry will work with us to refine it
and enact it. The most profitable industry in America has a strong
interest in assuring that the miracle cures it creates are affordable
for senior citizens.
Prescription drug coverage under Medicare will not come cheaply, and
I intend to work with my colleagues in Congress to find the fairest way
to pay for this benefit. It may well be necessary to allocate a portion
of the budget surplus to defray the cost. The hard work of American
families has created the surplus. Assuring it should be as high a
priority for the Congress as it is for the American people. We know
that improper or inadequate use of prescription drugs now costs
Medicare an estimated at least $20 billion annually in avoidable
hospital and physician costs. Clearly, a well-constructed prescription
drug benefit can achieve large savings by reducing these avoidable
costs. The bottom line is that there are many possible ways to pay for
this benefit. A consensus on the best financing will develop as
Congress considers this issue.
This legislation is literally a matter of life and death for millions
of elderly and disabled citizens served by Medicare in communities
throughout America. It is time for Congress to listen to their voices,
and the voices of their children and grandchildren, too.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and
accompanying materials be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 841

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Access to
Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Medicare coverage of outpatient prescription drugs.
Sec. 3. Selection of entities to provide outpatient drug benefit.
Sec. 4. Optional coverage for certain beneficiaries.
Sec. 5. Medigap revisions.
Sec. 6. Improved medicaid assistance for low-income individuals.
Sec. 7. Waiver of additional portion of part B premium for certain
medicare beneficiaries having actuarially equivalent
coverage.
Sec. 8. Elimination of time limitation on medicare benefits for
immunosuppressive drugs.
Sec. 9. Expansion of membership of MEDPAC to 19.
Sec. 10. GAO study and report to Congress.
Sec. 11. Effective date.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF OUTPATIENT PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (S);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (T)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(U) covered outpatient drugs (as defined in subsection
(i)(1) of section 1849) pursuant to the procedures
established under such section;''.
(b) Payment.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and (S)'' and inserting ``(S)''; and
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the
following: ``, and (T) with respect to covered outpatient
drugs (as defined in subsection (i)(1) of section 1849), the
amounts paid shall be the amounts established by the
Secretary pursuant to such section;''.

SEC. 3. SELECTION OF ENTITIES TO PROVIDE OUTPATIENT DRUG
BENEFIT.

Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395j et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1849. SELECTION OF ENTITIES TO PROVIDE OUTPATIENT DRUG
BENEFIT.

``(a) Establishment of Bidding Process.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
under which the Secretary accepts bids from eligible entities
and awards contracts to such entities in order to provide
covered outpatient drugs to eligible beneficiaries in an
area. Such contracts may be awarded based on shared risk,
capitation, or performance.
``(2) Area.--
``(A) Regional basis.--The contract entered into between
the Secretary and an eligible entity shall require the
eligible entity to provide covered outpatient drugs on a
regional basis.
``(B) Determination.--In determining coverage areas under
this section, the Secretary shall take into account the
number of eligible beneficiaries in an area in order to
encourage participation by eligible entities.
``(3) Submission of bids.--Each eligible entity desiring to
provide covered outpatient drugs under this section shall
submit a bid

[[Page S3932]]

to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require. Such bids shall include the amount the
eligible entity will charge enrollees under subsection (e)(2)
for covered outpatient drugs under the contract.
``(4) Access.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
``(A) an eligible entity complies with the access
requirements described in subsection (f)(5);
``(B) if an eligible entity employs formularies pursuant to
subsection (f)(6)(A), such entity complies with the
requirements of subsection (f)(6)(B); and
``(C) an eligible entity makes available to each
beneficiary covered under the contract the full scope of
benefits required under paragraph (5).
``(5) Scope of benefits.--The Secretary shall ensure that
all covered outpatient drugs that are reasonable and
necessary to prevent or slow the deterioration of, and
improve or maintain, the health of eligible beneficiaries are
offered under a contract entered into under this section.
``(6) Number of contracts.--The Secretary shall, consistent
with the requirements of this section and the goal of
containing medicare program costs, award at least 2 contracts
in an area, unless only 1 bidding entity meets the minimum
standards specified under this section and by the Secretary.
``(7) Duration of contracts.--Each contract under this
section shall be for a term of at least 2 years but not more
than 5 years, as determined by the Secretary.
``(8) Benchmark for contracts.--The Secretary shall not
enter into a contract with an eligible entity under this
section unless the Secretary determines that the average cost
(excluding any cost-sharing) for all covered outpatient drugs
provided to beneficiaries under the contract is comparable to
the average cost charged (exclusive of any cost-sharing) by
large private sector purchasers for such drugs.
``(b) Enrollment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process
through which an eligible beneficiary shall make an election
to enroll with any eligible entity that has been awarded a
contract under this section and serves the geographic area in
which the beneficiary resides. In establishing such process,
the Secretary shall use rules similar to the rules for
enrollment and disenrollment with a Medicare+Choice plan
under section 1851.
``(2) Requirement of enrollment.--Excluding an eligible
beneficiary enrolled in a group health plan described in
section 4 of the Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of
1999, an eligible beneficiary not enrolled in a
Medicare+Choice plan under part C must enroll with an
eligible entity under this section in order to be eligible to
receive covered outpatient drugs under this title.
``(3) Enrollment in absence of election by eligible
beneficiary.--In the case of an eligible beneficiary that
fails to make an election pursuant to paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall provide, pursuant to procedures developed by
the Secretary, for the enrollment of such beneficiary with an
eligible entity that has a contract under this section that
covers the area in which such beneficiary resides.
``(4) Areas not covered by contracts.--The Secretary shall
develop procedures for the provision of covered outpatient
drugs under this title to eligible beneficiaries that reside
in an area that is not covered by any contract under this
section.
``(5) Beneficiaries residing in different locations.--The
Secretary shall develop procedures to ensure that an eligible
beneficiary that resides in different regions in a year is
provided benefits under this section throughout the entire
year.
``(c) Providing Information to Beneficiaries.--The
Secretary shall provide for activities under this section to
broadly disseminate information to medicare beneficiaries on
the coverage provided under this section. Such activities
shall be similar to the activities performed by the Secretary
under section 1851(d).
``(d) Payments to Eligible Entities.--The Secretary shall
establish procedures for making payments to an eligible
entity under a contract.
``(e) Cost-Sharing.--
``(1) Deductible.--Benefits under this section shall not
begin until the eligible beneficiary has met a $200
deductible.
``(2) Copayment.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
eligible beneficiary shall be responsible for making payments
in an amount not greater than 20 percent of the cost (as
stated in the contract) of any covered outpatient drug that
is provided to the beneficiary. Pursuant to subsection
(a)(4)(B), an eligible entity may reduce the payment amount
that an eligible beneficiary is responsible for making to the
entity.
``(B) Basic benefit.--Subject to subparagraph (C), if the
aggregate amount of covered outpatient drugs provided to an
eligible beneficiary under this section for any calendar year
(based on the cost of covered outpatient drugs stated in the
contract) exceeds $1,700--
``(i) the beneficiary may continue to purchase covered
outpatient drugs under the contract based on the contract
price, but
``(ii) the copayment under subparagraph (A) shall be 100
percent.
``(C) Stop-loss protection.--The copayment amount under
subparagraph (A) shall be 0 percent once an eligible
beneficiary's out-of-pocket expenses for covered outpatient
drugs under this section reach $3,000.
``(D) Inflation adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any calendar year
beginning after 2000, each of the dollar amounts in
subparagraphs (B) and (C) shall be increased by an amount
equal to--

``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) an adjustment, as determined by the Secretary, for
changes in the per capita cost of prescription drugs for
beneficiaries under this title.

``(ii) Rounding.--If any dollar amount after being
increased under clause (i) is not a multiple of $10, such
dollar amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of
$10.
``(f) Conditions for Awarding Contract.--The Secretary
shall not award a contract to an eligible entity under
subsection (a) unless the Secretary finds that the eligible
entity is in compliance with such terms and conditions as the
Secretary shall specify, including the following:
``(1) Quality and financial standards.--The eligible entity
meets quality and financial standards specified by the
Secretary.
``(2) Information.--The eligible entity provides the
Secretary with information that the Secretary determines is
necessary in order to carry out the bidding process under
this section, including data needed to implement subsection
(a)(8) and data regarding utilization, expenditures, and
costs.
``(3) Education.--The eligible entity establishes
educational programs that meet the criteria established by
the Secretary pursuant to subsection (g)(1).
``(4) Procedures to ensure proper utilization and to avoid
adverse drug reactions.--The eligible entity has in place
procedures to ensure the--
``(A) appropriate utilization by eligible beneficiaries of
the benefits to be provided under the contract; and
``(B) avoidance of adverse drug reactions among eligible
beneficiaries enrolled with the entity.
``(5) Access.--The eligible entity ensures that the covered
outpatient drugs are accessible and convenient to eligible
beneficiaries covered under the contract, including by
offering the services in the following manner:
``(A) Services during emergencies.--The offering of
services 24 hours a day and 7 days a week for emergencies.
``(B) Contracts with retail pharmacies.--The offering of
services--
``(i) at a sufficient (as determined by the Secretary)
number of retail pharmacies; and
``(ii) to the extent feasible, at retail pharmacies located
throughout the eligible entity's service area.
``(6) Rules relating to provision of benefits.--
``(A) Provision of benefits.--In providing benefits under a
contract under this section, an eligible entity may--
``(i) employ mechanisms to provide benefits economically,
including the use of--

``(I) formularies (pursuant to subparagraph (B));
``(II) alternative methods of distribution; and
``(III) generic drug substitution; and

``(ii) use incentives to encourage eligible beneficiaries
to select cost-effective drugs or less costly means of
receiving drugs.
``(B) Formularies.--If an eligible entity uses a formulary
to contain costs under this Act--
``(i) the eligible entity shall--

``(I) ensure participation of practicing physicians and
pharmacists in the development of the formulary;
``(II) include in the formulary at least 1 drug from each
therapeutic class;
``(III) provide for coverage of otherwise covered non-
formulary drugs when recommended by prescribing providers;
and
``(IV) disclose to current and prospective beneficiaries
and to providers in the service area the nature of the
formulary restrictions, including information regarding the
drugs included in the formulary, copayment amounts, and any
difference in the cost-sharing for different types of drugs;
but

``(ii) nothing shall preclude an entity from--

``(I) requiring higher cost-sharing for drugs provided
under clause (i)(III), subject to limits established in
subsection (e)(2)(A), except that an entity shall provide for
coverage of a nonformulary drug on the same basis as a drug
within the formulary if such nonformulary drug is determined
by the prescribing provider to be medically indicated;
``(II) educating prescribing providers, pharmacists, and
beneficiaries about medical and cost benefits of formulary
products; and
``(III) requesting prescribing providers to consider a
formulary product prior to dispensing of a nonformulary drug,
as long as such request does not unduly delay the provision
of the drug.

``(7) Procedures to compensate pharmacists for
counseling.--The eligible entity shall compensate pharmacists
for providing the counseling described in subsection
(g)(2)(B).
``(8) Clinical outcomes.--
``(A) Requirement.--The eligible entity shall comply with
clinical quality standards as determined by the Secretary.
``(B) Development of standards.--The Secretary, in
consultation with appropriate medical specialty societies,
shall develop clinical quality standards that are applicable
to eligible entities. Such standards shall be based on
current standards of care.
``(9) Procedures regarding denials of care.--The eligible
entity has in place procedures to ensure--

[[Page S3933]]

``(A) the timely review and resolution of denials of care
and complaints (including those regarding the use of
formularies under paragraph (6)) by enrollees, or providers,
pharmacists, and other individuals acting on behalf of such
individual (with the individual's consent) in accordance with
requirements (as established by the Secretary) that are
comparable to such requirements for Medicare+Choice
organizations under part C; and
``(B) that beneficiaries are provided with information
regarding the appeals procedures under this section at the
time of enrollment.
``(g) Educational Requirements To Ensure Appropriate
Utilization.--
``(1) Establishment of program criteria.--The Secretary
shall establish a model for comprehensive educational
programs in order to assure the appropriate--
``(A) prescribing and dispensing of covered outpatient
drugs under this section; and
``(B) use of such drugs by eligible beneficiaries.
``(2) Elements of model.--The model established under
paragraph (1) shall include the following elements:
``(A) On-line prospective review available 24 hours a day
and 7 days a week in order to evaluate each prescription for
drug therapy problems due to duplication, interaction, or
incorrect dosage or duration of therapy.
``(B) Consistent with State law, guidelines for counseling
eligible beneficiaries enrolled under a contract under this
section regarding--
``(i) the proper use of prescribed covered outpatient
drugs; and
``(ii) interactions and contra-indications.
``(C) Methods to identify and educate providers,
pharmacists, and eligible beneficiaries regarding--
``(i) instances or patterns concerning the unnecessary or
inappropriate prescribing or dispensing of covered outpatient
drugs;
``(ii) instances or patterns of substandard care;
``(iii) potential adverse reactions to covered outpatient
drugs;
``(iv) inappropriate use of antibiotics;
``(v) appropriate use of generic products; and
``(vi) the importance of using covered outpatient drugs in
accordance with the instruction of prescribing providers.
``(h) Protection of Patient Confidentiality.--Insofar as an
eligible organization maintains individually identifiable
medical records or other health information regarding
enrollees under a contract entered into under this section,
the organization shall--
``(1) safeguard the privacy of any individually
identifiable enrollee information;
``(2) maintain such records and information in a manner
that is accurate and timely; and
``(3) assure timely access of such enrollees to such
records and information.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Covered outpatient drug.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `covered outpatient drug' means any of the following
products:
``(i) A drug which may be dispensed only upon prescription,
and--

``(I) which is approved for safety and effectiveness as a
prescription drug under section 505 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
``(II)(aa) which was commercially used or sold in the
United States before the date of enactment of the Drug
Amendments of 1962 or which is identical, similar, or related
(within the meaning of section 310.6(b)(1) of title 21 of the
Code of Federal Regulations) to such a drug, and (bb) which
has not been the subject of a final determination by the
Secretary that it is a `new drug' (within the meaning of
section 201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)
or an action brought by the Secretary under section 301,
302(a), or 304(a) of such Act to enforce section 502(f) or
505(a) of such Act; or
``(III)(aa) which is described in section 107(c)(3) of the
Drug Amendments of 1962 and for which the Secretary has
determined there is a compelling justification for its
medical need, or is identical, similar, or related (within
the meaning of section 310.6(b)(1) of title 21 of the Code of
Federal Regulations) to such a drug, and (bb) for which the
Secretary has not issued a notice of an opportunity for a
hearing under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act on a proposed order of the Secretary to withdraw
approval of an application for such drug under such section
because the Secretary has determined that the drug is less
than effective for all conditions of use prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in its labeling.

``(ii) A biological product which--

``(I) may only be dispensed upon prescription;
``(II) is licensed under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act; and

``(III) is produced at an establishment licensed under such
section to produce such product.

``(iii) Insulin approved under appropriate Federal law.
``(iv) A prescribed drug or biological product that would
meet the requirements of clause (i) or (ii) but that is
available over-the-counter in addition to being available
upon prescription.
``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered outpatient drug' does
not include any product--
``(i) except as provided in subparagraph (A)(iv), which may
be distributed to individuals without a prescription;
``(ii) when furnished as part of, or as incident to, a
diagnostic service or any other item or service for which
payment may be made under this title;
``(iii) that was covered under this title on the day before
the date of enactment of the Access to Rx Medications in
Medicare Act of 1999; or
``(iv) that is a therapeutically equivalent replacement for
a product described in clause (ii) or (iii), as determined by
the Secretary.
``(2) Eligible beneficiary.--The term `eligible
beneficiary' means an individual that is enrolled under part
B of this title.
``(3) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means
any entity that the Secretary determines to be appropriate,
including--
``(A) pharmaceutical benefit management companies;
``(B) wholesale and retail pharmacist delivery systems;
``(C) insurers;
``(D) other entities; or
``(E) any combination of the entities described in
subparagraphs (A) through (D).''.

SEC. 4. OPTIONAL COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES.

(a) In General.--If drug coverage under a group health plan
that provides health insurance coverage for retirees is
equivalent to or greater than the coverage provided under
section 1849 of the Social Security Act (as added by section
3), beneficiaries receiving coverage through the group health
plan may continue to receive such coverage from the plan and
the Secretary may make payments to such plans, subject to the
requirements of this section.
(b) Requirements.--To receive payment under this section,
group health plans shall--
(1) comply with certain requirements of this Act and other
reasonable, necessary, and related requirements that are
needed to administer this section, as determined by the
Secretary;
(2) to the extent that there is a contractual obligation to
provide drug coverage to retirees that is equal to or greater
than the drug coverage provided under this Act, reimburse or
otherwise arrange to compensate beneficiaries during the life
of the contract for the portion of the part B premium under
section 1839 of the Social Security Act that is identified by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services as attributable to
the drug coverage provided under section 1849 of that Act (as
added by section 3); or
(3) for group health plans that are in existence prior to
enactment of this section and provide drug coverage to
retirees that is equal to or greater than the drug coverage
provided under section 1849 of the Social Security Act (as
added by section 3), reimburse or otherwise arrange to
compensate beneficiaries for the portion of the part B
premium under section 1839 of the Social Security Act that is
identified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as
attributable to the drug coverage provided under section 1849
of that Act (as added by section 3) for at least 1 year from
the date that the group health plan begins participation
under this section.
(c) Payments.--The Secretary shall establish a process to
provide payments to eligible group health plans under this
section on behalf of enrolled beneficiaries. Such payments
shall not exceed the amount that would otherwise be paid to a
private entity serving similar beneficiaries in the same
service area under section 1849 of the Social Security Act
(as added by section 3).

SEC. 5. MEDIGAP REVISIONS.

(a) Coverage of Outpatient Drugs.--Section 1882(p)(2)(B) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(p)(2)(B)) is
amended by inserting before ``and'' at the end the following:
``including a requirement that an appropriate number of
policies provide coverage of drugs which compliments but does
not duplicate the drug benefits that beneficiaries are
otherwise entitled to under this title (with the Secretary
and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
determining the appropriate level of drug benefits that each
benefit package must provide and ensuring that policies
providing such coverage remain affordable for
beneficiaries);''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on July 1, 2000.
(c) Transition Provisions.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of Health and Human
Services identifies a State as requiring a change to its
statutes or regulations to conform its regulatory program to
the amendments made by this section, the State regulatory
program shall not be considered to be out of compliance with
the requirements of section 1882 of the Social Security Act
due solely to failure to make such change until the date
specified in paragraph (4).
(2) NAIC standards.--If, within 9 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (in this subsection referred to as the
``NAIC'') modifies its NAIC Model Regulation relating to
section 1882 of the Social Security Act (referred to in such
section as the 1991 NAIC Model Regulation, as subsequently
modified) to conform to the amendments made by this section,
such revised regulation incorporating the modifications shall
be considered to be the applicable NAIC model regulation
(including the revised NAIC model regulation and the 1991
NAIC Model Regulation) for the purposes of such section.
(3) Secretary standards.--If the NAIC does not make the
modifications described in

[[Page S3934]]

paragraph (2) within the period specified in such paragraph,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make the
modifications described in such paragraph and such revised
regulation incorporating the modifications shall be
considered to be the appropriate regulation for the purposes
of such section.
(4) Date specified.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the date
specified in this paragraph for a State is the earlier of--
(i) the date the State changes its statutes or regulations
to conform its regulatory program to the changes made by this
section; or
(ii) 1 year after the date the NAIC or the Secretary first
makes the modifications under paragraph (2) or (3),
respectively.
(B) Additional legislative action required.--In the case of
a State which the Secretary identifies as--
(i) requiring State legislation (other than legislation
appropriating funds) to conform its regulatory program to the
changes made in this section; but
(ii) having a legislature which is not scheduled to meet in
2000 in a legislative session in which such legislation may
be considered;

the date specified in this paragraph is the first day of the
first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first
legislative session of the State legislature that begins on
or after July 1, 2000. For purposes of the previous sentence,
in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session,
each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate
regular session of the State legislature.

SEC. 6. IMPROVED MEDICAID ASSISTANCE FOR LOW-INCOME
INDIVIDUALS.

(a) Increase in SLMB Eligibility to 135 Percent of Poverty
Level.--.
(1) In general.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)) is amended--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ``and 120 percent in 1995
and years thereafter'' and inserting ``, 120 percent in 1995
and through July 1, 2000, and 135 percent for subsequent
periods''; and
(B) in clause (iv)--
(i) by striking the dash and all that follows through
``(II)'', and
(ii) by striking ``who would be described in subclause (I)
if `135 percent' and `175 percent' were substituted for `120
percent' and `135 percent' respectively'' and inserting ``who
would be described in clause (iii) but for the fact that
their income exceeds 135 percent, but is less than 175
percent, of the official poverty line (referred to in such
clause) for a family of the size involved''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1933(c)(2)(A) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396v(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``the
sum'' and all that follows and inserting ``the total number
of individuals described in section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) in the
State; to''.
(b) Provision of Medicaid Prescription Drug Benefits for
QMBs and SLMBs as Wrap-Around Benefit.--
(1) In general.--Section 1902(a)(10) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (E)(i), by inserting ``and for
prescribed drugs (in the same amount, duration, and scope as
for individuals described in subparagraph (A)(i))'' after
``1905(p)(3))'';
(B) in subparagraph (E)(iii), by inserting ``and for
prescribed drugs (in the same amount, duration, and scope as
for individuals described in subparagraph (A)(i))'' after
``section 1905(p)(3)(A)(ii)''; and
(C) in the clause (VIII) following subparagraph (F), by
inserting ``and to medical assistance for prescribed drugs
described in subparagraph (E)(i)'' after ``1905(p)(3))''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1916(a) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1396o(a)) is amended, in the matter before paragraph
(1), by striking ``(E)(i)'' and inserting ``(E)''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a)(1) and (b) take
effect on July 1, 2000, and apply to prescribed drugs
furnished on or after such date.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (a)(2) applies to the
allocation for the portion of fiscal year 2000 that occurs on
or after July 1, 2000, and to the allocation for subsequent
fiscal years.
(3) The amendments made by this section apply without
regard to whether or not regulations to implement such
amendments are promulgated by July 1, 2000.

SEC. 7. WAIVER OF ADDITIONAL PORTION OF PART B PREMIUM FOR
CERTAIN MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES HAVING
ACTUARIALLY EQUIVALENT COVERAGE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish a method under which the portion of the part
B premium under section 1839 of the Social Security Act that
is identified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services
as attributable to the drug coverage provided under section
1849 of that Act (as added by section 3) is waived (and not
collected) for any individual enrolled under part B of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act who demonstrates that the
individual has drug coverage that is actuarially equivalent
to the coverage provided under that part.
(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an
individual with coverage through a group health plan if the
group health plan receives payments for such individual
pursuant to section 4.

SEC. 8. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMITATION ON MEDICARE BENEFITS
FOR IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.

(a) Revision.--
(1) In general.--Section 1861(s)(2)(J) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended by
striking ``, but only'' and all that follows up to the
semicolon at the end.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Extension of Certain Secondary Payer Requirements.--
Section 1862(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395y(b)(1)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``With regard to immunosuppressive drugs furnished
on or after the date of enactment of the Access to Rx
Medications in Medicare Act of 1999, this subparagraph shall
be applied without regard to any time limitation.''.

SEC. 9. EXPANSION OF MEMBERSHIP OF MEDPAC TO 19.

(a) In General.--Section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395b-6(c)), as amended by section 5202 of the Tax
and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 (contained in division
J of Public Law 105-277), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``17'' and inserting
``19''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``experts in the area
of pharmacology and prescription drug benefit programs,''
after ``other health professionals,''.
(b) Initial Terms of Additional Members.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of staggering the initial
terms of members of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
under section 1805(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395b-6(c)(3)), the initial terms of the 2 additional
members of the Commission provided for by the amendment under
subsection (a)(1) are as follows:
(A) One member shall be appointed for 1 year.
(B) One member shall be appointed for 2 years.
(2) Commencement of terms.--Such terms shall begin on
January 1, 2000.

SEC. 10. GAO STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study and analysis of the implementation of
the competitive bidding process for covered outpatient drugs
under section 1849 of the Social Security Act (as added by
section 3), including an analysis of--
(1) the reduction of hospital visits (or lengths of such
visits) by beneficiaries as a result of providing coverage of
covered outpatient drugs under such section;
(2) prices paid by the medicare program relative to
comparable private and public sector programs; and
(3) any other savings to the medicare program as a result
of--
(A) such coverage; and
(B) the education and counseling provisions of section
1849(g).
(b) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2001, and annually
thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit a report to Congress on the study and analysis
conducted pursuant to subsection (a), and shall include in
the report such recommendations regarding the coverage of
covered outpatient drugs under the medicare program as the
Comptroller General determines to be appropriate.

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this
Act apply to items and services furnished on or after July 1,
2000.
____

Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999--Summary

the need

When Medicare was enacted in 1965, outpatient prescription
drug coverage was not a standard feature of private health
insurance policies. Now, virtually all employment-based
policies provide prescription drug coverage, but Medicare
does not.
More than one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have no
coverage for outpatient prescription drugs. While other
elderly and disabled beneficiaries have some level of
outpatient prescription drug coverage through Medicare+Choice
plans, individually purchased Medigap or retiree health
coverage, too often that coverage is inadequate, expensive or
unreliable.

legislative proposal

This legislation would create a new outpatient prescription
drug benefit under Part B. The benefit has two parts--a basic
benefit that will fully cover the drug needs of most
beneficiaries and a stop-loss benefit that will provide much
needed additional coverage to the beneficiaries who have the
highest drug costs.
The proposal administers and delivers the benefit through
private entities and private sector performance benchmarks--
rather than HCFA or federally designated price controls. All
beneficiaries would be covered by the new benefit.
Beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare+Choice plans would receive
the benefit through their plan. Beneficiaries in conventional
Medicare would enroll with an approved program in their area
of residence, following the general model of Medicare+Choice
enrollment.
In addition, the proposal would preserve and improve
existing coverage in the private market that is equal to or
greater than the new coverage under Medicare. Beneficiaries
with equivalent coverage through a retiree health plan would
be able to keep that coverage and HHS would provide payment
to the plan equal to the payment that would otherwise be paid
on behalf of the beneficiary to one of the new private
entities.

[[Page S3935]]

The benefit

Outpatient drugs covered under this Act are FDA-approved
therapies that are dispensed only by prescription, including
insulin and biologics, and that are reasonable and necessary
to prevent or slow the deterioration of, and improve or
maintain the health of covered individuals. This Act would
not cover over-the-counter products or therapies that are
currently covered under Medicare (e.g., those that are
administered ``incident to'' physician services).
After beneficiaries meet a separate drug deductible of
$200, coverage is generally provided at levels similar to
regular Part B benefits--with the beneficiary paying not more
than 20 percent of the program's established price for a
particular product. The basic benefit would provide
coverage up to $1,700 annually. Medicare would provide
``stop-loss'' coverage (i.e., Medicare would pay 100
percent) once annual out-of-pocket expenditures exceed
$3,000. Beneficiaries with drug costs in excess of the
basic benefit--but below the stop-loss trigger--would be
allowed to self-pay for additional medications at the
private entity's discounted price.
This benefit package provides a new and much needed
guarantee of coverage for all beneficiaries, and will fully
cover the prescription drug needs of approximately 80 percent
of beneficiaries.

Use of private sector and support of existing coverage

Coverage would be provided through private entities under
contract with HHS. Eligible entities include pharmaceutical
benefit management companies, insurers, networks of wholesale
and retail pharmacies, and other appropriate organizations.
Eligible entities would submit competitive bids to the
Secretary for regional coverage--regions would be determined
by the Secretary and structured in such a way as to encourage
participation by and competition among private entities.
Service areas would consist of at least one state whenever
possible.
Bids would be awarded based on shared risk, capitation or
performance to entities that meet the requirements of the Act
and provide for discounts comparable to those garnered by
other large private sector purchasers. There is no fee
schedule or rebate structure. The Secretary shall award at
least two bids in an area, if such bids meet the requirements
of the Act, encourage competition and improve service for
beneficiaries.
Entities may employ a variety of cost-containment
techniques used in the private sector (e.g., formularies,
differential cost-sharing for certain products, etc.),
subject to guidelines and beneficiary protections established
in the Act. Entities must contract with a sufficient number
and distribution of retail pharmacies throughout the plan's
service area to assure convenient access for covered
beneficiaries.

Additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries

Beneficiaries with incomes between the level for Medicaid
eligibility and 135 percent of poverty would receive
comprehensive wrap-around coverage through Medicaid,
including assistance with cost-sharing and premiums.

Incentive to maintain current private market coverage

To maintain coverage in the retiree health market,
employers who offer retiree drug coverage that is equal to or
better than the new Medicare benefit would be eligible for a
payment equal to the payment that would otherwise be made to
the local private entity. This would help beneficiaries with
comprehensive drug coverage in retiree health plans to keep
their current coverage.

Measures to decrease drug-related problems

Improper use of or lack of access to prescription drugs is
estimated to cost Medicare more than $20 billion annually
(primarily through avoidable hospitalizations and admissions
to skilled nursing facilities.) Participating private
entities must use systems to assure appropriate prescribing,
dispensing and use of covered therapies. These programs must
include on-line prospective review and methods to identify
and educate pharmacists, providers and beneficiaries on (1)
instances or patterns of unnecessary or inappropriate
prescribing or dispensing or substandard care, (2) potential
adverse reactions, (3) inappropriate use of antibiotics, (4)
appropriate use of generic products, and (5) patient
compliance.

Medigap reforms

The Secretary and the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners would be required to revise the standard
Medigap packages to reflect the new Medicare benefit, and
provide for coverage that compliments, but does not
duplicate, such coverage in an appropriate number of standard
packages.

estimated cost and financing

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet estimated the
costs or potential savings associated with this proposal. The
proposal does not specify the financing mechanism, but viable
options include (1) recovering--through legislation or
litigation--the Medicare costs attributable to treating
tobacco-related diseases and conditions, (2) an increase in
the federal tobacco tax, (3) a small portion of the
unallocated surplus, or (4) savings achieved as part of the
financing of more comprehensive Medicare reform legislation.
____

Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999 Fact Sheet

The greatest gap in Medicare coverage in the lack of a
prescription drug benefit. The time has come to modernize
Medicare's benefits by including coverage for outpatient
prescription drugs.

Coverage

When Medicare was enacted in 1965, outpatient prescription
drug coverage was not a standard feature of private insurance
policies. Today, however, virtually all employment-based
policies provide prescription drug coverage.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have no
prescription drug coverage. Coverage among the remaining
beneficiaries is often inadequate, unaffordable and
uncertain. Approximately 12 percent receive limited coverage
through individually purchased Medigap policies, which are
extremely expensive and often difficult to obtain. About six
percent of Medicare beneficiaries have limited drug coverage
through Medicare HMOs, but many plans are cutting back or
eliminating drug coverage. Only about one-third of
beneficiaries have reasonably comprehensive coverage, through
an employment-based retirement plan or through Medicaid--and
the proportion with employment-based coverage is
declining.\2\

spending and utilization

Purchase of prescription drugs accounts for the largest
single source of out-of-pocket health costs for Medicare
beneficiaries.\3\
About 85 percent of the elderly use at least one
prescription medicine during the year. The average senior
citizen takes more than four prescription drugs daily and
fills an average of eighteen prescriptions a year. It is not
uncommon for seniors to face prescription drug bills of at
least $100 a month.\4\
The elderly, who make up 12 percent of the population, are
estimated to use one-third of all prescription drugs.\5\
Lack of Medicare coverage disproportionately increases the
financial burden on women, rural residents, low-income
beneficiaries and older beneficiaries.\6\
A 1993 study, before the most recent surge in drug costs,
reported that one in eight senior citizens said they were
forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine.\7\
Medicare beneficiaries without supplemental private
coverage for prescription drugs spend twice as much on
prescription drugs as their counterparts with private
insurance.\8\
Increasingly, the miracle cures of the future will depend
on pharmaceuticals developed through new breakthroughs in
biology and biotechnology. These cures will generally save
money overall, but the individual products will be expensive.
The dollar volume of drug sales last year increased 16.6%,
but most of the increase was due to greater use of costly new
drugs, rather than price increases.\9\
Medicare beneficiaries pay exorbitant prices for the drugs
they buy, because they generally do not have access to
discount programs available to other buyers. A study of five
commonly prescribed drugs found that Medicare beneficiaries
paid twice as much as the drug companies' favored
customers.\10\
Elderly persons without drug coverage are among the last
purchasers who pay full price. According to a recent Standard
and Poor's report on the pharmaceutical industry,
``[d]rugmakers have historically raised prices to private
customers to compensate for the discounts they grant to
managed care consumers.'' Because Medicare beneficiaries are
among the only private patients without additional coverage,
they shoulder most of the burden generated by the industry's
preference for cost-shifting.\11\

adequate coverage and improved utilization are wise investments

Assuring Medicare beneficiaries access to drugs in a well-
managed program can produce immense savings for the Medicare
program. Savings arise because seniors are able to afford to
take the drugs that have been prescribed for their condition
and because it is easier to encourage compliance with drug
regimens and avoid complications or interactions because of
inappropriate use. Improper use of prescription drug costs
Medicare more than $20 billion annually, primarily through
avoidable hospitalizations and admissions to skilled nursing
facilities.\12\
One study found that hospitals costs for a preventable
adverse drug event run nearly $5,000 per episode.\13\
GAO reported in June 1996 that Medicaid's automated drug
utilization review system reduced adverse drug events and
saved more than $30 million a year in just five states.

research and development

The Pharmaceutical industry spent more than $21 billion in
research and development in 1998.\14\ Ensuring access for the
elderly through this proposal will provide a natural market
for new and innovative therapies, promoting additional
investments in research and development.

footnotes

\1\ Department of Labor, Employee Benefits in Small Private
Establishments.
\2\ The Lewin Group, ``Current Knowledge of Third Party
Outpatient Drug Coverage for Medicare Beneficiaries,''
November 9, 1998, cited in staff documents, Medicare
Commission; Margaret Davis, et al., ``Prescription Drug
Coverage, Utilization, and Spending Among Medicare
Beneficiaries,'' Health Affairs, January-February, 1999.
\3\ AARP, ``Out-of-Pocket Spending.''
\4\ Stephen H. Long, ``Prescription Drugs and the Elderly:
Issues and Options,'' Health Affairs, Spring 1994.

[[Page S3936]]

\5\ AARP Public Policy Institute, ``Overview: Lack of
Coverage Burdens Many Medicare Beneficiaries,'' September
1998.
\6\ Jeanette Rogowski, PhD, et al, ``The Financial Burden of
Prescription Drug use Among Elderly Persons,'' The
Gerontologist 37:4 (August 1997).
\7\ American Pharmacy, October, 1992; HCFA Office of
Strategic Planning, Data from the Current Beneficiary Survey,
cited in staff documents, Medicare Commission; Department of
Health and Human Services, unpublished data; Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of
Representatives, Minority Staff Report, ``Prescription Drug
Pricing in the United States: Drug Companies Profit at the
Expense of Older Americans,'' October 20, 1998.
\8\ Rogowski, The Gerontologist 37:4 (August 1997).
\9\ Elyse Tanoye, Wall Street Journal, November 16, 1998.
\10\ Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
``Prescription Drug Pricing.''
\11\ Ibid.
\12\ Prescription Drugs and the Elderly: Many Still Receive
Potentially Harmful Drugs Despite Recent Improvements (GAO/
HEHS-95-152, July 24, 1995); 60 FR 44182 (August 24, 1995).
\13\ David W. Bates, Md, MSc, et al., ``The Costs of Adverse
Drug Events in Hospitalized Patients,'' JAMA, January 22/29,
1997.
\14\ Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,
``The Value of Pharmaceuticals,'' 1998.
____

benefit

New benefit under Part B.
20% coinsurance; special $200 deductible. Special
assistance for low-income beneficiaries (i.e., income <135%
of poverty).
Basic coverage of first $1,700 worth of expenditures
annually, including cost-sharing.
Stop-loss coverage once annual out-of-pocket spending
reaches $3,000.

administration of benefit

All benefits provided through private sector:
Secretary enters into contracts with at least two private
entities (pharmacy benefit management organizations,
insurance companies, consortiums of retail pharmacists, etc.)
in each region to provide benefits. Beneficiaries choose
which one to sign up with.
Medicare HMOs provide benefit directly. Medicare+Choice
payments adjusted to reflect additional cost of drug
coverage.
Private businesses offering coverage equal to or greater
than Medicare benefit as part of retiree health program are
eligible for payments to maintain coverage.
Beneficiaries who have and maintain equivalent private
sector coverage may opt-out of program entirely.
All programs must provide convenient access to drugs
through retail pharmacies.
Programs must include measures to assure proper use of
prescription drugs and reduce adverse drug reactions or other
drug-related problems.
Programs must allow patients to receive most appropriate
drug.
Standard Medigap packages are redesigned by the Secretary
of HHS and NAIC to reflect new Medicare benefit, and provide
complimentary coverage, where appropriate.

cost of program and financing

Cost estimates not yet available. Beneficiaries pay 25% of
cost through Part B premium (with assistance for low-income).
Additional financing possibilities include: higher tobacco
taxes, recoupment of federal costs for tobacco-related
diseases, unallocated portion of surplus, savings from long-
term Medicare reform proposal (in reconciliation or alone),
and savings from reduced hospitalizations and other costs
related to inappropriate use of prescription drugs.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the
``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999'' with my colleague
from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. Our legislation seeks to assist
Medicare beneficiaries with their single largest out-of-pocket expense
for health care services--prescription drugs.
I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership in bringing
this issue to the forefront of the health care debate. I have long
admired Senator Kennedy's commitment and dedication to improving the
lives of our most vulnerable citizens.
This is not the first time prescription coverage has been discussed
seriously in the United States Senate. The debate around providing
prescription drug coverage was first discussed while the creation of
the Medicare program was being considered. Unfortunately, in the end,
drug coverage was not included.
Medicare has not been updated substantially since its enactment and
we know that a lot has changed in health care since 1965. The program
was modeled after employer-sponsored health plans--most of which, at
the time, did not offer prescription drug coverage. Now, almost all
employer-sponsored health plans recognize the important role that
prescription drugs play in modern medicine. Additionally, the value of
drug therapy was unclear in 1965. Today, medical and technological
advances in drug safety and effectiveness have created more
pharmaceutical products that can treat disease and manage chronic
illnesses.
A decade ago, the Senate sought to redress that error and provide
prescription drug coverage to all--but politics overwhelmed a much-
needed policy change and the benefit was forfeited. I believe it is
time to reenergize the debate.
Today, we have the opportunity to build on successful private sector
initiatives to provide Medicare beneficiaries with much needed
prescription drug coverage. Pharmaceutical benefit managers (PBMs) have
the information infrastructure, claims experience, and detailed
understanding of drug management to provide a strong, stable benefit
structure. By taking advantage of their management skills, we can
update the Medicare program, make it stronger, make it more
competitive, and more able to meet the challenges presented by the
approaching retirement of the baby boom generation.
Mr. President, I am constantly in touch with West Virginians who
describe the dilemmas they face about paying for the prescription
drugs. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, raised
families, contributed to their communities, and paid their taxes. Now,
in the twilight of their lives, a time that they should be enjoying
with their children and grandchildren, they are struggling to make ends
meet. And health care expenses, especially prescription drug costs, are
breaking their budgets.
A West Virginia senior has an average income of $10,700 and spends
$2,600 annually on average in out-of-pocket health care expenses.
Prilosec, a popular anti-ulcer drug, costs about $1000 a year. Lipitor,
a drug that controls cholesterol levels, and Rezulin, an anti-diabetic
drug, each cost over $800 a year. But the rent, electricity, phone, and
groceries also have to be paid. And there is only so much that can be
cut when a person is down to choosing between basic necessities.
Mr. President, I'd like to share some examples of West Virginians who
would truly apppreciate the enactment of the ``Access to Rx Medications
in Medicare Act.'' I know of an elderly woman in West Virginia who
relies solely on Social Security for her monthly income of $800 but
spends over $100 a month for her heart medication. I know of another
elderly widow in West Virginia who has monthly income of $760 but
spends $500 a month in prescription drug costs. She constantly worries
about her future, especially if her health takes a turn for the worse.
West Virginians are not alone. Between one-third and one-half of all
Medicare beneficiaries--that's roughly between 13 and 19 million
seniors--have little or no prescription drug coverage.

The seniors who are the most vulnerable are the lowest income
beneficiaries and those suffering from chronic illnesses. Eighty
percent of the elderly suffer from one or more chronic diseases, many
of which could be controlled by drug therapy. The chronically ill spend
$400 more annually on average than seniors without a chronic illness.
Seniors in West Virginia are disproportionately hurt by chronic
illness. Heart disease, cancer, strokes are the leading causes of death
in my state.
Low-income seniors are especially at risk for developing chronic
illnesses. Unfortunately, low-income seniors are also not likely to
have prescription drug coverage--only 36% of those with incomes less
than $10,000 had drug coverage--but they spend a greater percentage of
their income to pay for prescription drugs than do higher-income
beneficiaries.
Those who do have access to prescription drug coverage rely on
patchwork of public and private measures that usually offer very
limited coverage with high premiums, coinsurance rates, and
deductibles--making the lifesaving coverage they need hard to maintain.
The most comprehensive coverage sources of prescription drug coverage
are Medicaid and employer-sponsored retiree insurance. However, recent
trends indicate that fewer firms are offering retiree benefits that
include drug coverage because of the cost.
Seniors who do not have prescription drug coverage and have to buy
medication on their own are the hardest hit by the steep increases in
prescription drug costs. A recent Congressional study found that
seniors may pay as much as double what HMOs, insurance companies and
other bulk purchasers pay. The price difference is due to the fact that
bulk purchasers can negotiate much lower prices for their drug orders

[[Page S3937]]

than the retail pharmacies--where seniors buy their drugs--can. Even
though 34 million seniors participate in the Medicare program, Medicare
beneficiaries have no leverage when purchasing medication.
Mr President, the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act" helps
seniors in several ways. First, it would provide seniors without
existing coverage a basic drug benefit, up to about $1700 dollars a
year, under Medicare Part B. Once the benefit has been exhausted,
seniors can continue to purchase prescription drugs at the program's
discounted price. Next, this bill offers stop-loss protection that is
triggered when a beneficiary spends more than $3,000 annually in out-
of-pocket prescription drug costs. Finally, this legislation would
improve the protections offered by current law to assist the lowest
income beneficiaries and those with the highest out-of-pocket drug
costs.
The ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act'' builds on
infrastructure already in place in the private sector. Pharmaceutical
benefits managers, networks of retail or community pharmacies, or
insurers will have the opportunity to submit competitive bids to manage
the benefit. The PBMs would then negotiate discounts and rebates for
Medicare beneficiaries just like they do for HMOs and insurance
companies in return for a payment from Medicare.
Finally, providing prescription drug coverage to seniors is cost-
effective in the long-run. Drug therapy, especially in managing chronic
illnesses, saves money by keeping seniors out of hospitals and nursing
homes. This proposal would also save money by reducing improper use of
prescription drugs, which currently costs Medicare $16 billion
annually.
Mr. President, when Congress created the Medicare program nearly 35
years ago, we made a commitment to provide affordable, quality health
care for our seniors. Today, prescription drugs are an essential
component of quality health care. The lack of affordable prescription
drug coverage in the Medicare program is especially saddening at a time
when most Americans are experiencing greater prosperity than ever
before.
I believe that we have to honor the commitment we made to those who
came before us and sacrificed so much to make this nation what it is
today. Providing Medicare coverage for outpatient prescription drugs is
necessary to update and modernize the Medicare benefit package. Now is
the time to enact legislation and so I urge my colleagues to support
the ``Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act of 1999.''
______

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 842. A bill to limit the civil liability of business entities that
donate equipment to nonprofit organizations; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 843. A bill to limit the civil liability of business entities that
provide facility tours; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 844. A bill to limit the civil liability of business entities that
make available to a nonprofit organization the use of a motor vehicle
or aircraft; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 845. A bill to limit the civil liability of business entities
providing use of facilities to nonprofit organizations; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

legislation to limit the civil liability of business entities providing
services to nonprofit organizations

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce four pieces of
legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress. Building on the support
I've received for these bills, I look forward to passage this Congress
of much needed liability protection for those who donate goods and
services to charities.
Over the past thirty years, courts have consistently expanded what
constitutes tortious conduct. Regrettably, fault is often not a factor
when deciding who should compensate an individual for damages incurred.
This has had an impact on charitable giving. Today, individuals and
businesses are wary of giving goods, services, and time to charities
for fear of frivolous lawsuits.
This legislation is designed to free up resources for charities by
providing legal protections for donors. Generally, these bills raise
the tort liability standard for donors, whereby they are liable only in
cases of gross negligence, hence eliminating strict liability and
returning to a fault based legal standard. By allowing businesses to
once again become good Samaritans, I look forward to seeing a massive
increase in the donation of goods and services to charities.
Specifically, I have introduced four bills, each of which
accomplishes one of the following four objectives: first, to limit the
civil liability of business entities that donate equipment to nonprofit
organizations; second, to limit the civil liability of business
entities that provide use of their facilities to nonprofit
organizations; third, to limit the civil liability of business entities
that provide facility tours; and fourth, to limit the civil liability
of business entities that make available to nonprofit organizations the
use of motor vehicles or aircraft.
Clearly, where an organization is grossly negligent when providing
goods or the use of its facilities to charity, that organization should
be fully liable for inquiries caused. These bills merely require this
to be the standard in cases arising from certain donations to
charities.
In late 1996, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act was passed into
law. This law now protects donors of foodstuffs to charities from
liability except in cases where the donor was grossly negligent in
making the donation. I was proud to join Senator Bond in passing this
Act. The bills I introduce today draw from my successful work with
Senator Bond years ago. Each of these bills is modeled on the legal
framework of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. I hope my
distinguished colleagues who supported the Food Donation Act will help
further these efforts by supporting the Charity Empowerment Project.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 842

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES THAT DONATE
EQUIPMENT TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

[[Page S3938]]

(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent
that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that
this Act shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection for a business entity for an injury or
death described in subsection (b)(1).
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act
shall not apply to any civil action in a State court against
a business entity in which all parties are citizens of the
State if such State enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act
shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
(3) containing no other provision.
____

S. 843

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES PROVIDING TOURS OF
FACILITIES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Business entity.--The term ``business entity'' means a
firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium,
joint venture, or other form of enterprise.
(2) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means any real
property, including any building, improvement, or
appurtenance.
(3) Gross negligence.--The term ``gross negligence'' means
voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge
(at the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be
harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
(4) Intentional misconduct.--The term ``intentional
misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the
time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the
health or well-being of another person.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, territory, or possession.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury to, or death of an individual occurring at a
facility of the business entity if--
(A) such injury or death occurs during a tour of the
facility in an area of the facility that is not otherwise
accessible to the general public; and
(B) the business entity authorized the tour.
(2) Application.--This subsection shall apply--
(A) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(B) regardless of whether an individual pays for the tour.
(c) Exception for Liability.--Subsection (b) shall not
apply to an injury or death that results from an act or
omission of a business entity that constitutes gross
negligence or intentional misconduct, including any
misconduct that--
(1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in
section 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been
convicted in any court;
(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent
that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that
this Act shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection from liability for a business entity
for an injury or death with respect to which the conditions
under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(1) apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act
shall not apply to any civil action in a State court against
a business entity in which all parties are citizens of the
State if such State enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act
shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
(3) containing no other provision.
____

S. 844

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES PROVIDING USE OF A
MOTOR VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Aircraft.--The term ``aircraft'' has the meaning
provided that term in section 40102(6) of title 49, United
States Code.
(2) Business entity.--the term ``business entity'' means a
firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium,
joint venture, or other form of enterprise.
(3) Gross negligence.--The term ``gross negligence'' means
voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge
(at the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be
harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
(4) Intentional misconduct.--The term ``intentional
misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the
time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the
health or well-being of another person.
(5) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' has the
meaning provided that term in section 30102(6) of title 49,
United States Code.
(6) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means--
(A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code; or
(B) any not-for-profit organization organized and conducted
for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable,
civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, territory, or possession.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death occurring as a result of the operation of
aircraft or a motor vehicle of a business entity loaned to a
nonprofit organization for use outside of the scope of
business of the business entity if--
(A) such injury or death occurs during a period that such
motor vehicle or aircraft is used by a nonprofit
organization; and
(B) the business entity authorized the use by the nonprofit
organization of motor vehicle or aircraft that resulted in
the injury or death.
(2) Application.--This subsection shall apply--
(A) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(B) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization pays for
the use of the aircraft or motor vehicle.
(c) Exception for Liability.--Subsection (b) shall not
apply to an injury or death that results from an act or
omission of a business entity that constitutes gross
negligence or intentional misconduct, including any
misconduct that--
(1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in
section 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been
convicted in any court;
(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent
that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that
this Act shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection from liability for a business entity
for an injury or death with respect to which the conditions
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(1)
apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act
shall not apply to any civil action in a State court against
a volunteer, nonprofit organization, or governmental entity
in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State
enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act
shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
(3) containing no other provision.
____

S. 845

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

SECTION 1. LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES PROVIDING USE OF
FACILITIES TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Business entity.--The term ``business entity'' means a
firm, corporation, association, partnership, consortium,
joint venture, or other form of enterprise.

[[Page S3939]]

(2) Facility.--The term ``facility'' means any real
property, including any building, improvement, or
appurtenance.
(3) Gross negligence.--The term ``gross negligence'' means
voluntary and conscious conduct by a person with knowledge
(at the time of the conduct) that the conduct is likely to be
harmful to the health or well-being of another person.
(4) Intentional misconduct.--The term ``intentional
misconduct'' means conduct by a person with knowledge (at the
time of the conduct) that the conduct is harmful to the
health or well-being of another person.
(5) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means--
(A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such Code; or
(B) any not-for-profit organization organized and conducted
for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable,
civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the
United States, or any political subdivision of any such
State, territory, or possession.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c), a business
entity shall not be subject to civil liability relating to
any injury or death occurring at a facility of the business
entity in connection with a use of such facility by a
nonprofit organization if--
(A) the use occurs outside of the scope of business of the
business entity;
(B) such injury or death occurs during a period that such
facility is used by the nonprofit organization; and
(C) the business entity authorized the use of such facility
by the nonprofit organization.
(2) Application.--This subsection shall apply--
(A) with respect to civil liability under Federal and State
law; and
(B) regardless of whether a nonprofit organization pays for
the use of a facility.
(c) Exception for Liability.--Subsection (b) shall not
apply to an injury or death that results from an act or
omission of a business entity that constitutes gross
negligence or intentional misconduct, including any
misconduct that--
(1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act
of international terrorism (as that term is defined in
section 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been
convicted in any court;
(2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the
Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
(3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable
State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any
court; or
(4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been
found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law.
(d) Superseding Provision.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and subsection
(e), this Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent
that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that
this Act shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection from liability for a business entity
for an injury or death with respect to which conditions under
subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection (b)(1) apply.
(2) Limitation.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
supersede any Federal or State health or safety law.
(e) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act
shall not apply to any civil action in a State court against
a business entity in which all parties are citizens of the
State if such State enacts a statute--
(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
(2) declaring the election of such State that this Act
shall not apply to such civil action in the State; and
(3) containing no other provision.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lieberman,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Kerry):
S.J. Res. 20. A joint resolution concerning the deployment of the
United States Armed Forces to the Kosovo region in Yugoslavia; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.

concerning the deployment of the united states armed forces to the
kosovo region in yugoslavia

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution cosponsored
by Senators Biden, Cochran, Hagel, Lieberman, Lugar, Dodd and Robb.
Before I go into my statement, I will mention that the Veterans of
Foreign Wars today will be issuing a statement regarding their support
for this resolution. The Veterans of Foreign Wars statement will read:

The United States, acting as a part of the NATO alliance,
should use a full range of force in an overwhelming and
decisive manner to meet its objectives.

I think it is important to note that this resolution would be
supported by those American veterans who have fought in foreign wars.
As my colleagues know, I am concerned that the force the United
States and our NATO allies have employed against Serbia, gradually
escalating airstrikes, is insufficient to achieve our political
objectives there, which are the removal of the Serb military and
security forces from Kosovo, the return of the refugees to their homes,
and the establishment of a NATO-led peacekeeping force.
I hope this resolution, should it be adopted, will encourage the
administration and our allies to find the courage and resolve to
prosecute this war in the manner most likely to result in its early end
and successful conclusion. In other words, I hope this resolution will
make clear Congress' support for adopting our means to secure our ends
rather than the reverse. But that is not our central purpose today. Our
central purpose is to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities,
responsibilities that we have thus far evaded.
Many of my colleagues oppose this war and would prefer that the
United States immediately withdraw from a Balkan conflict which they
judge to be a quagmire so far removed from America's interests that the
cost of victory cannot be justified. I disagree, but I respect their
opinion as honest and honorable. I believe that they would welcome the
opportunity to express their opposition by the means available to
Congress.
Those of us who support this intervention and those who may have had
reservations about either its necessity or its initial direction but
are now committed to winning it should also welcome this resolution as
the instrument for doing our duty, as we have called on so many fine
young Americans to do their duty at the risk of their lives. If those
who oppose this war and any widening of it prevail, so be it. The
President will pursue his present course as authorized by earlier
congressional resolutions until its failure demands we settle on Mr.
Milosevic's terms.
Those of our colleagues who feel that course is preferable to the
price that would be incurred by fully prosecuting this war can rightly
claim that they followed the demands of conscience and Constitution,
but they must also be accountable to the country and the world for
whatever negative consequences ensue from our failure. Should those of
us who want to use all necessary force to win this war prevail, then we
must accept the responsibility for the losses incurred in its
prosecution. That is the only honorable course.
But no matter which view any Senator holds, should this resolution be
adopted at the end of a thorough debate, all Members of Congress should
then unite to support the early and complete accomplishment of our
mission in Kosovo.
Silence and equivocation will not unburden us of our responsibility
to support or oppose the war. I do not recommend lightly the course I
have called on the President to pursue. I know, as should any one who
votes for this resolution, that if Americans die in a land war with
Serbia, we will bear a considerable share of the blame for their loss.
We are as accountable to their families as the President must be.
But I would rather face that sad burden than hide from my conscience
because I sought an ambiguous political position to seek shelter
behind. Nor could I easily bear the dishonor of having known that my
country's interests demanded a course of action, but avoided taking it
because the costs of defending them were substantial, as were its
attendant political risks.
Congress, no less than the administration, must show the resolve and
confidence of a superpower whose cause is just and imperative. Let us
all, President and Senator alike, show the courage of our convictions
in this critical hour. Let us declare ourselves in support of or
opposition to this war, and the many sacrifices it will entail. Our
duty demands it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from
Mississippi may consume.

[[Page S3940]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona, in introducing this
resolution. It seems to me very important at this juncture that the
Senate express itself on the subject of our obligation to use whatever
force is available to our alliance in NATO to win the conflict quickly
and decisively and not to be a party to dragging it out unnecessarily
by telling our adversary what military actions we will not use in the
conflict.
It seems to me that an appropriate analogy to the administration's
strategy is someone who gets himself into a fight, a boxing match, and
says, ``I am just going to use a left jab in this match, I am never
going to use the right hand.'' No one would do that with any
expectation of being successful in that conflict, in that encounter. It
seems to me that that is exactly what the United States has been doing,
and it has been a mistake.
This resolution suggests by its clear language that the President of
the United States is authorized to use all necessary force and other
means, in concert with United States allies, to accomplish United
States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization objectives in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
It also spells out in the resolution what those objectives are. It
suggests that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia withdraw its forces
from Kosovo, permitting the ethnic Albanians to return to their homes
and the establishment of a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Those are our
objectives.
To accomplish that, we must convince Milosevic that we are very
serious that this war will be waged with all necessary force unless he
surrenders his efforts to intimidate, kill, and otherwise terrify this
region of Europe, and that he stop this military action, and stop it
now, or he is going to suffer the most serious military consequences.

That is the message he should get from the NATO alliance and from the
U.S. leadership. That is what the Senate is saying by adopting this
resolution. And I hope the Senate will adopt this resolution.
It is unfortunate that we are involved in this military action. It is
very unpleasant. It is not something that any of us would have wished
to have occurred. We do have to recognize, though, that our NATO allies
are very actively involved in this conflict as well. Great Britain,
France, Germany, and Italy are all taking--and others--very active
roles in the prosecution of this military conflict to achieve the goals
that are recited in this resolution. It is an honorable course of
action to stop the killing and to stop the atrocities and restore
stability in this region of Europe.
The NATO alliance was begun on the premise that Europe should be
free, with an opportunity for people to live their lives in freedom,
without threat from military intimidation or harm. The alliance has
decided that this is an appropriate means for achieving that goal,
waging a conflict against a person who has proven to be totally
disrespectful of human rights, of the right to life, of the right to
live in peace with his neighbors. We can no longer tolerate this under
any circumstances.
So the NATO alliance is involved. And I am hopeful that the Senate
will spell out our views on this issue at the earliest possible time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Connecticut
for allowing me to proceed. I will be relatively brief. Unfortunately,
I think we are going to have an awful lot to say on this issue for some
time to come.
I thank Senator McCain. Several weeks ago, Senator McCain and I were
on one of these national shows talking about this issue, and we spoke
to one another after the show. We agreed on three things--and some of
my colleagues assembled here on the floor have reached the same
conclusions. First, that the President of the United States, if he were
to decide to use ground troops, would need congressional authorization.
Second, that we and the President should not ever take anything off the
table once we are in a war, in order to be able to successfully
prosecute that war. And third, that we consider a resolution that talks
about the use of ground force.
Senator McCain had a better idea. He said, ``Joe, why don't we do a
resolution that suggests the President use whatever means are at his
disposal in order to meet the objectives that are stated in the
resolution?'' So we came back after the recess with the intention of
introducing a resolution. We spoke with the Democratic and Republican
leadership here in the Senate. We met with the President in a
bipartisan group. And we concluded that it was not the time to press
for passage of the resolution. But it is time to lay it before the
American people and before the Congress.
This is a joint resolution. If passed, it would meet the
constitutional requirement of the war clause in the U.S. Constitution.
That is the equivalent of a declaration of war.
From a constitutional standpoint, in order to use ground forces, I am
of the view--and I expect my colleagues will be of the view, whether
they do or do not support ground forces, now or in the future--that the
Congress should be involved in that decision under our Constitution.
So speaking for myself, my first and foremost reason for being the
original cosponsor of this amendment with my friend, John McCain, is
that I believe it is constitutionally required.
Second, I believe very strongly that we should not make an
international commitment and then withhold the use of any means at our
disposal to reach our publicly stated objectives. This resolution will
allow us, as a nation and as an alliance, to fulfill our commitments.
So I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution. We will have
disagreements, as you will hear as this debate goes forward, as to
whether or not the President and NATO have appropriately prosecuted
this action thus far. I am not suggesting that all of us agree. But
that will be part of a debate that takes place here on the floor of the
Senate.
I, for one, do not have the military experience of John McCain; few
in America do. I would not attempt to second-guess whether the military
has the capacity to accomplish the objectives as stated by NATO solely
through the use of air power.
There are men on the floor like Senator Hagel--a war hero himself, a
Vietnam veteran--who are better equipped to determine whether or not
the military is accurately telling us what they can do. I am prepared
to accept for the moment that the military does have that capacity.
Thus my sponsorship of this resolution is not for the purpose of
making the case that the President and NATO should use ground troops at
this moment. Instead, I think the President should be authorized to use
those troops, if necessary, in order to prosecute successfully the NATO
goals in the Balkans. We must have the flexibility to respond to one of
the most serious crises of this century in the Balkans.
I just got back from Macedonia and Albania with Ted Stevens and
others. I noticed most people in Europe are not using the phrase
``conflict'' anymore; it is a war. This is a war. We should not kid
each other about it. This is a war. The fact that there have, thank
God, not been any American casualties yet, the fact that ``only'' three
Americans have been captured, does not mean this is not a war. This is
a war. And to successfully prosecute our aims, people are going to die,
including Americans. I think it is almost unbelievable to think that we
will meet the objectives stated by NATO without the loss of a single
American life.
So this is a war, and it is testing Europe and the alliance in a way
that we have not faced since the end of World War II. However we choose
to label it, this is a war in the Balkans, a war that is being
conducted by a war criminal named Slobodan Milosevic, who has caused
the greatest human catastrophe in Europe since World War II. At stake
are the lives of millions of displaced persons and refugees, the
stability of southeastern Europe, and the future of NATO itself.
Our goals must be the safe and secure return of all Kosovars to their
homes; the withdrawal of all Yugoslav and

[[Page S3941]]

Serbian Army, police, and paramilitary forces from Kosovo; and
permitting the establishment of a NATO-led peacekeeping force in
Kosovo, either through a permissive environment or--my phrase--a
practically permissible environment, one in which we could go in and
the military of Milosevic could not stop us.
With the stakes this high, we must give the President the necessary
means to achieve our goals. The Constitution, as I said, requires that
Congress consider giving such authorization. I have trust and
confidence in our military leaders when they say that, at least for the
moment, they do not need ground forces to achieve our goals.
Nonetheless, they should have the authorization to use all military
tools should they conclude otherwise. This resolution would provide
that authorization.
This resolution also authorizes the President to use other means,
which encompasses diplomacy as well as arms. I hope, of course, that a
diplomatic solution will be possible without the use of ground forces,
but only if the diplomatic solution achieves all of our stated goals.
Finally, through this resolution, we are putting Slobodan Milosevic
on notice that the United States and NATO allies are deadly serious
about doing what it takes to compel him to withdraw his vicious ethnic-
cleansers, gang rapists, recently pardoned criminals, ski-masked thugs,
and his now corrupted regular army troops from Kosovo.
So, let me conclude by saying once again that there will be plenty of
time to debate whether or not NATO should have had a full-blown plan on
the table for the use of ground forces. I suggest to my colleagues, as
I suggested at the NAC in Brussels this past Sunday, that if we had
done that, there is overwhelming evidence that several of our allies
would not have gone along with even airstrikes.
I remind everyone who is listening that the good news is that we are
an alliance. The bad news is, we are an alliance. An alliance requires
consensus. I respectfully suggest that as hard as it was for the
Senators on this floor to convince our colleagues that air power made
sense in the first instance, can you imagine what it would have been
like if we were standing on the floor today authorizing the President
to use all force necessary without 18 other NATO nations agreeing?

I respectfully suggest that Democrats and Republicans alike would
come to the floor and say: It is not our business alone. We should only
do this in conjunction with NATO.
So, there is a delicate balancing act, not unlike what Dwight
Eisenhower had to deal with in World War II with the French and the
British and others. The delicate balancing act involves keeping the
alliance together and at the same time not diminishing the capacity to
achieve the alliance's ends.
The message I would like to see sent to Belgrade today is that
America is united, the United States Congress is united, and American
citizens are prepared to use whatever force is necessary to stop him. I
would also send a message to our allies that we are resolved and we
expect them to stay resolved to achieve NATO's stated objectives. If we
fail to achieve our stated objectives, I believe that NATO loses its
credibility as a credible peacekeeping alternative and a defensive
organization in Europe. If that occurs, I believe you will see a
repetition of this war in Serbia, in Macedonia, in Albania, in
Montenegro, and other parts of the Balkans.
Much is at stake. We should not kid the American people. American
lives will be lost as this continues. But America's strategic interests
and American lives in the long run will be saved if we resolutely
pursue the NATO objectives.
Mr. President, I again thank my friend from Connecticut. I am proud
to join with the Senators on the floor here today, for whom I have deep
respect. I realize they have put aside their political considerations
in order to pursue this effort. I compliment them for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend
from Nebraska for yielding time to me.
Mr. President, I come to the floor and to the decision to cosponsor
this resolution with a deep sense of seriousness and purpose. These are
fateful, historic and very consequential matters that we are discussing
and engaged in today.
Great nations such as this one, and great alliances such as NATO, do
not remain great if they do not uphold their principles and keep their
promises. That has always been true, of course, but it seems powerfully
so today, as we prepare to welcome NATO and much of the rest of the
world to Washington this week to commemorate the 50th anniversary of
this great alliance.
We are being tested. This alliance and this Nation are being tested
in ways that a few months ago we never could have imagined would have
been the case as we prepared for this commemoration. So it becomes now,
in its way, less an unlimited celebration and more a renewal of
commitment to the principles which animated and necessitated the
organization of NATO 50 years ago. We are called on today to uphold
those principles, the principles of a free and secure transatlantic
community. We must keep the promises we have made in support of those
principles. NATO must prevail in the Balkans, in Kosovo.
Thugs, renegade regimes and power-hungry maniacs everywhere in the
world are watching our actions in the Balkans and gauging our resolve.
They must receive an unequivocal message. They must understand that
they violate our principles, they ignore our promises and threats at
their peril.
That is the context in which I am proud to cosponsor this resolution,
to stand by our national and alliance principles, to keep our promises
and to send an unequivocal message to Milosevic and all the other thugs
of the world: You cannot defy forces united for common decency and
humanity; you cannot ignore our promises and threats. We will not end
the 20th century standing idle, allowing a murderous tyrant to mar all
that we together have accomplished in Europe and in this transatlantic
community over the last five decades.
Mr. President, I was privileged to go, almost 2 weeks ago now, to
Europe with Secretary Cohen on a bipartisan, bicameral delegation of
Congress. I brought home with me a heightened respect for the military
machine that we and NATO--particularly in the United States--have
developed. It is awesome in its capability and power, and our service
men and women are, without a doubt, the best trained and the most
committed that any nation has ever produced. I say that to say, as a
matter of confidence, that no matter what it takes, they will prevail
over Milosevic.
I still believe that the current air campaign, which is being very
effectively implemented, can succeed in achieving our goals in this
conflict. That, of course, depends on the test of wills that is going
on now and on the test of sanity that is going on now. If there is any
sanity in an enlightened national self-interest left in the higher
counsels of government in Belgrade, they will stop the NATO air
bombardment of their country by accepting NATO's terms and restoring
peace.
However, it would be irresponsible not to plan for other military
options that may be necessary to defeat this enemy. Not only should all
options remain on the table, but all options must be adequately
analyzed and readied.
In the case of ground forces, which will take weeks to deploy should
they be necessary, we should begin now to plan for the logistics of
such a mission and to ensure that appropriate personnel are adequately
trained.
I say again what I have said before, I hope and pray that NATO ground
forces are not needed. I hope common sense, sanity will prevail in the
government in Belgrade, but it would be irresponsible not to prepare
NATO's forces now for their potential deployment, and it would be
similarly irresponsible, I believe, for Congress, in these
circumstances, not to authorize the President, as Commander in Chief,
under article I, section 2 of our Constitution, to take whatever
actions are necessary to achieve the noble objectives we have set out
for ourselves in the Balkans by defeating Milosevic. That is what this
resolution does, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor.
In the last week or so, several countries and others have offered
proposals for seeking a negotiated cease-fire.

[[Page S3942]]

While we all pray for peace in the Balkans, I think it is important
that the peace be a principled peace. NATO has clearly stated
objectives, and we can settle for nothing less than the attainment of
those reasonable objectives.
They are quite simply that the Serbian invaders, the military and
paramilitary forces that have wreaked havoc, bloodshed, and terror on
the Kosovar Albanians be withdrawn from Kosovo; that the Kosovars be
allowed to return, to be able to do no more than we take for granted
every day of our lives in the U.S., which is to live in peace and
freedom in their homes and villages; and that there be an international
peacekeeping force to monitor that peace that we will have achieved.
If we agree on the worth and the justice of those objectives, we--
NATO, the United States--must be prepared to do whatever is necessary
to achieve those objectives. To negotiate half a victory, which is no
victory, to claim that we have achieved military objectives without
achieving the principled objectives that motivated our involvement,
would effectively be a devastating defeat, not just for the human
rights of the people of Kosovo, but for NATO and the United States.

By introducing this resolution today, we begin a very serious and
fateful debate. Today is just the beginning of it. It must, because of
the seriousness of all that is involved here, engage not just the
executive branch of our Government and the Members of Congress of both
parties and both Houses, but the American people as well.
I come back to the bottom line in concluding. I am convinced that we
are engaged in a noble mission with our allies in the Balkans, which
goes to the heart of international security, European security and
American security, but also goes to the heart of our principles as a
nation.
I close, if I may, with a prayer that God will be with all those who
are fighting in the Balkans today for freedom and human rights and
soften the hearts of our opposition so that the additional force that
the Commander in Chief would be authorized to deploy, if this
resolution passes, will not be necessary. But if it is, let this
resolution stand, introduced as it is today by a bipartisan group of
Members of the Senate, let this resolution stand for the clear
statement that we will stand together as long as necessary to achieve
the principles we cherish in the Balkans, as well as the security that
we require.
I thank the Chair, and I yield to my friend and colleague from
Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I join with my colleagues this morning in introducing
this joint resolution because it is the right thing to do, it is the
responsible thing to do.
Our military efforts and our political will must be consistent with
and commensurate with our military and political objectives. That is
the essence of what this debate is about.
I happen to believe that the Balkans are in the national security
interests of this country for many reasons: Our relationship with NATO,
the stability of Central and Eastern Europe; the next ring out is the
stability of the Baltics, central Asia, Turkey. So in my mind it is
rather clear that we do have a national security interest here.
What this resolution is about is cutting through the fog of who is to
blame, the miscalculation, mistakes up/down. That must be set aside.
What we need to remember is that we are engaged in a war. We must stay
focused on this commitment and have the resolution and the will to
achieve the purpose which we began a month ago.
Wars--political, military calculations are imperfect. If we believe--
and I do; I believe our 18 NATO allies do believe --that this is the
right thing to do, then we must commit ourselves to achieving this most
important objective. That means the American people must first
understand what our national security interests are, the Congress must
lead with the President, and we must be unified to accomplish this
goal.
Surely, one of the lessons of Vietnam was that not only are long,
confusing wars not sustainable in democracies, but we also learned, as
Colin Powell laid out very clearly the last time that we dispatched our
military might, that the doctrine of military force is very simple:
Maximum amount of power, minimum amount of time.
Time is not on our side here, Mr. President. Time is not on our side.
The longer this goes without a resolution, the more difficult it will
become and the more likely it will be that the resolution, the outcome,
will be some kind of a half-baked deal that will resolve nothing; so as
we began this noble effort, we will end with no nobility and no
achievement as to making the world better and more stable and more
secure.
This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It is far beyond that. I
think that is well represented by the bipartisanship of this
resolution. There is another consequence that flows from what we are
now engaged in, and that is how we will respond to future security
challenges. And just as important as that link is how others around the
world will measure our response, measure our will, measure our
commitment to doing the right thing.
History has taught us very clearly that when you defer the tough
decisions, things do not get better; they get worse. And the more you
try and appease the Milosevics of the world, things get worse, more
people die, more commitment must be made later. That is surely a lesson
of history.
The time is now past whether we are committed to do this or not. That
debate was a month ago. What we must do now is come together in a
unified effort to win this, to achieve our political and military
goals, stop the slaughter, stop the butchery, allow the people of
Kosovo to go back into their homes, maintain the stability of that part
of the world, and allow for a political resolution to develop--not one
that we dictate, not one that NATO dictates, but the people of the
Balkans.
My colleagues this morning have referred to the outer rings of
consequences here, the outer rings of instability. I believe that if
this effort is not successful, not only are you destabilizing Central
and Eastern Europe, you are taking away the opportunities those nations
of Central and Eastern Europe have now, and the former republics of the
Socialist Soviet Republic, for a chance to develop a democracy and
individual liberties and a free market system, because you have
destabilized the area for no other reason than you have brought a
million refugees, displaced persons, into that part of the world where
those nations and the infrastructures of those nations cannot possibly
deal with that and, hence, destabilizing the very infrastructure we are
trying to help.
There are so many, many consequences that are attached to this one
effort. I hope this resolution makes very clear, on a bipartisan basis,
what we, as a Nation, as a member of NATO, as a member of the civilized
world have at stake here and why it is important that we win this war.
And I call it a war because it is a war.
I hope that the President of the United States will provide the kind
of leadership that this Nation is going to need to connect the national
security interests not just at the immediate time in that part of the
world, but for our long-term national security interests not just in
that part of the world, but all parts of the world. The President must
lead. If the President wishes to come to the Congress and ask for a
declaration of war, that should be entertained and debated and
carefully considered.
The time for nibbling around the edges here is gone. And we not only
do a great disservice to the men and women that we asked to fight this
war, but to our democracy and all of the civilized world if we do not
do the right thing. History will judge us harshly, as it should, if we
allow this to continue, what is going on in the Balkans today, and do
not stop it.

____________________