[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.

       (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) Equipment.--The term ``equipment'' includes mechanical 
     equipment, electronic equipment, and office equipment.
       (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 that results from the use of equipment 
     donated by a business entity to a noprofit organization.
       (2) Application.--This subsection shall apply with respect 
     to civil liability under Federal and State law.
       (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;

[[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.

                          ____________________