[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 60 (Thursday, April 29, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4433-S4465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 909. A bill to provide for the review and classification of 
physician assistant positions in the Federal Government, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                     physician assistant equity act

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Nickles, Rockefeller, Inouye, and Harkin to introduce 
legislation that directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to 
develop a classification standard appropriate to the occupation of 
physician assistant.
  Physician assistants are a part of a growing field of health care 
professionals that make quality health care available and affordable in 
underserved areas throughout our country. Because the physician 
assistant profession was very young when OPM first developed employment 
criteria in 1970, the agency adapted the nursing classification system 
for physician assistants. Today, this is no longer appropriate. 
Physician assistants have different education and training requirements 
than nurses and they are licensed and evaluated according to different 
criteria.
  The inaccurate classification of physician assistants had led to 
recruitment and retention problems of physician assistants in federal 
agencies, usually caused by low starting salaries and low salary caps. 
Because it is recognized that physician assistants provide cost-
effective health care, this is an important problem to resolve.
  This legislation mandates that OPM review this classification in 
consultation with physician assistants and the organizations that 
represent physician assistants. The bill specifically states that OPM 
should consider the educational and practice qualifications of the 
position as well as the treatment of physician assistants in the 
private sector in this review.
  Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will make an important 
correction that will help federal agencies make better use of these 
providers of cost-effective, high quality health care.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 910. A bill to streamline, modernize, and enhance the authority of 
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to plant protection and 
quarantine, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


           noxious weed coordination and plant protection act

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a 
comprehensive bill which will focus the effort of federal agencies in 
fighting noxious weeds and other plant pests.
  In January I introduced the Plant Protection Act, S. 321. This bill 
generated a lot of discussion and several suggestions for improvement, 
much of which is reflected in the bill I am introducing today. The 
Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999 retains most 
of S. 321 but includes a section on federal coordination of noxious 
weed removal.
  Mr. President, I ask that the bill and a section-by-section analysis 
be printed in the Record.
  The material follows:

                                 S. 910

       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 ``Noxious 
     Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                       TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION

Sec. 101. Regulation of movement of plant pests.
Sec. 102. Regulation of movement of plants, plant products, biological 
              control organisms, noxious weeds, articles, and means of 
              conveyance.
Sec. 103. Notification and holding requirements on arrival.
Sec. 104. General remedial measures for new plant pests and noxious 
              weeds.
Sec. 105. Extraordinary emergencies.
Sec. 106. Recovery of compensation for unauthorized activities.
Sec. 107. Control of grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets.
Sec. 108. Certification for exports.

[[Page S4434]]

                  TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 201. Inspections and warrants.
Sec. 202. Collection of information.
Sec. 203. Subpoena authority.
Sec. 204. Penalties for violation.
Sec. 205. Enforcement actions of Attorney General.
Sec. 206. Court jurisdiction.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Cooperation.
Sec. 302. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements.
Sec. 303. Reimbursable agreements.
Sec. 304. Protection for mail handlers.
Sec. 305. Preemption.
Sec. 306. Regulations and orders.
Sec. 307. Repeal of superseded laws.

                     TITLE IV--FEDERAL COORDINATION

Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Invasive Species Council.
Sec. 403. Advisory committee.
Sec. 404. Invasive Species Action Plan.

                TITLE V--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 502. Transfer authority.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the detection, control, eradication, suppression, 
     prevention, and retardation of the spread of plant pests and 
     noxious weeds is necessary for the protection of the 
     agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States;
       (2) biological control--
       (A) is often a desirable, low-risk means of ridding crops 
     and other plants of plant pests and noxious weeds; and
       (B) should be facilitated by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     Federal agencies, and States, whenever feasible;
       (3) the smooth movement of enterable plants, plant 
     products, certain biological control organisms, or other 
     articles into, out of, or within the United States is vital 
     to the economy of the United States and should be facilitated 
     to the extent practicable;
       (4) markets could be severely impacted by the introduction 
     or spread of plant pests or noxious weeds into or within the 
     United States;
       (5) the unregulated movement of plants, plant products, 
     biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, and 
     articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 
     would present an unacceptable risk of introducing or 
     spreading plant pests or noxious weeds;
       (6) the existence on any premises in the United States of a 
     plant pest or noxious weed new to or not known to be widely 
     prevalent in or distributed within and throughout the United 
     States could threaten crops, other plants, and plant products 
     of the United States and burden interstate commerce or 
     foreign commerce; and
       (7) all plants, plant products, biological control 
     organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles capable of 
     harboring plant pests or noxious weeds regulated under this 
     Act are in or affect interstate commerce or foreign commerce.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Article.--The term ``article'' means a material or 
     tangible object that could harbor a plant pest or noxious 
     weed.
       (2) Biological control organism.--The term ``biological 
     control organism'' means an enemy, antagonist, or competitor 
     organism used to control a plant pest or noxious weed.
       (3) Enter.--The term ``enter'' means to move into the 
     commerce of the United States.
       (4) Entry.--The term ``entry'' means the act of movement 
     into the commerce of the United States.
       (5) Export.--The term ``export'' means to move from the 
     United States to any place outside the United States.
       (6) Exportation.--The term ``exportation'' means the act of 
     movement from the United States to any place outside the 
     United States.
       (7) Import.--The term ``import'' means to move into the 
     territorial limits of the United States.
       (8) Importation.--The term ``importation'' means the act of 
     movement into the territorial limits of the United States.
       (9) Interstate.--The term ``interstate'' means--
       (A) from 1 State into or through any other State; or
       (B) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands of the United States, or any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.
       (10) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce'' 
     means trade, traffic, movement, or other commerce--
       (A) between a place in a State and a point in another 
     State;
       (B) between points within the same State but through any 
     place outside the State; or
       (C) within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands of the United States, or any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.
       (11) Means of conveyance.--The term ``means of conveyance'' 
     means any personal property that could harbor a pest, 
     disease, or noxious weed and that is used for or intended for 
     use for the movement of any other personal property.
       (12) Move.--The term ``move'' means to--
       (A) carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport;
       (B) aid, abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering, 
     importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
       (C) offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (D) receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (E) release into the environment; or
       (F) allow an agent to participate in any of the activities 
     referred to in this paragraph.
       (13) Movement.--The term ``move'' means the act of--
       (A) carrying, entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or 
     transporting;
       (B) aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing the carrying, 
     entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting;
       (C) offering to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (D) receiving to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or 
     transport;
       (E) releasing into the environment; or
       (F) allowing an agent to participate in any of the 
     activities referred to in this paragraph.
       (14) Noxious weed.--The term ``noxious weed'' means a plant 
     or plant product that has the potential to directly or 
     indirectly injure or cause damage to a plant or plant product 
     through injury or damage to a crop (including nursery stock 
     or a plant product), livestock, poultry, or other interest of 
     agriculture (including irrigation), navigation, natural 
     resources of the United States, public health, or the 
     environment.
       (15) Permit.--The term ``permit'' means a written 
     (including electronic) or oral authorization by the Secretary 
     to move a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance 
     under conditions prescribed by the Secretary.
       (16) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, association, joint venture, or 
     other legal entity.
       (17) Plant.--The term ``plant'' means a plant (including a 
     plant part) for or capable of propagation (including a tree, 
     tissue culture, plantlet culture, pollen, shrub, vine, 
     cutting, graft, scion, bud, bulb, root, and seed).
       (18) Plant pest.--The term ``plant pest'' means--
       (A) a living stage of a protozoan, invertebrate animal, 
     parasitic plant, bacteria, fungus, virus, viroid, infection 
     agent, or pathogen that has the potential to directly or 
     indirectly injure or cause damage to, or cause disease in, a 
     plant or plant product; or
       (B) an article that is similar to or allied with an article 
     referred to in subparagraph (A).
       (19) Plant product.--The term ``plant product'' means--
       (A) a flower, fruit, vegetable, root, bulb, seed, or other 
     plant part that is not covered by paragraph (17); and
       (B) a manufactured or processed plant or plant part.
       (20) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (21) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.
       (22) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used 
     in a geographical sense, means all of the States.
                       TITLE I--PLANT PROTECTION

     SEC. 101. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS.

       (a) Prohibition of Unauthorized Movement of Plant Pests.--
     Except as provided in subsection (b), no person shall import, 
     enter, export, or move in interstate commerce a plant pest, 
     unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is 
     authorized under general or specific permit and is in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may 
     promulgate to prevent the introduction of plant pests into 
     the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within 
     the United States.
       (b) Authorization of Movement of Plant Pests by 
     Regulation.--
       (1) Exception to permit requirement.--The Secretary may 
     promulgate regulations to allow the importation, entry, 
     exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified 
     plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary 
     finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.
       (2) Petition to add or remove plant pests from 
     regulation.--A person may petition the Secretary to add a 
     plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations 
     promulgated under paragraph (1).
       (3) Response to petition by the secretary.--In the case of 
     a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall--
       (A) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
       (B) notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary 
     takes on the petition.
       (4) Basis for determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
       (c) Prohibition of Unauthorized Mailing of Plant Pests.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to section 304, a letter, parcel, 
     box, or other package containing a plant pest, whether or not 
     sealed as letter-rate postal matter, is nonmailable and shall 
     not knowingly be conveyed in the mail or delivered from any 
     post office or by any mail carrier, unless the package is 
     mailed in

[[Page S4435]]

     compliance with such regulations as the Secretary may 
     promulgate to prevent the dissemination of plant pests into 
     the United States or interstate.
       (2) Application of postal laws.--Nothing in this subsection 
     authorizes a person to open a mailed letter or other mailed 
     sealed matter except in accordance with the postal laws 
     (including regulations).
       (d) Regulations.--Regulations promulgated by the Secretary 
     to implement subsections (a), (b), or (c) may include 
     provisions requiring that a plant pest imported, entered, to 
     be exported, moved in interstate commerce, mailed, or 
     delivered from a post office--
       (1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary 
     before the importation, entry, exportation, movement in 
     interstate commerce, mailing, or delivery of the plant pest;
       (2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued 
     (in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by 
     appropriate officials of the country or State from which the 
     plant pest is to be moved;
       (3) be raised under post-entry quarantine conditions by or 
     under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of 
     determining whether the plant pest may be infested with other 
     plant pests, may pose a significant risk of causing injury 
     to, damage to, or disease in a plant or plant product, or may 
     be a noxious weed; and
       (4) be subject to such remedial measures as the Secretary 
     determines are necessary to prevent the dissemination of 
     plant pests.

     SEC. 102. REGULATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANTS, PLANT PRODUCTS, 
                   BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ORGANISMS, NOXIOUS WEEDS, 
                   ARTICLES, AND MEANS OF CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may prohibit or restrict the 
     importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate 
     commerce of a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance, if 
     the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction 
     is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United 
     States or the dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed 
     within the United States.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations 
     to carry out this section, including regulations requiring 
     that a plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported, 
     entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce--
       (1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary 
     prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in 
     interstate commerce;
       (2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued 
     (in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by 
     appropriate officials of the country or State from which the 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance is to be moved;
       (3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant 
     pests or noxious weeds; and
       (4) in the case of a plant or biological control organism, 
     be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by 
     or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purpose of 
     determining whether the plant or biological control organism 
     may be infested with a plant pest or noxious weed, or may be 
     a plant pest or noxious weed.
       (c) List of Restricted Noxious Weeds.--
       (1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation, 
     a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted 
     from entering the United States or that are subject to 
     restrictions on interstate movement within the United States.
       (2) Petitions to add plant species to or remove plant 
     species from list.--
       (A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add 
     a plant species to, or remove a plant species from, the list 
     authorized under paragraph (1).
       (B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
       (ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the 
     Secretary takes on the petition.
       (C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.
       (d) List of Biological Control Organisms.--
       (1) Publication.--The Secretary may publish, by regulation, 
     a list of biological control organisms the movement of which 
     in interstate commerce is not prohibited or restricted.
       (2) Distinctions.--In publishing the list, the Secretary 
     may take into account distinctions between biological control 
     organisms, such as whether the organisms are indigenous, 
     nonindigenous, newly introduced, or commercially raised.
       (3) Petitions to add biological control organisms to or 
     remove biological control organisms from list.--
       (A) In general.--A person may petition the Secretary to add 
     a biological control organism to, or remove a biological 
     control organism from, the list authorized under paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Action on petition.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) act on the petition within a reasonable time; and
       (ii) notify the petitioner of the final action the 
     Secretary takes on the petition.
       (C) Basis for determination.--The determination of the 
     Secretary on the petition shall be based on sound science.

     SEC. 103. NOTIFICATION AND HOLDING REQUIREMENTS ON ARRIVAL.

       (a) Duty of Secretary of the Treasury.--
       (1) Notification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     promptly notify the Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival 
     of a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, or noxious weed at a port of entry.
       (2) Holding.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, or noxious weed, for which notification is made under 
     paragraph (1) at the port of entry until the plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious 
     weed is--
       (A) inspected and authorized by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for entry into or movement through the United 
     States; or
       (B) otherwise released by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (3) Exceptions.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to 
     a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, or noxious weed that is imported from a country or 
     region of a country designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, by regulation, as exempt from the requirements 
     of those paragraphs.
       (b) Notification by Responsible Person.--The person 
     responsible for a plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance required to have a permit under section 101 or 102 
     shall, as soon as practicable on arrival at the port of entry 
     and before the plant, plant product, biological control 
     organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance is moved from the port of entry, notify the 
     Secretary of Agriculture or, at the Secretary of 
     Agriculture's direction, the proper official of the State to 
     which the plant, plant product, biological control organism, 
     plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is 
     destined, or both, as the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe, of--
       (1) the name and address of the consignee;
       (2) the nature and quantity of the plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance proposed to be moved; and
       (3) the country and locality where the plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance was grown, produced, or 
     located.
       (c) Prohibition of Movement of Items Without Inspection and 
     Authorization.--No person shall move from a port of entry or 
     interstate an imported plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance unless the imported plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance has been--
       (1) inspected and authorized by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture for entry into or movement through the United 
     States; or
       (2) otherwise released by the Secretary of Agriculture.

     SEC. 104. GENERAL REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR NEW PLANT PESTS AND 
                   NOXIOUS WEEDS.

       (a) Authority To Hold, Treat, or Destroy Items.--If the 
     Secretary considers it necessary to prevent the dissemination 
     of a plant pest or noxious weed that is new to or not known 
     to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout 
     the United States, the Secretary may hold, seize, quarantine, 
     treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or 
     otherwise dispose of a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance that--
       (1)(A) is moving into or through the United States or 
     interstate, or has moved into or through the United States or 
     interstate; and
       (B)(i) the Secretary has reason to believe is a plant pest 
     or noxious weed or is infested with a plant pest or noxious 
     weed at the time of the movement; or
       (ii) is or has been otherwise in violation of this Act;
       (2) has not been maintained in compliance with a post-entry 
     quarantine requirement; or
       (3) is the progeny of a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed that is moving 
     into or through the United States or interstate, or has moved 
     into the United States or interstate, in violation of this 
     Act.
       (b) Authority To Order an Owner To Treat or Destroy.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may order the owner of a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject 
     to action under subsection (a), or the owner's agent, to 
     treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or 
     otherwise dispose of the plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means 
     of conveyance, without cost to the Federal Government and in 
     a manner the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (2) Failure to comply.--If the owner or agent of the owner 
     fails to comply with an order of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary may take an action authorized by 
     subsection (a) and recover from the owner or agent of the 
     owner the costs of any care, handling, application of 
     remedial measures, or disposal incurred by the Secretary in 
     connection with actions taken under subsection (a).
       (c) Classification System.--
       (1) In general.--To facilitate control of noxious weeds, 
     the Secretary may develop a

[[Page S4436]]

     classification system to describe the status and action 
     levels for noxious weeds.
       (2) Categories.--The classification system may include the 
     geographic distribution, relative threat, and actions 
     initiated to prevent introduction or distribution.
       (3) Management plans.--In conjunction with the 
     classification system, the Secretary may develop integrated 
     management plans for noxious weeds for the geographic region 
     or ecological range where the noxious weed is found in the 
     United States.
       (d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed, 
     exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or 
     ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the 
     shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the 
     opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action 
     that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the 
     dissemination of any plant pest or noxious weed new to or not 
     known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and 
     throughout the United States.

     SEC. 105. EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Authority To Declare.--Subject to subsection (b), if 
     the Secretary determines that an extraordinary emergency 
     exists because of the presence of a plant pest or noxious 
     weed that is new to or not known to be widely prevalent in or 
     distributed within and throughout the United States and that 
     the presence of the plant pest or noxious weed threatens 
     plants or plant products of the United States, the Secretary 
     may--
       (1) hold, seize, quarantine, treat, apply other remedial 
     measures to, destroy, or otherwise dispose of, a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, article, or means of 
     conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
       (2) quarantine, treat, or apply other remedial measures to 
     any premises, including a plant, plant product, biological 
     control organism, article, or means of conveyance on the 
     premises, that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed;
       (3) quarantine a State or portion of a State in which the 
     Secretary finds the plant pest or noxious weed or a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, article, or means 
     of conveyance that the Secretary has reason to believe is 
     infested with the plant pest or noxious weed; or
       (4) prohibit or restrict the movement within a State of a 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, article, 
     or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the 
     prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the 
     dissemination of the plant pest or noxious weed or to 
     eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed.
       (b) Required Finding of Emergency.--The Secretary may take 
     action under this section only on finding, after review and 
     consultation with the Governor or other appropriate official 
     of the State affected, that the measures being taken by the 
     State are inadequate to prevent the dissemination of the 
     plant pest or noxious weed or to eradicate the plant pest or 
     noxious weed.
       (c) Notification Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Before any action is taken in a State 
     under this section, the Secretary shall--
       (A) notify the Governor or another appropriate official of 
     the State;
       (B) issue a public announcement; and
       (C) except as provided in paragraph (2), publish in the 
     Federal Register a statement of--
       (i) the findings of the Secretary;
       (ii) the action the Secretary intends to take;
       (iii) the reason for the intended action; and
       (iv) if practicable, an estimate of the anticipated 
     duration of the extraordinary emergency.
       (2) Time sensitive actions.--If it is not practicable to 
     publish a statement in the Federal Register under paragraph 
     (1) before taking an action under this section, the Secretary 
     shall publish the statement in the Federal Register within a 
     reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 business days, 
     after commencement of the action.
       (d) Application of Least Drastic Action.--No plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance shall be destroyed, 
     exported, or returned to the shipping point of origin, or 
     ordered to be destroyed, exported, or returned to the 
     shipping point of origin under this section unless, in the 
     opinion of the Secretary, there is no less drastic action 
     that is feasible and that would be adequate to prevent the 
     dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed new to or not 
     known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and 
     throughout the United States.
       (e) Payment of Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may pay compensation to a 
     person for economic losses incurred by the person as a result 
     of action taken by the Secretary under this section.
       (2) Amount.--The determination by the Secretary of the 
     amount of any compensation to be paid under this subsection 
     shall be final and shall not be subject to judicial review.

     SEC. 106. RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Recovery Action.--The owner of a plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance destroyed or otherwise 
     disposed of by the Secretary under section 104 or 105 may 
     bring an action against the United States to recover just 
     compensation for the destruction or disposal of the plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance (not including 
     compensation for loss due to delays incident to determining 
     eligibility for importation, entry, exportation, movement in 
     interstate commerce, or release into the environment) if the 
     owner establishes that the destruction or disposal was not 
     authorized under this Act.
       (b) Time for Action; Location.--
       (1) Time for action.--An action under this section shall be 
     brought not later than 1 year after the destruction or 
     disposal of the plant, plant product, biological control 
     mechanism, plant pest, noxious weed, article, or means of 
     conveyance involved.
       (2) Location.--The action may be brought in a United States 
     District Court where the owner is found, resides, transacts 
     business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated.
       (c) Payment of Judgments.--A judgment in favor of the owner 
     shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury appropriated 
     for plant pest control activities of the Department of 
     Agriculture.

     SEC. 107. CONTROL OF GRASSHOPPERS AND MORMON CRICKETS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds under 
     this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall carry out a 
     program to control grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on all 
     Federal land to protect rangeland.
       (b) Transfer Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), on the request 
     of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture, from 
     any no-year appropriations, funds for the prevention, 
     suppression, and control of actual or potential grasshopper 
     and Mormon Cricket outbreaks on Federal land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.
       (2) Use.--The transferred funds shall be available only for 
     the payment of obligations incurred on the Federal land.
       (3) Transfer requests.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     make a request for the transfer of funds under this 
     subsection as promptly as practicable.
       (4) Limitation.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not use 
     funds transferred under this subsection until funds 
     specifically appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     grasshopper and Mormon Cricket control have been exhausted.
       (5) Replenishment of transferred funds.--Funds transferred 
     under this section shall be replenished by supplemental or 
     regular appropriations, which the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall request as promptly as practicable.
       (c) Treatment for Grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the availability of funds under 
     this section, on request of the head of the administering 
     agency or the agriculture department of an affected State, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, to protect rangeland, shall 
     immediately treat Federal, State, or private land that is 
     infested with grasshoppers or Mormon Crickets at levels of 
     economic infestation, unless the Secretary of Agriculture 
     determines that delaying treatment will not cause greater 
     economic damage to adjacent owners of rangeland.
       (2) Other programs.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall work in conjunction with other 
     Federal, State, and private prevention, control, or 
     suppression efforts to protect rangeland.
       (d) Federal Cost Share of Treatment.--
       (1) Control on federal land.--Out of funds made available 
     under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay 
     100 percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket 
     control on Federal land to protect rangeland.
       (2) Control on state land.--Out of funds made available 
     under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay 50 
     percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket control 
     on State land.
       (3) Control on private land.--Out of funds made available 
     under this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall pay 
     33.3 percent of the cost of grasshopper or Mormon Cricket 
     control on private land.
       (e) Training.--From funds made available or transferred by 
     the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture 
     to carry out this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     provide adequate funding for a program to train personnel to 
     accomplish effectively the purposes of this section.

     SEC. 108. CERTIFICATION FOR EXPORTS.

       The Secretary may certify a plant, plant product, or 
     biological control organism as free from plant pests and 
     noxious weeds, and exposure to plant pests and noxious weeds, 
     according to the phytosanitary or other requirements of the 
     countries to which the plant, plant product, or biological 
     control organism may be exported.
                  TITLE II--INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 201. INSPECTIONS AND WARRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Consistent with guidelines approved by the 
     Attorney General, the Secretary may--
       (1) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving into the United States to determine 
     whether the

[[Page S4437]]

     person or means of conveyance is carrying a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance subject to this Act;
       (2) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving in interstate commerce on probable cause 
     to believe that the person or means of conveyance is carrying 
     a plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance subject 
     to this Act;
       (3) stop and inspect, without a warrant, a person or means 
     of conveyance moving in intrastate commerce or on premises 
     quarantined as part of an extraordinary emergency declared 
     under section 105 on probable cause to believe that the 
     person or means of conveyance is carrying a plant, plant 
     product, biological control organism, plant pest, noxious 
     weed, article, or means of conveyance subject to this Act; 
     and
       (4) enter, with a warrant, a premises in the United States 
     for the purpose of conducting investigations or making 
     inspections under this Act.
       (b) Warrants.--
       (1) In general.--A United States judge, a judge of a court 
     of record in the United States, or a United States magistrate 
     judge may, on proper oath or affirmation showing probable 
     cause to believe that there is on certain premises a plant, 
     plant product, biological control organism, plant pest, 
     noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance regulated under 
     this Act, issue a warrant for entry on the premises to 
     conduct an investigation or make an inspection under this 
     Act.
       (2) Execution.--The warrant may be applied for and executed 
     by the Secretary or a United States marshal.

     SEC. 202. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

       The Secretary may gather and compile information and 
     conduct such investigations as the Secretary considers 
     necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act.

     SEC. 203. SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authority To Issue.--The Secretary may require by 
     subpoena--
       (1) the attendance and testimony of a witness; and
       (2) the production of all documentary evidence relating to 
     the administration or enforcement of this Act or a matter 
     under investigation in connection with this Act.
       (b) Location of Production.--The attendance of a witness 
     and production of documentary evidence may be required from 
     any place in the United States at any designated place of 
     hearing.
       (c) Enforcement of Subpoena.--If a person fails to comply 
     with a subpoena, the Secretary may request the Attorney 
     General to invoke the aid of a court of the United States 
     within the jurisdiction in which the investigation is 
     conducted, or where the person resides, is found, transacts 
     business, is licensed to do business, or is incorporated, in 
     obtaining compliance.
       (d) Fees and Mileage.--
       (1) In general.--A witness summoned by the Secretary shall 
     be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid to a witness 
     in a court of the United States.
       (2) Depositions.--A witness whose deposition is taken, and 
     the person taking the deposition, shall be entitled to the 
     same fees that are paid for similar services in a court of 
     the United States.
       (e) Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall publish procedures for 
     the issuance of subpoenas under this section.
       (2) Legal sufficiency.--The procedures shall include a 
     requirement that a subpoena be reviewed for legal sufficiency 
     and signed by the Secretary.
       (3) Delegation.--If the authority to sign a subpoena is 
     delegated, the agency receiving the delegation shall seek 
     review for legal sufficiency outside that agency.
       (f) Scope of Subpoena.--A subpoena for a witness to attend 
     a court in a judicial district or to testify or produce 
     evidence at an administrative hearing in a judicial district 
     in an action or proceeding arising under this Act may run to 
     any other judicial district.

     SEC. 204. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

       (a) Criminal Penalties.--A person that knowingly violates 
     this Act, or that knowingly forges, counterfeits, or, without 
     authority from the Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or 
     destroys a certificate, permit, or other document provided 
     under this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on 
     conviction, shall be fined in accordance with title 18, 
     United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--A person that violates this Act, or that 
     forges, counterfeits, or, without authority from the 
     Secretary, uses, alters, defaces, or destroys a certificate, 
     permit, or other document provided under this Act may, after 
     notice and opportunity for a hearing on the record, be 
     assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary that does not 
     exceed the greater of--
       (A) $50,000 in the case of an individual (except that the 
     civil penalty may not exceed $1,000 in the case of an initial 
     violation of this Act by an individual moving regulated 
     articles not for monetary gain), or $250,000 in the case of 
     any other person for each violation, except the amount of 
     penalties assessed under this subparagraph in a single 
     proceeding shall not exceed $500,000; or
       (B) twice the gross gain or gross loss for a violation or 
     forgery, counterfeiting, or unauthorized use, defacing or 
     destruction of a certificate, permit, or other document 
     provided for in this Act that results in the person's 
     deriving pecuniary gain or causing pecuniary loss to another 
     person.
       (2) Factors in determining civil penalty.--In determining 
     the amount of a civil penalty, the Secretary--
       (A) shall take into account the nature, circumstance, 
     extent, and gravity of the violation; and
       (B) may take into account the ability to pay, the effect on 
     ability to continue to do business, any history of prior 
     violations, the degree of culpability of the violator, and 
     any other factors the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (3) Settlement of civil penalties.--The Secretary may 
     compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, a 
     civil penalty that may be assessed under this subsection.
       (4) Finality of orders.--
       (A) In general.--An order of the Secretary assessing a 
     civil penalty shall be treated as a final order reviewable 
     under chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
       (B) Collection action.--The validity of an order of the 
     Secretary may not be reviewed in an action to collect the 
     civil penalty.
       (C) Interest.--A civil penalty not paid in full when due 
     under an order assessing the civil penalty shall (after the 
     due date) accrue interest until paid at the rate of interest 
     applicable to a civil judgment of the courts of the United 
     States.
       (c) Liability for Acts of an Agent.--For purposes of this 
     Act, the act, omission, or failure of an officer, agent, or 
     person acting for or employed by any other person within the 
     scope of employment or office of the officer, agent, or 
     person, shall be considered to be the act, omission, or 
     failure of the other person.
       (d) Guidelines for Civil Penalties.--The Secretary shall 
     coordinate with the Attorney General to establish guidelines 
     to determine under what circumstances the Secretary may issue 
     a civil penalty or suitable notice of warning in lieu of 
     prosecution by the Attorney General of a violation of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 205. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       The Attorney General may--
       (1) prosecute, in the name of the United States, a criminal 
     violation of this Act that is referred to the Attorney 
     General by the Secretary or is brought to the notice of the 
     Attorney General by any person;
       (2) bring a civil action to enjoin the violation of or to 
     compel compliance with this Act, or to enjoin any 
     interference by a person with the Secretary in carrying out 
     this Act, if the Attorney General has reason to believe that 
     the person has violated or is about to violate this Act, or 
     has interfered, or is about to interfere, with the Secretary; 
     and
       (3) bring a civil action for the recovery of an unpaid 
     civil penalty, funds under a reimbursable agreement, late 
     payment penalty, or interest assessed under this Act.

     SEC. 206. COURT JURISDICTION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 204(b), a 
     United States district court, the District Court of Guam, the 
     District Court of the Virgin Islands, the highest court of 
     American Samoa, and the United States courts of other 
     territories and possessions are vested with jurisdiction in 
     all cases arising under this Act.
       (b) Location.--An action arising under this Act may be 
     brought, and process may be served, in the judicial district 
     where--
       (1) a violation or interference occurred or is about to 
     occur; or
       (2) the person charged with the violation, interference, 
     impending violation, impending interference, or failure to 
     pay resides, is found, transacts business, is licensed to do 
     business, or is incorporated.
                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--To carry out this Act, the Secretary may 
     cooperate with--
       (1) other Federal agencies or entities;
       (2) States or political subdivisions of States;
       (3) national governments;
       (4) local governments of other nations;
       (5) domestic or international organizations;
       (6) domestic or international associations; and
       (7) other persons.
       (b) Responsibility.--The individual or entity cooperating 
     with the Secretary shall be responsible for--
       (1) obtaining the authority necessary for conducting the 
     operations or taking measures on all land and property within 
     the foreign country or State, other than land and property 
     owned or controlled by the United States; and
       (2) other facilities and means determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Transfer of Biological Control Methods.--The Secretary 
     may transfer to a Federal or State agency or other person 
     biological control methods using biological control organisms 
     against plant pests or noxious weeds.
       (d) Cooperation in Program Administration.--The Secretary 
     may cooperate with State authorities or other persons in the 
     administration of programs for the improvement of plants, 
     plant products, and biological control organisms.

     SEC. 302. BUILDINGS, LAND, PEOPLE, CLAIMS, AND AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire and maintain 
     such real or personal

[[Page S4438]]

     property, and employ such persons, make such grants, and 
     enter into such contracts, cooperative agreements, memoranda 
     of understanding, or other agreements, as are necessary to 
     carry out this Act.
       (b) Tort Claims.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may pay a tort claim (in the manner authorized in 
     the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, United 
     States Code) if the claim arises outside the United States in 
     connection with an activity authorized under this Act.
       (2) Requirements of claim.--A claim may not be allowed 
     under paragraph (1) unless the claim is presented in writing 
     to the Secretary not later than 2 years after the claim 
     arises.

     SEC. 303. REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Preclearance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     reimbursable fee agreement with a person for preclearance (at 
     a location outside the United States) of plants, plant 
     products, biological control organisms, articles, and means 
     of conveyance for movement to the United States.
       (2) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection 
     shall be credited to an account that--
       (A) may be established by the Secretary; and
       (B) if established, shall remain available for preclearance 
     activities until expended.
       (b) Overtime.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Secretary may pay an employee of the Department of 
     Agriculture performing services under this Act relating to 
     imports into and exports from the United States, for all 
     overtime, night, or holiday work performed by the employee, 
     at a rate of pay determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Reimbursement of secretary.--The Secretary may require 
     a person for whom the services are performed to reimburse the 
     Secretary for funds paid by the Secretary for the services.
       (3) Account.--All funds collected under this subsection 
     shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and 
     remain available until expended.
       (c) Late Payment Penalty and Interest.--
       (1) Collection.--On failure of a person to reimburse the 
     Secretary in accordance with this section, the Secretary may 
     assess a late payment penalty against the person.
       (2) Interest.--Overdue funds due the Secretary under this 
     section shall accrue interest in accordance with section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       (3) Account.--A late payment penalty and accrued interest 
     shall be credited to the account that incurs the costs and 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 304. PROTECTION FOR MAIL HANDLERS.

       This Act shall not apply to an employee of the United 
     States in the performance of the duties of the employee in 
     handling the mail.

     SEC. 305. PREEMPTION.

       (a) Regulation of Foreign Commerce.--No State or political 
     subdivision of a State may--
       (1) regulate in foreign commerce a plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, noxious weed, 
     article, or means of conveyance; or
       (2) in order to control a plant pest or noxious weed--
       (A) eradicate a plant pest or noxious weed; or
       (B) prevent the introduction or dissemination of a 
     biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
       (b) Regulation of Interstate Commerce.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     the Secretary has promulgated a regulation or order to 
     prevent the dissemination of a plant, plant product, 
     biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed 
     within the United States, no State or political subdivision 
     of a State may--
       (A) regulate the movement in interstate commerce of the 
     plant, plant product, biological control organism, plant 
     pest, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance; or
       (B) in order to control the plant pest or noxious weed--
       (i) eradicate the plant pest or noxious weed; or
       (ii) prevent the introduction or dissemination of the 
     biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
       (2) Exceptions.--
       (A) Regulations consistent with federal regulations.--
     Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a State or a 
     political subdivision of a State may impose a prohibition or 
     restriction on the movement in interstate commerce of plants, 
     plant products, biological control organisms, plant pests, 
     noxious weeds, articles, or means of conveyance that are 
     consistent with and do not exceed the requirements of the 
     regulations promulgated or orders issued by the Secretary 
     under this Act.
       (B) Special local need.--A State or political subdivision 
     of a State may impose a prohibition or restriction on the 
     movement in interstate commerce of plants, plant products, 
     biological control organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, 
     articles, or means of conveyance, that are in addition to a 
     prohibition or restriction imposed by the Secretary, if the 
     State or political subdivision of a State demonstrates to the 
     Secretary and the Secretary finds that there is a special 
     need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on 
     sound scientific data or a thorough risk assessment.

     SEC. 306. REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.

       The Secretary may promulgate such regulations, and issue 
     such orders, as the Secretary considers necessary to carry 
     out this Act.

     SEC. 307. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED LAWS.

       (a) Repeal.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) Subsections (a) through (e) of section 102 of the 
     Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 
     147a).
       (2) Section 1773 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     148f).
       (3) The Golden Nematode Act (7 U.S.C. 150 et seq.).
       (4) The Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq).
       (5) The Joint Resolution of April 6, 1937 (56 Stat. 57, 
     chapter 69; 7 U.S.C. 148 et seq.).
       (6) The Act of January 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 40, chapter 31; 7 
     U.S.C. 149).
       (7) The Act of August 20, 1912 (commonly known as the 
     ``Plant Quarantine Act'') (37 Stat. 315, chapter 308; 7 
     U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
       (8) The Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act (7 U.S.C. 1651 et 
     seq.).
       (9) The Act of August 28, 1950 (64 Stat. 561, chapter 815; 
     7 U.S.C. 2260).
       (10) The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.), other than the first section and section 15 of that 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 note, 2814).
       (b) Effect on Regulations.--Regulations promulgated under 
     the authority of a provision of law repealed by subsection 
     (a) shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary 
     promulgates a regulation under section 306 that supersedes 
     the earlier regulation.
                     TITLE IV--FEDERAL COORDINATION

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Action plan.--The term ``Action Plan'' means the 
     National Invasive Species Action Plan developed and submitted 
     to Congress under section 404, including any updates to the 
     Action Plan.
       (2) Alien species.--The term ``alien species'' means, with 
     respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its 
     seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of 
     propagating the species, that is not native to that 
     ecosystem.
       (3) Control.--The term ``control'' means--
       (A) the suppression, reduction, or management of invasive 
     species populations;
       (B) the prevention of the spread of invasive species from 
     areas where the species are present; and
       (C) the taking of measures such as the restoration of 
     native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive 
     species and to prevent further invasions.
       (4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Invasive 
     Species Council established by section 402.
       (5) Ecosystem.--The term ``ecosystem'' means the complex of 
     a community of organisms and the community's environment.
       (6) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``agency'' in section 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code, except that the term does not include an 
     independent establishment (as defined in section 104 of title 
     5, United States Code).
       (7) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'' means the 
     intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, 
     or placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of 
     human activity.
       (8) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means 
     an alien species the introduction of which causes or is 
     likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to 
     human health.
       (9) Native species.--The term ``native species'' means, 
     with respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other 
     than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or 
     currently occurs in the ecosystem.
       (10) Species.--The term ``species'' means a group of 
     organisms all of which--
       (A) have a high degree of physical and genetic similarity;
       (B) generally interbreed only among themselves; and
       (C) show persistent differences from members of allied 
     groups of organisms.
       (11) Stakeholder.--The term ``stakeholder'' means an entity 
     with an interest in invasive species, including--
       (A) a State, tribal, or local government agency;
       (B) an academic institution;
       (C) the scientific community; and
       (D) a nongovernmental entity, including an environmental, 
     agricultural, or conservation organization, trade group, 
     commercial interest, or private landowner.

     SEC. 402. INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an advisory 
     council to be known as the ``Invasive Species Council''.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall be composed of--
       (A) the Secretary of State;
       (B) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (C) the Secretary of Defense;
       (D) the Secretary of the Interior, who shall be a 
     cochairperson of the Council;
       (E) the Secretary of Agriculture, who shall be a 
     cochairperson of the Council;
       (F) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be a cochairperson 
     of the Council;
       (G) the Secretary of Transportation;
       (H) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and

[[Page S4439]]

       (I) a representative of State government appointed by the 
     National Governors' Association.
       (2) Other federal agency representatives.--The Council 
     may--
       (A) invite other representatives of Federal agencies to 
     serve as members of the Council, including representatives 
     from subcabinet bureaus or offices with significant 
     responsibilities concerning invasive species; and
       (B) prescribe special procedures for the participation by 
     those other representatives on the Council.
       (c) Duties.--The Invasive Species Council shall--
       (1) provide national leadership regarding invasive species;
       (2) oversee the implementation of this title and make 
     recommendations designed to ensure that the activities of 
     Federal agencies concerning invasive species are coordinated, 
     complementary, cost-efficient, and effective, relying to the 
     maximum extent practicable on organizations addressing 
     invasive species, such as--
       (A) the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force established by 
     section 1201 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4721);
       (B) the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of 
     Noxious and Exotic Weeds; and
       (C) the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of 
     the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
       (3) encourage planning and action at local, tribal, State, 
     regional, and ecosystem-based levels to achieve the goals and 
     objectives of the Action Plan, in cooperation with 
     stakeholders and organizations addressing invasive species;
       (4) develop recommendations for international cooperation 
     in addressing invasive species;
       (5) develop, in consultation with the Council on 
     Environmental Quality, guidance to Federal agencies under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) concerning prevention and control of invasive species, 
     including the procurement, use, and maintenance of native 
     species in a manner designed to affect invasive species;
       (6) facilitate development of a coordinated network among 
     Federal agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor impacts 
     from invasive species on the economy, the environment, and 
     human health;
       (7) facilitate establishment of a coordinated, up-to-date 
     information-sharing system that--
       (A) uses, to the maximum extent practicable, the Internet; 
     and
       (B) facilitates access to and exchange of information 
     concerning invasive species, such as--
       (i) information on the distribution and abundance of 
     invasive species;
       (ii) life histories of invasive species and invasive 
     characteristics;
       (iii) economic, environmental, and human health impacts 
     from invasive species;
       (iv) techniques for management of invasive species; and
       (v) laws and programs for management, research, and public 
     education concerning invasive species; and
       (8) develop and submit to Congress the Action Plan.
       (d) Executive Director; Staff.--With the concurrence of the 
     other cochairpersons, the Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) appoint an Executive Director of the Council; and
       (2) provide staff and administrative support for the 
     Council.

     SEC. 403. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) establish an advisory committee to provide information 
     and advice for consideration by the Council; and
       (2) after consultation with other members of the Council, 
     appoint members of the advisory committee to represent 
     stakeholders.
       (b) Duties.--The duties of the advisory committee shall 
     include making recommendations for plans and actions at 
     local, tribal, State, regional, and ecosystem-based levels to 
     achieve the goals and objectives of the Action Plan.
       (c) Cooperation.--The advisory committee shall act in 
     cooperation with stakeholders and organizations addressing 
     the problem of invasive species.
       (d) Administrative and Financial Support.--The Secretary of 
     the Interior shall provide administrative and financial 
     support for the advisory committee.

     SEC. 404. INVASIVE SPECIES ACTION PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Council shall develop and submit 
     to Congress a National Invasive Species Action Plan, which 
     shall--
       (1) detail and recommend performance-oriented goals and 
     objectives and specific measures of success for Federal 
     agency efforts concerning invasive species;
       (2) detail and recommend measures to be taken by the 
     Council to carry out its duties under section 402; and
       (3) identify the personnel, other resources, and additional 
     levels of coordination needed to achieve the goals and 
     objectives of the Action Plan.
       (b) Public Participation and Coordination.--The Action Plan 
     shall be--
       (1) developed through a public process and in consultation 
     with Federal agencies and stakeholders; and
       (2) coordinated with any State plans concerning invasive 
     species.
       (c) Special Requirements for First Action Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The first Action Plan submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (A) include a review of existing and prospective approaches 
     and authorities for preventing the introduction and spread of 
     invasive species, including approaches for--
       (i) identifying pathways for the introduction of invasive 
     species; and
       (ii) minimizing the risk of introductions by means of those 
     pathways; and
       (B) identify research needs and recommend measures to 
     minimize the risk that introductions will occur.
       (2) Recommended processes.--The measures recommended under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall provide for--
       (A) a science-based process to evaluate risks associated 
     with the introduction and spread of invasive species; and
       (B) a coordinated and systematic risk-based process to 
     identify, monitor, and interdict pathways that may be 
     involved in the introduction of invasive species.
       (3) Recommendations for legislation.--If any measure 
     recommended under paragraph (1)(B) is not authorized by law 
     in effect as of the date of the recommendation, the Council 
     shall develop and submit to Congress legislative proposals 
     for necessary changes in law.
       (d) Updates and Evaluations of Action Plan.--The Council 
     shall--
       (1) develop and submit to Congress biennial updates of the 
     Action Plan; and
       (2) concurrently evaluate and report on success in 
     achieving the goals and objectives specified in the Action 
     Plan.
       (e) Response by Federal Agencies.--Not later than 18 months 
     after the date of submission to Congress of the Action Plan, 
     each Federal agency that is required to implement a measure 
     recommended under subsection (a)(1) or (c)(1)(B) shall--
       (1) take the recommended action; or
       (2) provide to the Council an explanation of why the action 
     is not feasible.
                TITLE V--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Compensation.--Except as provided in section 106 and as 
     specifically authorized by law, no part of the amounts 
     appropriated under this section shall be used to provide 
     compensation for property injured or destroyed by or at the 
     direction of the Secretary.

     SEC. 502. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authority To Transfer Certain Funds.--In connection 
     with an emergency in which a plant pest or noxious weed 
     threatens a segment of the agricultural production of the 
     United States, the Secretary may transfer from other 
     appropriations or funds available to the agencies or 
     corporations of the Department of Agriculture such amounts as 
     the Secretary considers necessary to be available in the 
     emergency for the arrest, control, eradication, and 
     prevention of the dissemination of the plant pest or noxious 
     weed and for related expenses.
       (b) Availability.--Any funds transferred under this section 
     shall remain available for such purposes until expended.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--The first section of Public Law 
     97-46 (7 U.S.C. 147b) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``plant pests or''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 102 of the Act of September 21, 
     1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 147a), and''.
                                  ____


Section-by-Section Analysis of the Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant 
                             Protection Act

       Sections 1, 2, and 3--The first three sections of the bill 
     serve as a ``road map'' to the rest of the legislation. 
     Section 1 consists entirely of the title and table of 
     contents. Section 2 outlines certain findings as to why the 
     legislation is necessary. Section 3 provides the definitions 
     used throughout the rest of the bill.


                      title one--plant protection

       Section 101--Outlaws the importation or interstate movement 
     of a plant pest (defined in Section 3 as anything that has 
     the potential to directly or indirectly injure or cause 
     damage to or disease in a plant product) without a permit 
     from the Secretary of Agriculture.
       Section 102--Grants USDA the authority to block or regulate 
     the importation or movement of a noxious weed, or other 
     plant, if the Secretary determines that such a prohibition is 
     necessary to prevent the weed's introduction into a new area. 
     In addition, USDA is required to publish a list of noxious 
     weeds that are prohibited from entering the country or whose 
     interstate movement is restricted and allows a procedure to 
     have weeds added to or removed from the list. USDA would also 
     publish a list of control agents which may be transported 
     without restriction.
       Section 103--Requires the Secretary of the Treasury (who 
     oversees the Customs Service) to notify USDA of the arrival 
     of any plant or noxious weed upon its arrival at a port of 
     entry and to hold it at the border until it can be inspected 
     and authorized for entry.
       Section 104--Authorizes USDA to hold, seize, quarantine, 
     treat, or destroy any noxious weed or plant pest that it 
     finds in violation of this law.
       Section 105--Authorizes USDA to declare ``extraordinary 
     emergencies'' when necessary to confront the importation or 
     to

[[Page S4440]]

     fight the spread of a noxious weed. In addition, the bill 
     outlines what actions are authorized during such an 
     emergency.
       Section 106--Allows a plant owner to seek compensation from 
     USDA if the owner ``establishes that the destruction or 
     disposal'' of this plant or other property ``was not 
     authorized under this Act'' if he does so within one year of 
     the action.
       Section 107--Makes USDA the federal department in charge of 
     the fight against grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets on all 
     federal lands. In addition to the authority, funds to carry 
     out the program would be transferred from other federal 
     agencies and departments to USDA. It also establishes a cost 
     sharing program in which the federal govenrmetn will assume 
     the entire cost of fighting grasshoppers and Mormon Crickets 
     on federally owned land, one-half of the cost on state owned 
     land, and one-third the cost on private land.
       Section 108--Allows the USDA to develop a means by which it 
     can certify plants to be free of pests or noxious weeds.


                 title two--inspection and enforcement

       Section 201--Allows USDA inspectors to stop and inspect 
     persons and items entering the country or moving from one 
     state to another in search of noxious weeds or plant pests. 
     In addition, USDA is authorized to seek a warrant to search 
     private premises for weeds and pests.
       Section 202--Allows USDA to ``gather and compile 
     information'' needed to carry out its investigations.
       Section 203--Authorizes and restricts how USDA may issue a 
     subpoena in its investigations.
       Section 204--Establishes criminal and civil penalties for 
     anyone who ``knowingly violates this Act,'' forges or 
     counterfeits a permit, or uses a permit unlawfully. Such a 
     violation would be a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum 
     penalty of 1 year in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000 
     (limits are set in the case that the action is taken by an 
     individual [$50,000] or done without the intention of 
     monetary gain [$1,000]).
       Section 205--Authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the 
     Act.
       Section 206--Locates enforcement at a federal court where 
     the violation occurs or where the defendant lives.


                 title three--miscellaneous provisions

       Sections 301, 302, and 303--Authorizes USDA to seek 
     cooperation with other agencies, states, associations, and 
     individuals in fulfilling its responsibilities.
       Section 304--Stipulates that the regulations against 
     mailing a plant pest or noxious weed included in the bill 
     will not interfere with an employee of the U.S. Postal 
     Service and his responsibility in handling the mail.
       Section 305--Authorizes USDA to issue regulations and 
     orders needed to carry out the Act.
       Section 306--Repeals federal laws which have been 
     superseded or replaced by the Act.


                    title four--federal coordination

       Section 401--Provides the definitions used throughout the 
     rest of the title.
       Section 402--Establishes a multi-agency Invasive Species 
     Council and outlines the duties of the Council.
       Section 403--Directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
     establish an advisory committee to provide information and 
     advice to the Council.
       Secton 404--Gives the Council nine months to develop a 
     National Invasive Species Action Plan with public 
     participation and coordination with State plans concerning 
     invasive species.


              title five--authorization for appropriations

       Secton 501--Authorizes Congress to appropriate the funds 
     necessary to carry out the Act.
       Section 502--Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     transfer other USDA funds to the programs authorized by the 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        McCain, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Abraham, and 
        Mr. Kyl):
  S. 912. A bill to modify the rate of basic pay and the classification 
of positions for certain United States Border Patrol agents, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


          border patrol recruitment and retention act of 1999

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison to introduce the Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Act 
of 1999.
  In 1996, the Congress passed unanimously, and the President signed, 
my amendment to the Immigration Reform Act requiring that 1,000 Border 
Patrol agents be hired each year between the years 1997 and 20001. Last 
year, Congress provided the Immigration and Naturalization Service with 
$93 million to hire, train, and deploy 1,000 agents during 1999.
  We have now learned that the INS will not come close to hiring the 
required 1,000 agents during this year; and, in fact, may only hire 200 
to 400. As a result, states that need the increased personnel the most 
will not receive them. Arizona, which itself was slated to receive 400 
new agents, will now receive only 100 to 150 new agents. That's not 
nearly enough. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector apprehended 
60,537 illegal immigrants last month and seized over 28,000 pounds of 
marijuana, an all-time record in both areas. Project that annually and 
then factor in the estimate that 3 times as many illegal aliens 
successfully cross the border than are apprehended. The situation is so 
out of control in Arizona that recently, 600 people attempted to cross 
the border en masse in broad daylight. Some Arizonans are growing so 
anxious about the upsurge of illegal activity in their community that 
they have attempted to take matters into their own hands. Unless 
Arizona is given more federal personnel and resources to get things 
under control, many are worried about how this situation will develop.
  What the INS says is that it is having recruitment and retention 
problems, and so it cannot take on the added personnel at this time. 
Couldn't the INS foresee some of these recruitment issues more than two 
months before now? And couldn't INS do something to correct the problem 
of recruitment?
  We concluded Congress would have to initiate some solutions. 
Therefore, Senator Hutchison and I introduce this bill today to try to 
begin to address some of the Border Patrol's recruitment and retention 
problems. It is not a panacea, and we need to continue to explore 
additional ways of improving recruitment and retention; but it will 
open the debate and will provide for a much-needed increase in salary 
levels for the Border Patrol.
  Currently Border Patrol agents are, for the most part, capped at a 
GS-9 level (currently, only about 20 percent of agents, namely those 
who perform special duties, are raised to the GS-11 level). The Border 
Patrol Retention and Recruitment Enhancement Act would allow all agents 
with a successful year's experience at a GS-9 level to move up to a GS-
11 level. This would enable agents to move from an approximate $34,000 
annually salary to an approximate $41,000 annually salary. And that's 
fair. These agents have a tough time in their assignments. They must 
speak two languages. They deserve a raise.
  The bill would also establish the Office of Border Patrol Recruitment 
and Retention, which would allow the Border Patrol to be more involved 
in recruiting and hiring and will direct the Border Patrol to make 
policy suggestions about ways to improve recruitment and retention. 
Currently, the INS and the Office of Personnel Management are 
responsible for all such activity. We have heard testimony from Border 
Patrol chiefs who say that the Border Patrol has unique and specific 
knowledge about how to enhance these efforts.
  Mr. President, this bill will not solve all of the Border Patrol's 
recruiting and retention problems, but it will be a responsible start 
toward increasing the numbers of agents who will so honorably protect 
our nation's borders.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Kyl for his 
leadership on this bill that we have just introduced.
  Senator Kyl and I, along with Senators Domenici, Gramm, McCain, and 
Bingaman, have been very concerned about the Border Patrol issue that 
faces our border States. In fact, we were stunned this week to learn 
that though Congress has authorized and authorized funding for 1,000 
new Border Patrol agents that in fact only 200 to 400 are coming on 
line this year.
  Mr. President, that is stunning. That is stunning when you consider 
that last year the Border Patrol apprehended 1.5 million persons 
illegally crossing the border, and fully half of those were at my State 
of Texas. In fact, the McAllen Border Patrol sector, which includes 
Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen, had the largest number of drug 
seizures of all Border Patrol Sectors in the United States--1,610 drug 
seizures just in that one sector. The drugs apprehended have a value of 
over $410 million. Two Border Patrol agents in the McAllen sector lost 
their lives last year in a raid of a drug trafficker's hideout. It was 
the first time Border Patrol agents had been killed during such a raid.

[[Page S4441]]

  Senator Abraham held a hearing this week, and the Chief of the Border 
Patrol told us that he has not been able to recruit and retain and, in 
fact, is losing 10 percent of the agents. For every one that we are 
bringing on, we are losing two, because our Border Patrol agents are 
capped at a journeymen-9 level. That translates to roughly $34,000 a 
year for an agent that has several years of experience. For an agent, 
that is certainly a job of law enforcement at its toughest.
  Under the bill that we have just introduced, the agents would be 
eligible to be paid at a journeymen-11 level, which is approximately a 
$7,000 increase.
  This pay raise is also consistent with the pay of other law 
enforcement agencies that work along the border. One significant 
problem for the Border Patrol has been that many agents go to work for 
the Customs Service, or the DEA when they reach the cap. So they get to 
their cap, their experience, and they go over to another Federal agency 
that pays better.
  We must solve this discrepancy among Federal agencies in the same 
place that are doing similar kinds of tough duty work for hazardous 
pay. Yet, the Border Patrol is $7,000 less than Customs and DEA agents. 
We must correct this discrepancy if we are going to get control of our 
borders, which are a sieve right now with drugs moving through at an 
alarming rate.
  This is not just a Texas-Arizona-New Mexico-California problem. The 
drugs that come in from our borders go right up into Ohio, Michigan, 
New Hampshire, Oregon--all over our country, because we don't have the 
proper control of our border.
  Mr. President, there is not a higher priority for the Federal 
Government than to have the sovereign borders of the United States safe 
from illegal drugs coming into our country, and most certainly illegal 
immigrants that have not gone through the proper procedures so that we 
know who is coming into our country and what their record is so that we 
have the control that any sovereign nation would have.
  Mr. President, this is an emergency. It is why Senator Kyl and I have 
introduced this legislation today, because we are in a crisis. This is 
a war. It is a war on drugs, and we are losing. We are losing our young 
people in this country. Part of the problem is that we are not putting 
the resources into law enforcement.
  I have to say, Mr. President, that I am disappointed to the maximum 
that our INS has money from Congress and authorization from Congress to 
hire 1,000 agents and they have only been able to come up with 200 to 
400 agents this year. That means we are 600 to 800 short, as we speak, 
from what was allocated this year, and which was given priority by 
Congress. I think the INS needs to make this a priority. We are going 
to give them the pay increases with the bill that we have just 
introduced today.
  Senator Gregg, who has been a strong supporter of our efforts to beef 
up the border, has said he will work with us to reprogram money from 
this year's budget for these pay increases so that we will hopefully be 
able to do this on an expedited basis by October 1 of this year.
  Hopefully, we will be able to retain agents knowing that this pay 
raise is in the pipeline. But, Mr. President, it also takes an effort 
by the INS to make it a priority to fill these slots, because if they 
don't look at a little more creative approach to recruiting, the $7,000 
increase is not going to be enough.
  I am at my wit's end. Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, Senator Gramm, 
Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman are at their wit's end, and 
certainly Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer are at their wit's end 
with promises made and not fulfilled by the Border Patrol to keep the 
illegal drugs out of our country that are preying on our young people.
  This is a priority. It is an emergency. It is a war that we are 
losing, and we are going to try to fix it. But we must have the support 
of the INS to do it. We are going to give them pay raises. We are going 
to create another office in the Border Patrol for recruitment and 
retention to tell us what else we need to do, and we are going to fix 
this problem if we can have a hand-to-hand relationship with the INS 
and the Border Patrol.
  It is inexcusable that they did not come to us earlier to tell us 
they were this far behind. We are going to fix this problem. We are not 
going to sit back and let the children of our country be absorbed in 
drugs that are illegally crossing the border and made available to 
young people who are not yet mature enough to know what to do when they 
are approached.
  Mr. President, we are trying to do our part. I call on the INS and 
the Border Patrol and this administration to do their part, because we 
are not going to take it anymore. We are going to solve this problem. 
We are going to put the resources in it. If the INS will put those 
resources to work and be creative and innovative and dogged in their 
determination, we will make a difference, but we can't do it without 
their commitment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for the introduction. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be made a cosponsor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be pleased to add Mr. Hollings as an original 
cosponsor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to say a word about this particular 
problem.
  Is the Senator yielding the floor?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, because he 
has provided leadership and support in our committee and because he has 
the training agency that is sitting empty right now in his State. They 
do a great job training our agents. He knows what a problem this is. I 
look forward to his remarks. I appreciate his support, and I appreciate 
his leadership in the past on trying to help us recruit. I think this 
is something that is in the interest of all of us to solve so that 
every school in America will be drug free.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator 
from Texas. She is right on target. We have graduated over 2,000 agents 
from the finest school down there for Border Patrol agents. Two who 
trained there have already been killed.
  I have visited from time to time. The matter of pay is the issue. We 
advertise and we solicit in the local area over the entire State--and 
nationally--and it is a pay problem.
  I hope we can confront it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Kyl and the other co-
sponsors in introducing legislation that I hope will significantly 
improve the Border Patrol's ability to recruit and retain the talented 
individuals we need to guard our nation's borders against illegal 
immigration and illicit drugs. This legislation is timely and 
important. I hope we can act on it promptly.
  As my colleagues know, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated the addition of 1,000 new Border 
Patrol agents annually through 2001 as a means of providing better 
enforcement against illegal immigration, particularly along the 
southwest border. Unfortunately, this Administration has seen fit to 
request full funding for those authorized agents in only one year since 
we passed that law.
  Moreover, problems in recruiting and retaining Border Patrol agents 
have resulted in a net increase of only several hundred new agents 
annually. Thus, during the current fiscal year, for which we did in 
fact appropriate funds for 1,000 new agents, the recruiting and 
retention problems are such that the Border Patrol will see a net 
increase in its ranks of only several hundred agents. Indeed, Border 
Patrol Chief Gus de la Vina testified before the Senate Immigration 
Subcommittee only yesterday that, despite the Congressional mandate to 
add 1,000 new agents this year, the Border Patrol only anticipates 
hiring between 200 and 400 agents. Arizona, which had anticipated 
receiving about 400 of the 1,000 new agents slated for FY 1999, will 
now receive fewer than 150. We can and must do better than that.
  The Border Patrol's Tucson sector last month recorded a record 60,537 
illegal immigrant detentions, raising this year's total to more than 
200,000. And the Tucson sector does not even cover the entire Arizona 
border with Mexico. The immigration problem in my state is getting 
worse, not better, as the President's decision to request funding for 
no new agents in FY 2000 implies.

[[Page S4442]]

The Border Patrol's inability to hire the required number of new agents 
even as towns like Douglas, Arizona face a rising tide of illegal 
immigrants does not inspire confidence in its ability to properly carry 
out its mission.
  Our legislation would promote all Border Patrol agents who have 
completed at least one year at the GS-9 level, and who are rated as 
fully successful or higher, to the GS-11 rank, placing them on a 
professional level commensurate with their peers in other Federal law 
enforcement agencies. Our bill would also create an Office of Border 
Patrol Recruitment and Retention to develop outreach programs for 
prospective Border Patrol agents, develop programs to provide retention 
incentives, and make recommendations about Border Patrol salaries and 
benefits. It is our hope that this legislation will help reverse the 
outflow of skilled agents from the Border Patrol, as well as make such 
service more appealing to the talented men and women it relies on.
  America's Border Patrol agents perform critical work but have been 
underappreciated for years. It's time we changed that. The premise of 
our legislation is the Border Patrol agents, whose duties involve 
considerable risks and require unique abilities, perform work as 
important as many of our other Federal law enforcement agents and 
should be compensated accordingly. Similarly, the Border Patrol should 
develop personnel policies to attract more of our best and brightest. 
At a time when we are having trouble hiring and retaining new agents, 
and as pressure from illegal immigration intensifies in some areas, 
especially southern Arizona, we cannot afford not to take better care 
of the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. Our legislation makes 
meaningful progress toward that end.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 913. A bill to require the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development to distribute funds available for grants under title IV of 
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act to help ensure that 
each State received not less than 0.5 percent of such funds for certain 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.


            THE HOMELESSNESS ASSISTANCE FUNDING FAIRNESS ACT

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Homelessness Assistance Funding Fairness Act. I introduce this bill in 
conjunction with my House colleague, Congressman John Baldacci, who is 
sponsoring a companion bill in the House. Congressman Baldacci and I 
have been working on issues involving the homeless for some time, in 
our attempt to devise an approach that will distribute federal funds 
more equitably and effectively.
  Congress has taken important steps to begin to address the root 
causes of homelessness in America. Some of the most important are the 
Continuum of Care programs which provide grants that link neighborhood 
partnerships and community services with shelter. The goal of Continuum 
of Care programs is self-sufficiency for people who are homeless, an 
approach that goes well-beyond the ``band aid'' solutions of yesteryear 
which provided the homeless only a bed for the night. Continuum of Care 
programs support treatment and counseling programs in conjunction with 
shelter, recognizing the hard reality that many homeless people must 
overcome serious substance abuse, addiction, and mental health problems 
before a life of permanent housing and stability is possible.
  Under the leadership of VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman 
Bond, Congress has recognized the great importance of Continuum of Care 
programs, and has risen to the challenge to provide this broad spectrum 
of care by appropriating $975 million last year for homeless assistance 
grants, a large portion of which are Continuum of Care grants.
  Although the strategy behind the Continuum of Care grant programs has 
been saluted for its logic, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's administration of the competitive award process that 
allocates this funding has not been similarly celebrated.
  The unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last year is 
illustrative of the problems in the distribution of funding. Maine 
submitted two Continuum of Care grant applications in 1998, one to 
address the needs of the City of Portland, and another to serve the 
needs of much of the remainder of the state.
  In December 1998, HUD announced the Continuum of Care grant 
recipients and Maine was shocked to learn the State would receive no 
funding through the grant process. After some investigation, my office 
determined that the scores for both the Maine applications were within 
two points of a passing grade. Nevertheless, Continuum of Care HUD 
homeless assistance funding distributed to Maine went from $3.7 million 
to zero, despite the fact that in 1998 Secretary Cuomo had awarded 
programs which received funding through the Continuum of Care program 
the ``best practices'' award of excellence.
  Following a vigorous public campaign by Maine residents, and the 
repeated intervention of Maine's congressional delegation, HUD provided 
a small portion of the original request to the City of Portland outside 
the competitive process. The money, though welcomed, was far from 
enough to allow Portland to meet the needs of its homeless population.
  The human cost of this bureaucratic determination is immense. In 
light of the ongoing needs of the homeless in Maine, as well the often 
harsh weather conditions in our region of the country, HUD's decision 
was particularly troubling.
  The experience of the state of Maine has convinced me not only of the 
critical need for funding of these projects, but also of the need to 
re-evaluate the process for distributing these funds. No state should 
be wholly shut out of the funding award process, because it is an 
unfortunate reality that all states have homeless people with 
significant needs.
  In response to the unfortunate experience of the State of Maine last 
year, the legislation I am proposing specifically directs the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide a minimum 
percentage of Continuum of Care competitive grant funding to each 
state. This will create a safety net for the homeless of each state, 
without ending the competitive process that recognizes programs of 
special merit or need. My legislation also directs HUD to distribute 
this funding to a state's priority programs should the state only 
receive this mandatory minimum.
  This legislation is not only driven by basic questions of fairness to 
all states, but by the significant and often forgotten needs of 
homeless people living in rural America.
  The problem of homelessness is often mischaracterized as an exclusive 
problem of urban areas. However, homelessness in Maine, and in many 
rural communities across our country, is a large and growing problem. 
From 1993 to 1996, Maine experienced an increase in its homeless 
population of almost 20%--it is estimated that more than 14,000 people 
are homeless in my home state today. In a state of only 1.2 million 
people, this is a troubling percentage of the population.

  A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor perhaps said it 
best: ``If the urban homeless are faceless and nameless. . . then the 
rural homeless are practically invisible.'' However, Mr. President, 
that does not mean they do not exist. Unlike homeless individuals in 
urban areas who are seen on busy streets everyday, rural individuals 
living in poverty often subsist in relative isolation.
  The 27,000 Maine households with incomes of less than $6,000 annually 
teeter on a shadowy brink where income cannot guarantee shelter. When 
fortune turns sour, it is these families who find themselves without 
decent shelter. When substance abuse or mental illness afflicts the 
parents, the likelihood of homelessness escalates. Indeed, in Maine, 24 
percent of visitors to Maine homeless shelters are families with 
children.
  The problem of providing services to homeless people is compounded by 
many challenges. In some areas of Maine, geographic isolation is the 
most critical obstacle to receipt of services; in others, rising 
housing costs makes obtaining housing exceedingly difficult for the 
marginally employed. Both these circumstances are compounded by the 
significant substance abuse and mental health problems prevalent among 
the homeless population in Maine as in all areas of the country.

[[Page S4443]]

  I am proud to say that the people of Maine have developed many 
innovative programs to assist our homeless population. Through programs 
like the Bangor Area Homeless Shelter, which fills the immediate needs 
of outreach, shelter and counseling to area homeless, and more long 
term programs like Shalom House, which provides services and shelter 
for the mentally ill, the Preble Street Resource Center, which provides 
job training, social services and medical care among its many services, 
and the YWCA, which provides programs to assist teen age moms, Mainers 
have worked hard to reach out and assist those in need and to provide 
effective care and outreach for Maine's homeless people.
  I recently had the opportunity to visit with the staff and clients of 
a shelter in Alfred, Maine, that is making a real difference in the 
lives of homeless men and women. As one man who has battled both severe 
alcoholism and mental illness told me, ``The people at this shelter 
saved my life. Without their help, I'd be dead on the street. But now, 
I can see a future for myself.'' Significantly, 90 percent of the 
homeless people served by this York County Shelter face serious 
problems with substance abuse or mental illness.
  These programs, and others like them, depend on federal funding, and 
its unexpected loss last year has left my state scrambling to make up 
for this serious shortfall. I hope you will join me in supporting this 
legislation that will prevent other states from facing this same 
misfortune. All states deserve at least a minimum percentage of 
homeless funding available through the Continuum of Care grants, 
because no state has yet solved the problems faced by its homeless men, 
women and children.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being 
introduced by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, the Homeless 
Assistance Funding Fairness Act.
  This bill will set a minimum allocation for state homeless funding by 
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in an effort 
to prevent future repeats of a situation that Maine faced this year 
when HUD denied applications for homeless funding from the Maine State 
Housing Authority and the city of Portland, Maine's largest city.
  Maine was one of just four states denied funding this year under HUD 
homeless programs--and that is a situation that no state should have to 
endure. HUD took steps to partially rectify this situation since the 
original announcement, but this legislation will assure minimum funding 
for every state and assure a fairer allocation of funding in the 
future. The legislation requires HUD to provide a minimum of 0.5 
percent of funding to each state under Title IV of the Stewart B. 
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
  Mr. President, it may interest my colleagues to learn a little more 
about the problem that inspired this legislation. In January, HUD 
issued grant announcements for its Continuum of Care program--which 
provides rental assistance for those who are or were recently 
homeless--but denied applications by the Maine State Housing Authority 
and by the city of Portland, leaving the state one of only four not to 
receive funds.
  The Maine congressional delegation immediately protested the decision 
to HUD Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo, and I wrote and spoke repeatedly with 
Secretary Cuomo about the decision--to encourage HUD to work with Maine 
homeless providers to find an acceptable solution. I also contacted the 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development and asked committee members to examine the issue as 
well.
  HUD officials restored about $1 million in funding to the city of 
Portland, but refused to restore State homeless funding. In 1998, Maine 
homeless assistance providers received about $3.5 million from the 
Continuum of Care Program, and this year the State had requested $1.2 
million for renewals and $1.27 million to meet additional needs. MSHA, 
which coordinates the program, estimates that many individuals with 
mental illness or substance abuse problems who have been receiving rent 
subsidies will lose those subsidies over the course of the next six 
months as a result of HUD's failure to fund Maine programs. This in 
spite of the ``proven track record'' of Maine homeless programs, 
including praise by Secretary Cuomo during his visit to Maine in August 
1998.
  Without this homeless assistance, basic subsidized housing and 
shelter programs suffer, and it is more difficult for the State to 
provide job training, health care, child care, and other vital services 
to the victims of homelessness, many of whom are children, battered 
women, and others in serious need.
  In 1988, 14,653 people were temporarily housed in Maine's emergency 
homeless shelters. Alarmingly, young people account for 30 percent of 
the population staying in Maine's shelters, which is approximately 135 
homeless young people every night. Twenty-one percent of these young 
people are between 5\1/2\ with the average age being 13. Meanwhile, 
Maine earmarks more funding per capita for the elderly, disabled, 
mentally ill, and poor for services and support programs then the 
majority of other states, even though it ranks 36th nationwide in per 
capita income.
  In closing, I would simply reiterate that Maine was not the only 
state that was frozen out of the process this year. Without 
congressional intervention, what state will be next? This makes it all 
the more important that changes be made to our homeless policy to 
ensure that no state falls through the cracks. As such, I urge my 
colleagues to join Senator Collins and myself in a strong show of 
support for this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Warner, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Collins, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
        Hagel, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 914. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
require that discharges from combined storm and sanitary sewers conform 
to the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


      combined sewer overflow control and partnership act of 1999

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to take a few 
minutes to introduce important environmental legislation that will have 
a significant and positive impact on our nation's waterways. Today, 
along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and seven other 
cosponsors, I am introducing the Combined Sewer Overflow Control and 
Partnership Act of 1999.
  While the title of this bill, indeed, the subject matter itself, may 
not be the most exciting, front-burner policy issue of the day, the 
control of overflows from sewer systems is a serious environmental and 
financial concern for hundreds of communities across this country. For 
my own state of New Hampshire, there are six communities with combined 
sewer overflow, or CSO, problems. The cities of Manchester, Nashua, 
Portsmouth, Exeter, Berlin, and Lebanon are all facing this challenge.
  I have worked closely with the mayors of these cities over the past 
several years and have seen first-hand the environmental problems. This 
legislation is aimed at helping CSO communities comply with Clean Water 
Act mandates to reduce or eliminate overflows into nearby rivers and 
streams. CSOs are the last permitted point source discharges of 
untreated or partially treated sewage into the nation's waters. For 
those colleagues who don't have CSO communities in their states, I'll 
briefly explain what they are.
  Combined sewer systems collect sanitary sewage from homes and office 
buildings during periods of dry weather for conveyance to wastewater 
treatment plants for treatment. However, these systems also receive 
storm water during wet weather, which typically causes a hydraulic 
overload of the system, triggering the discharge of untreated 
wastewater to receiving waters through combined sewer overflow 
outfalls. Not a pleasant sight.

  Most combined systems were installed at the turn of the century when 
they were state-of-the-art sewer technology, mainly in the Northeast 
and Midwest regions of the country. Controlling or eliminating CSO 
discharges is an enormously expensive proposition

[[Page S4444]]

that often requires communities to completely rebuild their sewer 
systems. The national cost estimates to complete this job range from 
$50 billion to $100 billion. Compounding the sheer financial magnitude 
of the CSO problem is the fact that the vast majority of the 
approximately 1,000 CSO communities nationwide have less than 10,000 
residents, or ratepayers. These ratepayers could pay hundreds of 
dollars more per year on their water bills without this legislation. 
With these statistics, it is not surprising that a CSO control program 
often poses the single largest public works project in a CSO 
community's history.
  Although the Federal Clean Water Act does not specifically speak to 
the issue of combined sewers, it has been interpreted to require the 
control and treatment of CSO discharges. Recognizing the financial 
burden this would pose on small towns, in 1994, the Environmental 
Protection Agency issued the ``Combined Sewer Overflow Policy,'' which 
allowed CSO control programs to be developed in the most cost-
effective, flexible and site-specific manner possible. This policy was 
developed with the input from many stakeholders, including local 
governments, environmental groups, and engineering firms, and was 
viewed as a major step forward in tackling this problem through 
commonsense means.
  Unfortunately, this policy is just an administrative policy and lacks 
statutory authority. So, one of the most important provisions of this 
bill would essentially codify or affirm EPA's CSO Policy. This 
provision will give CSO communities the legal protection and regulatory 
relief they so desperately need. A key component of the CSO Policy is 
to ensure that water quality standards are consistent with whatever CSO 
control plans are mandated.
  The second part of the bill sets up a partnership between the Federal 
Government and our local governments by authorizing five years of 
funding assistance for these communities. While there is a State 
revolving loan fund under the Clean Water Act that provides loan 
assistance to municipalities for water treatment, the SRF cannot 
possibly meet the needs of these CSO communities. The financial burden 
of CSO control programs generally far exceed the capacity of local 
ratepayers to assume the full cost.
  I emphasize that ratepayers cannot assume the full cost of these 
programs.
  While this bill does authorize new funding assistance, I do not 
intend for this funding to increase EPA's overall budget. As many of my 
colleagues are aware, numerous earmarks for CSOs or other public works 
projects are frequently included in appropriations bills. I am hoping 
that the existence of a CSO assistance program at EPA will discourage 
the practice of earmarking specific projects and seek competitive 
funding through this program.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to add that this 
legislation has been endorsed by the CSO Partnership, a recognized 
coalition of CSO communities and mayors. I would also like to thank 
Senator Snowe for her support and assistance on this legislation, as 
well as the other original cosponsors: Senators Warner, Voinovich, 
Collins, Abraham, Robb, Hagel, and Lugar. I am hopeful that we will 
have an opportunity to consider this legislation in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and the full Senate sometime this year. It is 
both proenvironment and procommunity and I ask for my colleagues 
support and welcome their cosponsorship.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Mack, and Mr. 
        Coverdell):
  S. 915. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
expand and make permanent the Medicare subvention demonstration project 
for military retirees and dependents; to the Committee on Finance.


  Legislation expanding and making permanent the medicare subvention 
       demonstration project for military retirees and dependents

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, along with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
Connie Mack, and Paul Coverdell, I am introducing legislation today 
which will expand the opportunities for military retirees to use their 
Medicare coverage to pay for treatment at military medical facilities. 
By giving our military retirees this option, we fulfill a health care 
promise that America has made to every man and woman who has retired 
from our armed forces after a career of exemplary service.
  Upon retirement after twenty or more years of military service, our 
nation promises to provide military health care to our retirees for the 
rest of their lives. This promise is one of the most important 
commitments our country makes to its military retirees. Unfortunately, 
for many military retirees age 65 and over, this promise is being 
broken. More and more of the 65 and over retirees have found themselves 
unable to receive care on a space-available basis at their local 
military medical facility. For these retirees, America's promise of 
health care for life is not being honored.
  Ironically, many of these military retirees are entitled to Medicare 
in addition to their military health care eligibility. An estimated 1.2 
million Americans fit into this ``dual-eligible'' category, with over 
300,000 of them regularly using military medical treatment facilities 
for their health care. The result is that the Department of Defense 
effectively subsidizes Medicare at the rate of approximately $1.4 
billion per year to treat these dual-eligible beneficiaries.
  As a first step toward fulfilling America's promise to military 
retirees 65 and over, Congress passed my proposal for a three-year 
demonstration project as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Under 
this demonstration project, known as Medicare Subvention, over 28,000 
dual-eligible military retirees are being treated in military 
facilities at selected test locations across the country. For these 
retirees, Medicare is reimbursing the Department of Defense up to 95% 
of the amount Medicare would pay Health Maintenance Organizations for 
similar care. Unfortunately, the limited scope of the demonstration 
project means that the majority of dual-eligible retirees are still 
unable to receive the treatment they have earned at the military 
facilities in their hometowns.
  The bill we introduce today will keep the health care promise America 
made to her military retirees 65 and over by expanding the 
demonstration project and by ultimately making Medicare Subvention 
permanent across the country. Specifically, this bill will expand the 
test locations for the demonstration project to 16 sites effective 
January 1, 2000. At these 16 sites, the demonstration project will 
become permanent. In addition, on October 1, 2002, the bill expands 
Medicare Subvention to any military medical treatment facility approved 
by the secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services.
  This bill not only fulfills commitments America made in the past, it 
gives meaning and credibility to promises America is making to our 
military service members today. If America does not keep her word to 
those served during World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the cold war, how 
can we expect America's best and brightest to dedicate their careers to 
serve this country in the future? We must act now to ensure that 
America's defense in the future will be as strong as it has been in the 
past. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter of support 
for the bill, signed by the Military Coalition, which is a consortium 
of military and veterans associations, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Military Coalition,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 27, 1999.
     Hon. Phil Gramm,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gramm: The Military Coalition, a consortium of 
     military and veterans associations representing more than 
     five million current and former members of the uniformed 
     services, plus their families and survivors, is very grateful 
     for your leadership in developing legislation to expand and 
     make permanent TRICARE Senior Prime (the Medicare Subvention 
     demonstration project for Medicare-eligible uniformed 
     services beneficiaries). TRICARE Senior Prime has been 
     successfully implemented in all of the demonstration sites 
     and, by all accounts, has been very well received by eligible 
     beneficiaries at each site. The Department of Defense has 
     also expressed a strong desire to expand this program to 
     other sites across the country wherever feasible. Your 
     initiatives to expand TRICARE Senior Prime to ten additional 
     locations by January 1, 2001 and

[[Page S4445]]

     then across the remaining TRICARE Prime catchment areas not 
     later than October 1, 2002 clearly meets a critical need for 
     our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
       The Military Coalition is particularly pleased that your 
     bill takes the additional step of making TRICARE Senior Prime 
     a permanent program. The Coalition has been concerned that 
     some older retirees have refrained from participating in 
     TRICARE Senior Prime because of their perception that the 
     temporary nature of the demonstration program could place 
     participants at financial risk. Beneficiaries need assurance 
     that this program will not disappear abruptly as so many of 
     their other health care benefits have, especially since 
     TRICARE Senior Prime is an integral part of fulfilling the 
     promise of health care for life for uniformed services 
     beneficiaries. Your bill takes a great step toward providing 
     retirees this assurance.
       The Military Coalition is also pleased that your 
     legislation would authorize non-enrollees to use TRICARE 
     Senior Prime services on a ``fee-for-service'' basis. The 
     Military Coalition believes this would be particularly useful 
     for the Department of Defense, as well as beneficiaries, 
     especially at some of the smaller facilities with little or 
     no inpatient capabilities where it might be difficult to 
     implement a Medicare HMO program.
       The Military Coalition wholeheartedly endorses your bill, 
     and will take whatever steps are necessary to encourage other 
     members of the Senate to co-sponsor this bill and have it 
     enacted as soon as the data from the existing test sites 
     validate that Medicare subvention is as valuable to DoD, 
     Medicare and the beneficiaries as we believe it is.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Military Coalition.
       (Signatures of Associations enclosed).
         Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, 
           Army Aviation Assn. of America, Assn. of Military 
           Surgeons of the United States, Assn. of the US Army, 
           Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health 
           Service, Inc., CWO & WO Assn., US Coast Guard, Enlisted 
           Association of the National Guard of the US, Fleet 
           Reserve Assn., Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Jewish 
           War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps Reserve Officers 
           Assn., National Guard Assn. of the US, National 
           Military Family Assn., National Order of Battlefield 
           Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn., Naval 
           Reserve Assn., Navy League of the US, Reserve Officers 
           Assn., Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed 
           Forces, The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA, The 
           Retired Enlisted Assn., The Retired Officers Assn., 
           United Armed Forces Assn., USCG Chief Petty Officers 
           Assn., US Army Warrant Officers Assn., Veterans of 
           Foreign Wars of the US, and Veterans' Widows 
           International Network, Inc.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I am proud to join my esteemed 
colleagues in introducing a bill that will expand and make permanent 
the Medicare Subvention demonstration program passed as part of the 
1997 Balanced Budget Agreement. I worked with Senator Gramm to pass 
that measure then and I am pleased to join him again today to move this 
program to its next level.
  Military retirees have had an increasingly difficult time obtaining 
the lifetime health care they were promised in return for 20 years of 
service to their country. The problem, largely, has been access. The 
number of military hospitals has decreased dramatically since the end 
of the cold war and TRICARE/CHAMPUS, the health care plan created to 
assist military retirees, not only is not available to a military 
retiree who is Medicare eligible, but also when it is available its 
reimbursement rates are so low many private practitioners will not 
accept it, forcing military retirees back into military hospitals on a 
``space available'' basis. Mr. President, you can see the vicious cycle 
this creates. Simply, put, military retirees are being shut out of the 
military health care system.
  Congress, in turn, has been looking for solutions to this lack of 
access. Last year I cosponsored a commonsense measure with Senator 
Thurmond. Our simple proposal would have given military retirees the 
option to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the 
same plan in which you and I and our staffs are enrolled, Mr. 
President. Congress acted on this idea by creating an FEHBP 
demonstration program. While not a total solution, the program has 
moved us in the right direction.
  Another commonsense measure, Mr. President, is Medicare Subvention. 
Currently, Medicare does not reimburse the Defense Department for 
health care services. This makes little sense considering that Medicare 
would reimburse any other private physician or medical care provider. 
If a Medicare-eligible military retiree lives near a military hospital 
he cannot use his Medicare and he cannot use TRICARE. He must find 
another insurance provider to help pay for his medical care. This is 
why, Mr. President, we passed a test of the Medicare Subvention in the 
105th Congress.
  Now we hope to move this concept forward. It is my understanding that 
while the program is working, the connotation of the word ``test'' is 
deterring military retirees who might otherwise enroll in a program 
they know to be permanent. This bill would solve that problem. Our bill 
also provides a fee-for-service Medicare option at certain Military 
Treatment Facilities if this would be a more cost effective approach 
for those facilities.
  Mr. President, this bill enjoys widespread support. The Military 
Coalition strongly favors an expansion of the Medicare subvention test. 
My colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm introduced for the Record a 
letter from the Coalition supporting this bill. Further, Congressman 
Hefley's bill in the House has already garnered 69 cosponsors. I 
believe this is a proposal Congress should move forward.
  Congress must continue to increase access to health care for our 
nation's military retirees. Medicare subvention is a commonsense 
approach to achieving this end. Thus far, based on the demonstration 
program, the parties involved feel that Medicare Subvention has been a 
success. Now we must let our military retirees know that when they 
enter this program the Government will not leave them in the lurch. 
This bill will do exactly that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 916. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact provision; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                    dairy compact repeal legislation

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Grams, in introducing a measure to repeal the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact was 
included in the 1996 farm bill during conference negotiations after it 
had been struck from the Senate version of the farm bill during floor 
consideration.
  Mr. President, support of this legislation is especially crucial as 
compact proponents have recently introduced a measure to make permanent 
and expand the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and establish a 
southern dairy compact. In other words, a measure devised to control 
three percent of the country's milk is now seeking 40% of the country's 
milk. The cost to consumers, taxpayers, and farmers outside the compact 
region are enormous.
  Mr. President, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact bill of 1996 
established a commission for six Northeastern States--Vermont, Maine, 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut--empowered 
to set minimum prices for fluid milk above those established under 
Federal Milk Marketing Orders. This sort or compact was unprecedented 
and unnecessary because the Federal milk marketing order system already 
provided farmers in the designated compact region with minimum milk 
prices higher than those received by most other dairy farmers 
throughout the nation. But they wanted more.
  This compact not only allows the six States to set artificially high 
fluid milk prices for their producers, it also allows those States to 
keep out lower priced milk from producers in competing States and 
provides processors within the region with a subsidy to export their 
higher priced milk to noncompact States.
  Mr. President, the arguments against this type of price-fixing scheme 
are numerous: It interferes with interstate commerce by erecting 
barriers around one region of the Nation; It provides preferential 
price treatment for farmers in the Northeast at the expense of farmers 
nationally and may now extend that privilege to the south; It 
encourages excess milk production in one region without establishing 
effective supply control that drives down milk prices for producers 
throughout the country; It imposes higher costs on the

[[Page S4446]]

millions of consumers in the Compact region; It imposes higher costs to 
taxpayers who pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and the 
national school lunch programs which provide milk and other dairy 
products and as a price-fixing mechanism, the compact it is 
unprecedented in the history of this Nation.
  Most important to my home State of Wisconsin, Mr. President, is that 
the Northeast Dairy Compact exacerbates the inequities within the 
Federal milk marketing orders system that already discriminates against 
dairy farmers in Wisconsin and throughout the upper Midwest. Federal 
orders provide higher fluid milk prices to producers the further they 
are located from Eau Claire, WI, for markets east of the Rocky 
Mountains.
  Wisconsin farmers have complained for many years that this inherently 
discriminatory system provides other regions, such as the Northeast, 
the Southeast, and the Southwest with milk prices that encourage excess 
production in those regions. Of course, that excess production drives 
down prices throughout the Nation and results in excessive production 
of cheese, butter, and dry milk.
  Cheese and other manufactured dairy products constitute the pillar of 
our dairy industry in Wisconsin. Competition for the production and 
sale of these products by other regions spurred on by artificial 
incentives under milk marketing orders has eroded our markets for 
cheese and other products.
  Mr. President, my State of Wisconsin loses more dairy farms each year 
than any other state. A recent survey by the National Milk Producers 
Federation revealed that, between 1993 and 1998, Wisconsin lost over 
7000 dairy farms--that's three dairy farms a day! The number of 
manufacturing plants has declined from 400 in 1985 to less than 230 in 
1996. These losses are due in part, to the systematic discrimination 
and market distortions created by Federal dairy policies that provide 
artificial regional advantages that cannot be justified on any rational 
economic grounds.
  Lets look at their arguments: They claim this legislation is 
necessary to save their small dairy farmers, yet the bill does not 
target small operations. One year after the compact began, New England 
dairy farms went out of business at a 41% faster rate than in the prior 
two years.
  They also claim that consumers in their regions are willing to pay a 
higher price at the grocery store as a result of the compact. However, 
studies show that higher milk prices at the retail level result in a 
decline in milk consumption at home. According to economists, a 10% 
increase in price can lead to as much as an 8% decline in consumption. 
The spread of dairy compacts to include half of the U.S. population in 
the Northeast, the South and parts of the Midwest could drive up milk 
prices as much as 20%.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams and I are 
on the floor today offering this legislation because the Northeast 
Dairy Compact reinforces the outrageous discrimination that has so 
wounded the dairy industry in our States. We have fought to change 
Federal milk marketing orders and we will fight to prevent the 
Northeast Dairy Compact from becoming permanent and expanding, and 
prevent the authorization of a southern compact. We will do all of 
these things in the name of basic fairness, simple justice and economic 
sanity in the marketplace. Upper Midwest dairy farmers have been bled 
long enough.

  When prices fall, as they have recently, all farmers feel the stress. 
Why should one farmer in a region arbitrarily suffer or benefit more 
than another farmer on a similar operation in another region because of 
this artificial finger on the scale called the compact. Regional 
inequities are the inherent assumption of compact proponents and a 
basic economic premise of the compact idea. Shouldn't we be working 
together to make conditions better for all dairy producers? Why should 
one region, and now multiple regions be treated differently?
  And yet the Northeast Compact provides price protection for dairy 
farmers in six States, insulating them from market conditions which 
ordinary noncompact farmers have to live with. Compact proponents have 
never been able to explain how conditions in the Northeast merit 
greater protection from market price fluctuations than other regions of 
the country. The fact that there are no compelling arguments made in 
favor of the compact that justified special treatment for the Northeast 
was emphasized by a vote in the full Senate to strike the compact from 
the 1996 farm bill. It was the only recorded vote on approval or 
disapproval of the Northeast Dairy Compact--and it killed the compact 
in the Senate. The way in which the compact was ultimately included in 
the 1996 farm bill also illustrates the weak justification for its 
approval. Let me remind my colleagues that the compact was never 
included in the House version of the farm bill and yet emerged as part 
of the bill after a closed door Conference negotiation. Legislation 
which is patently unfair and difficult to defend must frequently be 
negotiated behind closed doors rather than in the light of day.
  Even the Secretary of Agriculture, after approving the compact, was 
unable to come up with an economic justification for the compact. The 
Secretary's finding of `compelling public interest' as a basis for 
justifying his approval of the compact was so weak and unsupported by 
the public record that a suit was filed by compact opponents in Federal 
court charging that the Secretary violated the Administrative 
Procedures Act.
  Mr. President, authorizing dairy compacts is bad public policy 
because it increases costs to taxpayers and consumers and currently 
only benefits a few in privileged regions. It is bad dairy policy 
because it exacerbates regional discrimination of existing Federal milk 
marketing orders by providing artificial advantages to a small group of 
producers at the expense of all others. And it is bad economic policy 
because it establishes barriers to interstate trade--barriers of the 
type the United States has been working hard to eliminate in 
international markets.
  Mr. President, Congress should never have provided Secretary Glickman 
with authority to approve the compact. That in my view, was an improper 
and potentially unconstitutional delegation of our authority and it was 
irresponsible. It is the role of Congress to approve interstate 
compacts and we irresponsibly abrogated our responsibility in this 
matter. It is time to make it right.
  It is incumbent upon Congress to undo the mistake it made in the 1996 
farm bill. It's time to repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy compact.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 917. A bill to equalize the minimum adjustments to prices for 
fluid milk under milk marketing orders; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                          the dairy reform act

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in order to call attention to 
one of the most onerous barriers currently facing American agriculture. 
It is a regional price-fixing cartel, which benefits only those 
producers within its own boundaries, at the direct expense of 
consumers. It is a patently unfair, unabashed attempt to distort basic 
principles of market forces. It is the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact, which has been in effect in New England States since July 
1997.
  Today, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and I introduce the Dairy 
Fairness Act, which would repeal the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact. As many southeastern States are passing enabling legislation 
to lay the groundwork in forming their own compacts, we feel it is 
necessary to once again review the notorious history of the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact, and its negative impact on consumers and on 
all dairy farmers--with the notable exception, of course, of the 
largest dairy industries within the compact region.
  The 1996 FAIR Act included significant reforms for diary policy. It 
set the stage for greater market orientation in dairy, including reform 
of the archaic Federal milk marketing orders. Yet despite a strong vote 
by the Senate to strip the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact from its 
version of the FAIR Act, and the deliberate exclusion of any compact 
language from the House version of the bill, a Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact provision was slipped into the conference report. This

[[Page S4447]]

language called for the termination of the compact upon the completion 
of the Federal milk marketing order process. That would have been in 
April of 1999. Well, through last year's appropriations process, the 
implementation of USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms have been 
delayed by 6 months. Of course, this was not at the request of the 
USDA. With the delay came an automatic extension of this compact. This 
political maneuvering is outrageous, and it comes with a high price tag 
attached--a high price tag to be paid by milk drinkers, and the rest of 
the Nation's dairy farmers.
  The goals of the Northeast Dairy Compact have been clear since its 
inception. That was--to increase the profits of producers within the 
compact region, but at the expense of everyone outside of the compact. 
And by now, the obvious ramifications have been realized--higher milk 
prices within the compact region. This, not surprisingly, has led to a 
decrease in milk consumption. According to data from the Northeast 
Dairy Compact Commission, the compact, since it has been in effect, has 
added $46.5 million to the cost of milk in New England. As the fluid 
milk prices which consumers pay rise, the burden falls 
disproportionately on low-income families, particularly those with 
small children. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their 
income on food. They are harmed as a direct result of this compact.
  The compact is having other dramatic effects as well. The increase in 
prices which producers receive for their milk has led to surplus 
production, which has had a negative effect on other producers around 
the country. Conversion of this surplus milk into cheese, butter, and 
powder drives down prices for these products in other non-compact 
regions. Take milk powder, for instance. Some of the compact's excess 
supply has been converted into nonfat milk powder. Between October 1997 
and March 1998, New England produced 11 million more pounds of powder, 
60 percent more than it did in the same period of the preceding year. 
During that time, nonfat powder production in the U.S. increased by 
only 2 percent. Furthermore, between October 1, 1997 and March 31, 
1998, the nonfat milk powder glut in the U.S. drove prices so low that 
USDA had to spend nearly $41 million to buy surplus milk powder from 
dairy processors. Dairy producers outside of the compact region clearly 
are harmed as a direct result of the compact.

  In fact, the only real winners have been the largest industrial 
dairies of the Northeast. It is really no surprise. Just consider it: 
if the compact pays a premium per hundredweight of milk, and large 
industrial dairies are able to produce, for example, 15 to 20 times 
more than the ``typical'' traditional dairy farm that the compact was 
supposedly going to protect, who do you think the big winners are? It 
certainly isn't the traditional dairy farm. They are also put at a 
competitive disadvantage, and thanks again to regional politics. And so 
are dairies outside the compact region.
  We must keep sight of the fact that a dairy compact, or any sort of 
compact for that matter, is essentially a price-fixing scheme, which so 
abuses interstate commerce that it requires a special authorization of 
Congress. Otherwise it would violate Federal antitrust laws. We have 
come to the point where we must ask ourselves, as a nation, in which 
direction will we proceed concerning dairy policy. USDA has just 
presented its recommendations for Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms. 
It is not a great step in the way of reform, but at least it represents 
a rational attempt to decrease Federal interference in the dairy 
business and to treat producers all over the country a little more 
fairly. A national patchwork of compacts would render the Federal Milk 
Marketing Order reforms meaningless. It would essentially kill any hope 
for the beginning of real Federal reform. Interstate commerce in the 
milk industry would be so confusing it would be a confusing maze that 
harms consumers. While dairy was not included in the farm bill, it was 
always envisioned that a later dairy solution would conform to the free 
market concept of that farm bill.
  We all know that it is difficult in Washington to have the courage to 
bypass any of those quick-fix issues in favor of a long-range view 
which would produce better and sound dairy policies. But that is 
exactly what we need today. That is where real leadership comes into 
play. So let's be advocates for the traditional dairy farmers, not just 
the mega-dairies. What is required now is a complete overhaul of this 
backward-looking and just plain unfair compact legislation. Senator 
Feingold and I will continue to fight the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact, and any other dairy compact that may be proposed. And we urge 
our colleagues to give all dairy farmers, in all areas of our country, 
the ability to compete on a level playing field.
  To this end, and in order to underscore the need for significant 
reform, Senator Feingold and I today also introduce the Dairy Reform 
Act, which would equalize the minimum adjustments to prices for fluid 
milk marketing orders at $1.80 per hundredweight of milk. This 
legislation, again, represents real reform, and a level playing field 
that will allow farmers to compete fairly and not have the Federal 
Government stand on the neck of dairy farmers in one area of the 
country while supporting those in others. It would allow producers to 
compete in a system where efficiencies--efficiencies--would be rewarded 
and they would be important according to market principles. The current 
system is so weighted against the Upper Midwest that our dairy farmers 
have to be twice as good just to be able to break even. The Dairy 
Reform Act proposes a marketing system which would truly be fair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Dairy 
Reform Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator 
Rod Grams.
  The Federal Dairy Program was developed in the 1930's, when the Upper 
Midwest was seen as the primary reserve for additional supplies of 
milk. The idea was to encourage the development of local supplies of 
fluid milk in areas of the country that had not produced enough to meet 
local needs. Six decades ago, the poor condition of the American 
transportation infrastructure and the lack of portable refrigeration 
technology prevented Upper Midwest producers from shipping fresh fluid 
milk to other parts of the country. Therefore, the only way to ensure 
consumers a fresh local supply of fluid milk was to provide dairy 
farmers in those distant regions with a boost in milk price large 
enough to encourage local production--that higher price referred to as 
the Class I differential. Mr. President, the system worked well--too 
well. Wisconsin is no longer this country's largest milk producer. This 
program has outlived its necessity and is now working only to 
shortchange the Upper Midwest, and in particular, Wisconsin dairy 
farmers.
  The Dairy Reform Act of 1998 is very simple. It establishes that the 
minimum Class I price differential will be the same, $1.80/
hundredweight, for each marketing order. As many of you know, the price 
for fluid milk increases at a rate of approximately 21 cents per 100 
miles from Eau Claire, WI. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are nearly 
$3 higher in Florida than in Wisconsin, more than $2 higher in New 
England, and more than $1 higher in Texas. This bill ensures that the 
Class I differentials will no longer vary according to an arbitrary 
geographic measure--like the distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin. No 
longer will the system penalize producers in the Upper Midwest with an 
archaic program that outlived its purpose years ago. This legislation 
identifies one of the most unfair and unjustly punitive provisions in 
the current system, and corrects it. There is no substantive, equitable 
justification to support non-uniform Class I differentials in present 
day policy.
  USDA's Federal Milk Marketing Order reform proposal was recently 
published. Although the USDA was successful in narrowing Class I 
differentials, discrepancies still exist. It is long past the time to 
set aside regional bickering and address the problems faced by dairy 
producers in all regions. The Dairy Reform Act of 1999 will make a 
change to USDA's proposed rule which will make the entire package more 
palatable for Wisconsin's producers. It will take USDA's proposal a 
step further and lead the dairy industry into a more market oriented 
program. Also producers will still be able to receive payment for 
transportation costs and over-order premiums.

[[Page S4448]]

 This measure would finally bring fairness to an unfair system. With 
this bill we will send a clear message to USDA and to Congress that 
Upper-Midwest dairy farmers will never stop fighting this patently 
unfair federal milk marketing order system. After over 60 years of 
struggling under this burden of inequality, Wisconsin's dairy industry 
deserves more; it deserves a fair price.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Robb, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Levin, Mr. Graham, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs Lincoln, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 918. A bill to authorize the Small Business Administration to 
provide financial and business development assistance to military 
reservists' small business, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business.


          MILITARY RESERVIST SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF ACT OF 1999

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the 
Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act of 1999. I offer it on 
behalf of myself and 30 other colleagues: Senators Bond, Bingaman, 
Landrieu, Harkin, Lieberman, Wellstone, Kohl, Burns, Robb, Edwards, 
Levin, Graham, Snowe, Akaka, Murray, Cleland, Kennedy, Jeffords, 
Collins, Abraham, Leahy, Baucus, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, Grassley, 
Moynihan, Lincoln, Bayh, Chafee, Lautenberg, Cochran, and Daschle. I 
thank these Senators for their support.
  Mr. President, a number of those colleagues I listed serve on either 
the Small Business Committee, the Armed Services Committee or on the 
Veterans Affairs Committee. However, all have joined me in a universal 
concern that I think goes across the aisle for the problems that 
reservists face when they are called suddenly to active duty. This bill 
will help small businesses whose owner, manager, or key employee is 
called to active duty. Most immediately, we are obviously looking at 
the question of service in Kosovo, but the act also applies to future 
contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies.
  Since 1973, we have taken pains as a result of the Vietnam experience 
to build an all-volunteer military. Our reservists are much more than 
just weekend warriors. When they are called, they are an essential 
ingredient of any kind of long-term or significant deployment of 
American forces. I think everyone knows the contributions they have 
made as soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guard, serving our 
country in extraordinary ways in recent years.
  The National Guard and the Reservists have become a critical 
component of U.S. force deployment. In the Persian Gulf war they 
accounted for more than 46 percent of our total forces. The Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Defense for Reserve Affairs just Tuesday said 
that ``Reservists are absolutely vital to our national military 
strategy.''
  To support the NATO operations in the Balkans, Secretary of Defense 
Cohen has asked for and received the authorization to call up members 
of the Selected Reserve to active duty. President Clinton has 
authorized deployment of 33,000 reservists, but the initial callup 
includes only about 2,100 personnel. These first reservists come from 
Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania 
and Wisconsin. A total of 1.4 million Americans currently serve in our 
seven Reserve components of the U.S. Armed Forces.
  When these folks are called up, even though they know they are in the 
Reserves and even though they know at some point in time they might be 
called to meet an emergency of our country, the fact is that nothing 
prepares their families or them for the remarkably fast transition that 
takes place. There are obviously emotional and personal hardships 
people have to deal with, but in addition to that there are significant 
financial realities.
  I have heard first-hand, talking to a number of vets who suffered 
this callup process, how difficult it is. One veteran told the ``Boston 
Globe'' on the 1-year anniversary of the Persian Gulf War:

       The Gulf War is going to wind up having caused a lot of 
     stress for me personally and for my family. It didn't just 
     take a year out of my life. It's going to take a minimum of 
     another two years, because that's how long it's going to take 
     for us to catch up.

  I think it is imperative that we help these families and communities 
to bridge the gap between the moment when the troops leave and when 
they return. We are talking about people who fill all of the normal, 
everyday positions of commerce that help to keep this country strong--
bankers, barbers, mechanics, merchants, farmers, doctors, Realtors, 
owners of fast food restaurants--all kinds of positions that reservists 
hold and ultimately leave when they go to active duty.
  As some veterans of the Persian Gulf War know all too well, they left 
their businesses and their companies in good shape. They were earning a 
living, they were providing a service, they were adding to the tax 
base, they were creating jobs, and then they returned to hardships that 
range from bankruptcy to financial ruin; from deserted clients to 
layoffs.
  Even if you are not a small business owner, one has to ask what 
happens to one's family or to one's business or company during a 6- to 
7-month deployment if you or your key employee suddenly has to depart. 
Particularly in rural areas and small towns it can be extremely 
difficult to find a replacement.
  Let me share with you just one very quick story from my part of the 
country. For privacy purposes I am not going to use any names. However, 
I am going to talk about a physician from Raynham, MA. He was a 
lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve and was called up for 
Operation Desert Storm as a flight surgeon in January 1991. For 10 
years he had been a solo practitioner. After only 6 months of service, 
he had to file bankruptcy. That bankruptcy affected not only him but 
his wife, his two employees, and their families. After 1 year on duty, 
he came home and he found he literally had no business, no clients at 
that point in time, and no job--no income as a consequence.
  We do not know for how long reservists will be called away, but 
whenever they return, we ought to make certain, to the degree we can, 
that the negative impacts are as minimal as possible. There is a way to 
do that. The way to do it is through this legislation.
  What we seek to do is to authorize the SBA, the Small Business 
Administration, to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the 
interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding to those who are 
called up. That would include disaster loans. The deferrals and 
reductions that are authorized by this bill would be available from the 
date that the individual reservist is called to active duty until 180 
days after his or her release from that duty.
  For microloans and loans guaranteed under the SBA's financial 
assistance programs, such as the 504 program or 7(a) loan programs, the 
bill directs the agency to develop policies that encourage and 
facilitate ways that SBA lenders can either defer or reduce loan 
repayments.
  For example, a microlender's ability to repay its debt to the SBA is 
obviously dependent upon the repayments from its microborrowers. So, 
with this bill's authority, if a microlender extends or defers loan 
repayment to a borrower who is a deployed military reservist, in turn 
the SBA would extend repayment obligations to the microlender.
  Second, the bill establishes a low-interest, economic injury loan 
program to be administered by the SBA through its disaster loan 
program. These loans would be specifically available to provide interim 
operating capital to any small business when the departure of a 
military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. Under the 
bill, such harm includes three general cases: No. 1, inability to make 
loan repayments; No. 2, inability to pay ordinary and necessary 
operating expenses; or, No. 3, inability to market, produce or provide 
a service or product that it ordinarily provides.
  Identical to the loan deferral requirements, an eligible small 
business can

[[Page S4449]]

apply for an economic injury loan from the date that the company's 
military reservist is ordered to active duty, again until 180 days 
after the release from active duty.

  Finally, the bill directs the SBA, and all of its private sector 
partners, such as the small business development centers, the women's 
business centers, to make positive efforts--proactive efforts--to reach 
out to those businesses affected by the call-up of military reservists 
to active duty, and to offer business counseling and training. Those 
left behind to run the businesses, whether it is a spouse or a child or 
an employee, while the military reservist is serving overseas, may be 
inexperienced in running the business and need quick access to 
management and marketing counseling. We think it is important to do 
what we can to help bring those folks together, to keep the doors of 
the business open, and to reduce the impact of a military conflict and 
national emergency on the economy.
  Some people might argue--I have not heard this argument 
sufficiently--but it is not inconceivable that some people would say: 
Wait a minute now, reservists do not deserve this special assistance 
because they ought to know the inherent risks of their chosen role and 
they ought to be prepared for deployment.
  It is true you may live with those possibilities and those 
probabilities. It is also true it is very hard to pick up from the 
moment of notification to the moment of departure in as little as 3 
days, pulling all the pieces together sufficiently. During the Persian 
Gulf war, one reservist's wife, Mrs. Carolee Ploof of Middlebury, VT, 
reported that her family had 3 days to prepare for her husband's 
departure. She said: ``How do you prepare [for that]? I really think 
it's unfair that self-employed people have to lose their shirts to 
protect their country.'' So, from the moment her husband was mobilized, 
he reported for duty until 10 p.m. and then went home to try to teach 
his wife how to run the business--all in 48 hours before he was to 
depart.
  I think we should understand we are talking here about loans and 
extensions on loans. We are not talking about forgiveness, and we are 
not talking about grants. We are talking about a hand up, not a hand-
out. We are talking about trying to facilitate what is obviously a very 
difficult process.
  Finally, let me just say we are the people who designed the policy 
that made it so our military deployments for significant kinds of 
conflicts are, in fact, so Reserve-dependent. We did that for a lot of 
good reasons, not the least of which is that we have a great tradition 
in this country of citizen soldiers--a voluntary civilian component of 
our military service. We also know it is a significant way to reduce 
the costs of a standing army. The costs of carrying a standing army, in 
lieu of having reservists as the important component they are, millions 
of times outweighs the very small, targeted help we are talking about 
in this legislation.
  I thank my 30 other colleagues who are cosponsors of this bill. I 
hope that this legislation will move very rapidly through the Senate so 
reservists will know, and their families will know, that, should there 
be a greater deployment in the future, it will not come with the kind 
of loss, or double hit if you will, for the notion of service to our 
country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 918

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Reservists Small 
     Business Relief Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REPAYMENT DEFERRAL FOR ACTIVE DUTY RESERVISTS.

       Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Repayment Deferred for Active Duty Reservists.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Eligible reservist.--The term `eligible reservist' 
     means a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
     ordered to active duty during a period of military conflict.
       ``(B) Owner, manager, or key employee.--An owner, manager, 
     or key employee described in this subparagraph is an 
     individual who--
       ``(i) has not less than a 20 percent ownership interest in 
     the small business concern described in subparagraph (D)(ii);
       ``(ii) is a manager responsible for the day-to-day 
     operations of such small business concern; or
       ``(iii) is a key employee (as defined by the 
     Administration) of such small business concern.
       ``(C) Period of military conflict.--The term `period of 
     military conflict' means--
       ``(i) a period of war declared by Congress;
       ``(ii) a period of national emergency declared by Congress 
     or by the President; or
       ``(iii) a period of a contingency operation, as defined in 
     section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(D) Qualified borrower.--The term `qualified borrower' 
     means--
       ``(i) an individual who is an eligible reservist and who, 
     received a direct loan under subsection (a) or (b) before 
     being ordered to active duty; or
       ``(ii) a small business concern that received a direct loan 
     under subsection (a) or (b) before an eligible reservist, who 
     is an owner, manager, or key employee described in 
     subparagraph (B), was ordered to active duty.
       ``(2) Deferral of direct loans.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administration shall, upon written 
     request, defer repayment of principal and interest due on a 
     direct loan made under subsection (a) or (b), if such loan 
     was incurred by a qualified borrower.
       ``(B) Period of deferral.--The period of deferral for 
     repayment under this paragraph shall begin on the date on 
     which the eligible reservist is ordered to active duty and 
     shall terminate on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     such eligible reservist is discharged or released from active 
     duty.
       ``(C) Interest rate reduction during deferral.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period 
     of deferral described in subparagraph (B), the Administration 
     may, in its discretion, reduce the interest rate on any loan 
     qualifying for a deferral under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Deferral of loan guarantees and other financings.--
     The Administration shall--
       ``(A) encourage intermediaries participating in the program 
     under subsection (m) to defer repayment of a loan made with 
     proceeds made available under that subsection, if such loan 
     was incurred by a small business concern that is eligible to 
     apply for assistance under subsection (b)(3); and
       ``(B) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, establish guidelines to--
       ``(i) encourage lenders and other intermediaries to defer 
     repayment of, or provide other relief relating to, loan 
     guarantees under subsection (a) and financings under section 
     504 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 that were 
     incurred by small business concerns that are eligible to 
     apply for assistance under subsection (b)(3), and loan 
     guarantees provided under subsection (m) if the intermediary 
     provides relief to a small business concern under this 
     paragraph; and
       ``(ii) implement a program to provide for the deferral of 
     repayment or other relief to any intermediary providing 
     relief to a small business borrower under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 3. DISASTER LOAN ASSISTANCE FOR MILITARY RESERVISTS' 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting after the undesignated 
     paragraph that begins with ``Provided, That no loan'', the 
     following:
       ``(3)(A) In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `economic injury' means an economic harm to 
     a business concern that results in the inability of the 
     business concern--
       ``(I) to meet its obligations as they mature;
       ``(II) to pay its ordinary and necessary operating 
     expenses; or
       ``(III) to market, produce, or provide a product or service 
     ordinarily marketed, produced, or provided by the business 
     concern;
       ``(ii) the term `owner, manager, or key employee' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(I) has not less than a 20 percent ownership in the small 
     business concern;
       ``(II) is a manager responsible for the day-to-day 
     operations of such small business concern; or
       ``(III) is a key employee (as defined by the 
     Administration) of such small business concern; and
       ``(iii) the term `period of military conflict' has the 
     meaning given the term in subsection (n)(1).
       ``(B) The Administration may make such disaster loans 
     (either directly or in cooperation with banks or other 
     lending institutions through agreements to participate on an 
     immediate or deferred basis) to assist a small business 
     concern (including a small business concern engaged in the 
     lease or rental of real or personal property) that has 
     suffered or that is likely to suffer economic injury as the 
     result of the owner, manager, or key employee of such small 
     business concern being ordered to active military duty during 
     a period of military conflict.
       ``(C) A small business concern described in subparagraph 
     (B) shall be eligible to apply for assistance under this 
     paragraph during the period beginning on the date on which 
     the owner, manager, or key employee is ordered to active duty 
     and ending on the date that is 180 days after the date on 
     which such

[[Page S4450]]

     owner, manager, or key employee is discharged or released 
     from active duty.
       ``(D) Any loan or guarantee extended pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall be made at an annual interest rate of 4 
     percent, without regard to the ability of the small business 
     concern to secure credit elsewhere.
       ``(E) No loan may be made under this paragraph, either 
     directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending 
     institutions through agreements to participate on an 
     immediate or deferred basis, if the total amount outstanding 
     and committed to the borrower under this subsection would 
     exceed $1,500,000, unless such applicant constitutes a major 
     source of employment in its surrounding area, as determined 
     by the Administration, in which case the Administration, in 
     its discretion, may waive the $1,500,000 limitation.
       ``(F) For purposes of assistance under this paragraph, no 
     declaration of a disaster area shall be required.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4(c) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 633(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``7(b)(4),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``7(b)(4), 7(b)(5), 
     7(b)(6), 7(b)(7), 7(b)(8),''.

     SEC. 4. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   MILITARY RESERVISTS' SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 637) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Management Assistance for Small Businesses Affected 
     by Military Operations.--The Administration shall utilize, as 
     appropriate, its entrepreneurial development and management 
     assistance programs, including programs involving State or 
     private sector partners, to provide business counseling and 
     training to any small business concern adversely affected by 
     the deployment of units of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States in support of a period of military conflict (as 
     defined in section 7(n)(1)).
       (b) Enhanced Publicity During Operation Allied Force.--For 
     the duration of Operation Allied Force and for 120 days 
     thereafter, the Administration shall enhance its publicity of 
     the availability of assistance provided pursuant to the 
     amendments made by this Act, including information regarding 
     the appropriate local office at which affected small 
     businesses may seek such assistance.

     SEC. 5. GUIDELINES.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration 
     shall issue such guidelines as the Administrator determines 
     to be necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Disaster Loans.--The amendments made by section 3 shall 
     apply to economic injury suffered or likely to be suffered as 
     the result of a period of military conflict occurring on or 
     after March 24, 1999.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, more than 2,000 reservists were called up 
Tuesday to participate in NATO Operation Allied Force. These men and 
women who may serve for as long as nine months are making a great 
sacrifice, as are their family members and co-workers who are left 
behind.
  It is incumbent upon us to find ways to ease the burden of this 
service for our reservists, their families and their employers. Two 
weeks ago the Senate passed tax relief for those serving in Operation 
Allied Force. The legislation we are introducing today addresses the 
economic impact of taking reservists away from small businesses, 
whether the reservist is the owner, a manager or a key employee.
  The Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act allows small 
businessmen and women to defer loan payments on any direct loan from 
the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans. The 
bill directs SBA to come up with a policy for payment deferrals for the 
microloan program and loans guaranteed under one of SBA's financial 
assistance programs. Deferrals on loan payments would extend 180 days 
after the reservist's release from active duty.
  The bill also establishes a low interest economic injury loan program 
to provide interim operating capital to any small business experiencing 
economic harm because a military reservist has been called to active 
duty. The bill defines economic harm as being unable to provide goods 
or services that the business usually provides. SBA will administer the 
loan program through its disaster loan program.
  Recognizing the disruptions that may occur as a result of the recent 
call up, the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act directs SBA 
and its private sector partners to mobilize their resources to offer 
business counseling and training to inexperienced employees or family 
members who are left behind to run businesses on their own when a 
reservist is called up.
  This legislation is modeled on similar legislation adopted during 
Operation Desert Storm. It is a practical response to the real and 
often overlooked impact of calling up military reservists. Wisconsin 
has some marvelous employers who are tremendously supportive of their 
employees who serve in the reserves. Several years ago, Schneider Truck 
of Green Bay, WI, was recognized as the Reserves Employer of the year 
by the Defense Department. Companies like Schneider do all they can to 
make it easier for reservists and their families to manage while the 
service member is on active duty. It is my hope that this legislation 
will help smaller companies and encourage them to provide reservists 
and their families with this kind of support.
  The men and women of the reserves are far more than ``weekend 
warriors,'' they are the backbone of our military. We are grateful for 
their willingness to serve. We thank the men and women of the reserves, 
their families, and their employers for their sacrifices and this 
service.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has approved the call-up of 
up to 33,000 Reservists to support NATO operations over Kosovo. Reserve 
forces are playing an ever-increasing role in military operations. With 
the downsizing of our Active forces and the increased number of 
missions, our Armed Forces cannot operate successfully without use of 
our Reserve component resources. For example, of the 540,000 service 
members deployed to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, 
228,000, or 42%, were reservists. Reservists have also answered the 
call for service in Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, Operation UPHOLD 
DEMOCRACY in Haiti, and Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR/JOINT GUARD in Bosnia.
  National Guard and Reserve forces are involved in helping Central 
America recover from the devastation of Hurricane Mitch, and they are 
routinely called upon to respond to disasters in the United States. As 
the Reserve components are relied on more and more, even during nornal 
times they are called away from their civilian jobs more and more.
  The absence of these men and women from their families, jobs and 
businesses while they are serving their country on active duty will 
clearly present some hardships. We should do everything we can do to 
try minimize any economic hardships that might arise from their absence 
on their businesses and places of employment. That is why I have 
cosponsored the Military Reservists Small Business Relief Act that Mr. 
Kerry has introduced today to provide financial and business 
development assistance to military reservists' small businesses.
  This legislation will help military reservists who are called away 
from their jobs and businesses to serve the United States in any 
military operation with respect to Kosovo by allowing them to defer 
existing government guaranteed small business loans and giving them 
access to low interest rate government guaranteed loans to bridge any 
financial gap that might arise out of their absence. These Reservists 
will be eligible for assistance if they are an owner, manager or key 
employee of a small business.
  This legislation provides more generous loan repayment terms for 
small business reservists who have SBA loans. It does this by 
authorizing a deferral of loan repayments for small business reservists 
on any direct loan from the Small Business Administration (SBA), 
including disaster loans. Interest will not accrue during the time that 
the loan is deferred. The legislation also directs SBA to develop 
policies such as extending repayments of its government guaranteed 
loans such as micro loans or 7(a) loans for reservists who are called 
up for active duty. The deferrals will be available from the date the 
reservist is called to active duty until 180 days after his or her 
release from active duty.
  The legislation also establishes a low interest economic injury loan 
program to be administered by SBA through its disaster loan program. 
Such loans would be made available to provide interim operating capital 
to any small business when the departure of a military reservist to 
active duty causes economic harm.

[[Page S4451]]

  The legislation also directs the SBA and its private sector partners 
to make every effort to reach out to those businesses affected by the 
absence of key employees who are Reservists and provide assistance such 
as businesses counseling and training for how to run the business in 
the absence of these key employees.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation designed 
to reduce any economic hardship created by the absence of active duty 
reservists from their jobs and businesses and I hope the Senate will 
act on it quickly.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is widely known that our nation can 
no longer commit military force to conflicts, national emergencies and 
contingency operations without the participation of our National Guard 
and Reserves. This is expressly provided in our national military 
strategy. It is confirmed by the 300% increase in the pace of 
operations for our National Guard alone since Operation Desert Storm.
  While I enthusiastically support the full integration of our reserve 
components into a seamless Total Force, I recognize its potential to 
seriously affect our nation's small businesses. In most communities 
across this nation small businesses sustain the local economy, yet many 
of these businesses rely upon key employees, owners or managers who are 
also Guard members or Reservists subject to being called away to active 
duty. On Tuesday, the President approved the call-up of 33,102 members 
of the Selected Reserve to active duty in support of NATO operations in 
Yugoslavia. We cannot ignore the impact of this on our small 
businesses. The challenge is upon us. That is why I am happy to join 
Senator Kerry in introducing the Military Reservists Small Business 
Relief Act.
  For eligible reservists called to active duty in support of a 
declared war, national emergency or contingency operation, the bill 
provides in part:
  1. An authorization to defer loan repayments on any direct loan from 
the Small Business Administration (SBA), including disaster loans, to 
borrowers who are members of the Guard and Reserves called to active 
duty.
  2. A low interest economic injury loan program, administered by SBA, 
which would provide interim operating capital to any small business 
likely to suffer economic harm caused by the departure of an employee, 
who is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty.
  3. Direction to the SBA and all of its private sector partners, such 
as the Small Business Development Centers, to offer business training 
and counseling to small business affected by a loss of an employee who 
is a member of the Guard or Reserves called to active duty.
  Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share 
of our worldwide missions, we cannot overlook the effects of these 
operations on our civilian workforce and their civilian employers. This 
legislation ensures that we keep their interests in mind during periods 
of military conflict.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 919. A bill to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley 
National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to expand the boundaries of the 
corridor; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   quinebaug and shetucket rivers valley national heritage corridor 
                      reauthorization act of 1999

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, 
Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerry, and Senator Kennedy, to introduce 
legislation to reauthorize the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley 
National Heritage Corridor (Corridor). Congressman Gejdenson from 
Connecticut and Congressman Neal from Massachusetts will be introducing 
companion legislation today in other body.
  The 25-town area in eastern Connecticut was originally designated a 
Corridor in 1994, when the U.S. Congress passed and the President 
signed Public Law 103-449. The purpose of the Corridor is to encourage 
grassroots efforts to preserve historic and environmental treasures 
while promoting economic development. Today's legislation builds upon 
the success of the Corridor and extends it by including nine towns from 
Massachusetts and one additional town from Connecticut. The towns 
affected include Union, Connecticut, and the following towns in 
Massachusetts--Brimfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Holland, 
Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Webster.
  Because this is an established Corridor which has been developing and 
implementing cultural, economic and environmental programs to preserve 
this beautiful and historic region of Connecticut, the legislation we 
are introducing increases the Corridor authorization level to $1.5 
million. This level of funding is consistent with recent new Corridor 
authorization levels of $1 million. Our Corridor has been significantly 
underfunded each year; I can only imagine the further great works that 
can be undertaken with adequate funding.
  Unfortunately, Connecticut ranks near the bottom among States in the 
amount of Federal land within its borders, such as National Parks, 
Recreation Areas, and Forests. That is why I joined with Congressman 
Gejdenson back in 1993 to introduce the original bill designating the 
Quinebaug and Shetucket Heritage Corridor and why I am advocating an 
increase in the size and scope of it. Extending through eastern 
Connecticut and soon southeastern Massachusetts, the Corridor is within 
a two hour's drive from the major metropolitan areas of Boston, New 
Haven, Hartford and New York.
  The Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley saw a rebirth with the dawn 
of the industrial age. Hundreds of mills were built along the banks of 
the rivers and this region became a leader in the textile industry. 
Today, the mills are quiet, many of them abandoned, and the valley is a 
picturesque area of rolling hills and beautiful farms. It offers 
landscapes for hiking and biking, rivers for canoeing and fishing, and 
abandoned mills which offer a glimpse at history. It is the birthplace 
of Revolutionary War hero Nathan Hale and the Prudence Crandall School, 
the site of the first teacher-training school for African-American 
women established in 1833. There are also many Native American and 
archaeological sites.
  The area is rich in history and those groups and individuals involved 
with the Corridor have developed a management plan to preserve local 
resources, enhance recreational potential and promote appropriate 
development. By joining forces with the people of Massachusetts, a more 
integrated system can be undertaken. The important historic and 
cultural resources do not stop at the border.
  In the few short years that the Corridor has been in place, its 
stewards have provided grants and technical assistance to towns and 
nonprofits embarking on historic preservation and research, economic 
development, tourism, natural resource conservation and recreation.
  The Corridor has public and private support throughout Connecticut 
and the regions in Massachusetts look forward to working with the 
existing partnerships to enhance their quality of life. It is the goal 
of the Corridor to ensure a healthy environment and robust economy 
compatible with the character of the region.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to look favorably on this effort 
and 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. 919

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Quinebaug 
     and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor 
     Reauthorization Act of 1999''.
       (b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Quinebaug and Shetucket 
     Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 (16 
     U.S.C. 461 note; title I of Public Law 103-449).

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 102 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and the Commonwealth 
     of Massachusetts'' after ``State of Connecticut'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2);
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively;

[[Page S4452]]

       (4) in paragraph (3) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``New Haven,'' after ``Hartford,''; and
       (5) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``regional and State agencies'' and inserting ``regional, and 
     State agencies,''.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF QUINEBAUG AND SHETUCKET RIVERS 
                   VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR; PURPOSE.

       Section 103 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and the Commonwealth 
     of Massachusetts'' after ``State of Connecticut''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide 
     assistance to the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth 
     of Massachusetts, and their units of local and regional 
     government and citizens, in the development and 
     implementation of integrated natural, cultural, historic, 
     scenic, recreational, land, and other resource management 
     programs in order to retain, enhance, and interpret the 
     significant features of the land, water, structures, and 
     history of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley.''.

     SEC. 4. BOUNDARIES AND ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 104 is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``Union,'' after ``Thompson,''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``in the State of Connecticut, and the towns of 
     Brimfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Brookfield, Holland, 
     Oxford, Southbridge, Sturbridge, and Webster in the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which are contiguous areas in 
     the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley, related by shared 
     natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resources''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Administration.--The Corridor shall be managed by 
     Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc., in accordance 
     with the management plan and in consultation with the 
     Governors.''.

     SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       Section 105 is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 105. MANAGEMENT PLAN.'';

       (2) by striking subsections (a) and (b);
       (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (a);
       (4) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Management'' 
     before ``Plan'';
       (B) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The management entity shall implement the 
     management plan.'';
       (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``identified pursuant to 
     the inventory required in section 5(a)(1)''; and
       (D) in paragraphs (6) and (7), by striking ``plan'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``management plan''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Grants and Loans.--The management entity may, for the 
     purposes of implementing the management plan, make grants or 
     loans to the States, their political subdivisions, nonprofit 
     organizations, and other persons to further the goals set 
     forth in the management plan.''.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       Section 106 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 106. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       ``(a) In General.--Upon request of the management entity, 
     the Secretary and the heads of other Federal agencies shall 
     assist the management entity in the implementation of the 
     management plan.
       ``(b) Forms of Assistance.--Assistance under subsection (a) 
     shall include provision of funds authorized under section 109 
     and technical assistance necessary to carry out this Act.''.

     SEC. 7. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       Section 107 is amended by striking ``Governor'' and 
     inserting ``management entity''.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 108 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``and the Governor of the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts'';
       (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``means each of'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``means--
       ``(A) the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, 
     the Windham Regional Council of Governments, and the 
     Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments in 
     Connecticut (or any successor council); and
       ``(B) the Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission and 
     the Southern Worcester County Regional Planning Commission in 
     Massachusetts (or any successor commission).''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Management entity.--The term `management entity' 
     means Quinebaug-Shetucket Heritage Corridor, Inc., a not-for-
     profit corporation incorporated under the law of the State of 
     Connecticut (or a successor entity).
       ``(7) Management plan.--The term `management plan' means 
     the document approved by the Governor of the State of 
     Connecticut on February 16, 1999, and adopted by the 
     management entity, entitled `Vision to Reality: A Management 
     Plan', comprising the management plan for the Corridor, as 
     the document may be amended or replaced from time to time.''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 109 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this title--
       ``(1) $1,500,000 for any fiscal year; but
       ``(2) not more than a total of $15,000,000.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--Federal funding provided under this 
     title may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of any 
     assistance provided under this title.''.

     SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 110 is amended in the section heading by striking 
     ``SERVICE'' and inserting ``SYSTEM''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. 
        Inouye):
  S. 920. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime 
Commission for fiscal years 2000 and 2001; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


         federal maritime commission authorization act of 1999

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I, with Senator McCain, 
Chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Hollings, the ranking 
member of the Commerce Committee; and Senator Inouye, ranking member of 
the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee are 
introducing a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 
and 2001 for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC).
  The Federal Maritime Commission is an independent agency composed of 
five commissioners. The Commission's primary responsibility is 
administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign 
Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 
1920. By doing so, the FMC protects shippers and carriers from 
restrictive or unfair practices of foreign-flag carriers. Currently, 
the Commission is engaged in the implementation of the Ocean Shipping 
Reform Act of 1998. The Act, which takes effect on May 1 of this year 
is the first major deregulation of international ocean shipping. This 
bill authorizes funding for the Commission to continue its important 
work.
  Specifically, the bill authorizes $15.6 million for the FMC for 
fiscal year 2000 and $16.3 million for fiscal year 2001. The fiscal 
year 2000 funding is $385,000 above the amount requested by the 
President in order to fund the appointment of the fifth commissioner 
and his or her staff.
  I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my 
colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving 
this authorization through the legislative process.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Hutchison, Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine 
Subcommittee in introducing this bill.
  The Federal Maritime Commission has done a commendable job in its 
implementation of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act that takes effect on 
May 1, 1999. This measure will insure that the Commission can complete 
their implementation efforts and continue their other duties, 
administering the Shipping Act of 1984 and enforcing the Foreign 
Shipping Practices Act and Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 
1920.
  I am pleased that the subcommittee is taking this action today and 
will join Senator Hutchison and the other sponsors in expeditiously 
moving this authorization through the legislative process.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Federal 
Maritime Commission Authorization Act of 1999, which would authorize 
appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001. With the recent passage of the Ocean Shipping 
Reform Act of 1998 (``OSRA'') the Commission's role in overseeing the 
ocean transportation industry has changed dramatically and increased in 
importance. The Commission must have the necessary funding to ensure 
that Congress' intentions with OSRA are met, and that all segments of 
the industry are fully protected from potential abuses.
  I am particularly pleased with the effort made by the Commission to 
adopt regulations to implement OSRA. OSRA, which was signed into law on 
October 14, 1998, and will go into effect on May 1, 1999, significantly 
altered the Commission's primary underlying statute--the Shipping Act 
of 1984. Nevertheless, the Commission was only given

[[Page S4453]]

until March 1, 1999, to adopt final regulations to implement the 
changes made to the Act. The Commission met this deadline while fully 
complying with all notice and comment requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. The Commission solicited and received 
comment from the entire industry and, based on those comments, arrived 
at final rules that are fully consistent with the Congressional intent. 
The Commission should be applauded for accomplishing this difficult 
task in such a timely and responsive manner.
  I would also note that under OSRA the Commission will continue to 
exercise its vital role in addressing unfair foreign trade practices 
under section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 and the Foreign 
Shipping Practices Act of 1988. The Commission has proven time and 
again--most recently with the Japan port controversy and several 
restrictive practices in Brazil--that it can effectively address such 
practices and, if adequately funded, will be able to continue to do its 
fine job. I am a firm proponent of aggressive policies that promote 
fair and open trades, and I commend the FMC for their role in opening 
markets for our ocean carrier and ocean shipper communities.
  The amounts authorized for the FMC take into account the fact that 
the Commission will soon be fully staffed with five Commissioners. The 
President recently nominated a fifth Commissioner and his nomination is 
pending before the Commerce Committee. The Commission needs full 
funding to bring the agency up to its full complement of members and to 
meet its new responsibilities under OSRA.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 921. A bill to facilitate and promote electronic commerce in 
securities transactions involving broker-dealers, transfer agents, and 
investment advisers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


                 ELECTRONIC SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ACT

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator McCain and 
Senator Lott to introduce legislation designed to modernize the manner 
in which registered securities broker-dealers, transfer agents, and 
investment advisers serve millions of American investors every day.
  Only a few years ago, a few pioneering brokerage firms, utilizing the 
vast potential of the Internet, began to revolutionize the securities 
industry by offering individual investors the opportunity to buy and 
sell stocks online. Because of the lower costs of electronic 
transactions, investors have found they can place trades online at a 
mere fraction of the price they were paying for services at traditional 
brokerage firms. They have also found that online brokerage firms offer 
them access to a wide array of information, investing assistance, and 
research that previously was available only to institutional investors. 
Almost overnight, many investors have demonstrated their preference for 
the savings and the empowerment that online brokerage services give 
them.
  For example, today Charles Schwab, which has been at the forefront of 
offering electronic services, reports that it has approximately 2.5 
million active online accounts and that more than 50 percent of its 
custoemr trades are placed online. Since Schwab offers its customers 
multiple channels of access to its trading services, the fact that more 
than half of its customer trades are placed online is a dramatic 
illustration of the investing public's enthusiasm for and acceptance of 
online services. The dramatic emergence of online-only brokerage firms, 
such as E*Trade, Discover and Ameritrade, and the continued migration 
of traditional brokerage firms to the Web is further evidence of this. 
Soon, millions of securities transactions will be conducted 
electronically every day.
  Unfortunately, the full potential of online investing has been 
impeded because of antiquated laws that do not yet take account of 
electronic commerce. These laws act as barriers to the efficiencies and 
investor empowerment opportunities that the online brokerage industry 
offers. Now, once again, it is time for the government to catch up to 
the market developments spurred by the technology sector. It is time 
for the government to remove impediments to online investing.
  Today, when a person wishes to become a customer of an online broker, 
he can visit the web-sites of various brokerage firms to compare the 
value and services those firms offer. He may even provide some 
information about himself and the type of account he wishes to 
establish. However, because of traditional principles of contract law 
and certain recordkeeping requirements, an investor cannot open the 
account online with any legal certainty. Instead, he must print the 
application and physically sign and send it by regular mail. The 
technology gap demonstrated here must be bridged. Investors who, once 
their accounts are opened, may access investment tools and research and 
quickly submit trade orders online, should not have to wait days or 
perhaps even weeks to complete the process for opening an account. This 
system can and should be changed.
  Continuing to require pen-and-ink signatures on account applications 
and other documents, when secure electronic signature technology 
exists, imposes unnecessary costs and inefficiencies on brokerage firms 
and customers alike. Similar costs and inefficiencies have been 
recognized and removed in other areas of securities regulation, such as 
recordkeeping and document delivery. Today, brokerage firms can store 
documents in electronic rather than paper format and are allowed to 
deliver many documents, such as prospectuses, to customers 
electronically. There is no reason why the advantages of technology 
cannot and should not be extended to documents that require a 
signature.
  The legislation my colleagues and I introduce today would do just 
that by facilitating and enabling the use of electronic signatures by 
registered broker-dealers and others in the securities industry in 
their business dealings with customers and other transactional parties. 
The legislation would make clear that individuals can open a brokerage 
account and conduct business with a brokerage firm using an electronic 
signature as proof of identification and intent. It would also give 
both brokerage firms and their customers the assurance that they can 
rely on electronic signatures in their business dealings and that the 
validity of those dealings will not be challenged merely because a pen-
and-ink signature was not used.

  At this point I think it is important to stress to my colleagues that 
the online brokerage industry is different from the day-trading 
industry, which has received a lot of negative attention in the past 
year. Day-trading firms offer a specialized service that enables their 
customers to enter orders and trade directly with the market. And while 
I am sure that most of these businesses are legitimate and sound, in 
recent months reports of abusive or questionable practices have emerged 
in relation to this type of trading. Anecdotal accounts tell of 
investors losing many times the amount of money they originally brought 
to the market.
  The online investing services provided by brokerage firms are quite 
different from the services provided by day-trading firms. For example, 
brokerage firms such as Charles Schwab, E*Trade, DLJ Direct, Discover, 
among others, set strict limits on the extent to which investors are 
permitted access to margin and option accounts. These firms empower 
their customers and are not the problem, and it is important that my 
colleagues and the public understand the differences.
  It is that simple. Frankly, I am surprised that the SEC does not 
require the use of electronic signatures, because unless a physical 
signature is witnessed, electronic signatures are a far more reliable 
means of guaranteeing a person is who they say they are. Electronic 
signatures may result from a variety of technological means that allow 
users to confirm the authenticity of an electronic documents author, 
location or content. These technologies are designed to allow contracts 
to be reviewed and agreed to electronically, to permit individuals and 
businesses to safely purchase goods online, and to enable government 
agencies to verify the authenticity of information submitted to them. 
It is a natural fit for transactions between online brokerage firms and 
investors.
  Despite the changes being made in the investor-brokerage 
relationship, we recognize that the Securities and Exchange Commission 
must retain full

[[Page S4454]]

regulatory authority in this industry. This legislation therefore 
authorizes the SEC to provide guidance on the use of electronic 
signatures by broker-dealers and others in the securities industry. The 
SECs active involvement in the move from physical to electronic 
signatures is important. If the change is to be orderly, the Commission 
must be familiar with the various types of electronic signatures 
available. The Commission, as the expert regulator of the securities 
industry, may determine that some forms of signature are superior to 
others for certain types of records.
  Mr. President, the securities industry is experiencing explosive 
growth in electronic transactions, and this bill's response is 
necessary and appropriate. The industry and the investors who utilize 
this medium need the efficiencies and certainty this bill would 
provide. I believe that the more efficient transaction procedures that 
will result from the bill will translate into cost savings for 
customers and industry alike. And that should be the ultimate purpose 
of any securities legislation relating to electronic commerce.
  Again, I would like to thank Senator McCain and the majority leader 
for joining me in introducing this legislation. I hope the Senate 
Banking Committee can move on this legislation in the near future.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed 
into the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 921

       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 ``Electronics Securities 
     Transactions Act.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       1. the growth of electronic commerce and electronic 
     transactions represents a powerful force for econmic growth, 
     consumer choice and creation of wealth;
       2. inefficient transaction procedures impose unnecessary 
     costs on investors and persons who facilitate transactions on 
     their behalf;
       3. new techniques in electronic commerce create 
     opportunities for more efficient and safe procedures for 
     effecting securties transactions; and
       4. because the securities markets are an important national 
     asset which must be preserved and strenghened, it is in the 
     national interest to establish a framework to facilitate the 
     economically efficient execution of securities transactions.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this act are--
       1. to permit and encourage the continued expansion of 
     electronic commerce in securities transactions; and
       2. to facilitate and promote electronic commerce in 
     securities transactions by clarifying the legal status of 
     electronic signatures for signed documents and records used 
     in relation to securities transactions involving broker-
     dealers, transfer agents and investment advisers.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITONS.

       For purposes of this subsection--
       (1) ``document'' means any record, including without 
     limitation any notification, consent, acknowledgement or 
     written direction, intended, either by law or by custom, to 
     be signed by a person.
       (2) ``electronic'' means of or relating to technology 
     having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, 
     electromagnetic, or similar capabilities.
       (3) ``electronic record'' means a record created, stored, 
     generated, received, or communicated by electronic means.
       (4) ``electronic signature'' means an electronic 
     identifying sound, symbol or process attached to or logically 
     connectd with an electronic record.
       (5) ``record'' or ``records'' means the same information or 
     documents defined or identified as ``records'' under the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers 
     Act of 1940, respectively.
       (6) ``transaction'' means an action or set of actions 
     relating to the conduct of business affairs that involve or 
     concern activities conducted pursuant to or regulated under 
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment 
     Advisers Act of 1940 and occurring between two or more 
     persons.
       (7) Signature.--The term ``signature'' means any symbol, 
     sound, or process executed or adopted by a person or entity, 
     with intent to authenticate or accept a record.

     SEC. 5. SECURITIES MODERNIZATION PROVISIONS.

       (1) Section 15 of the Securities Exchange act of 1934 (15 
     USC 78o) is amended by adding the following new subsections 
     thereto:
       (i) Reliance on Electronic Signatures
       (i) A registered broker or registered dealer may accept and 
     rely upon an electronic signature on any application to open 
     an account or on any other document submitted to it by a 
     customer or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall 
     not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability 
     solely because it is an electronic signature, except as the 
     Commission shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 23 
     of this Act (15 USC 78w) or Section 36 of this Act (15 USC 
     78mm).
       (ii) Where any provision of this Act or any regulation, 
     rule, or interpretation promulgated by the Commission 
     thereunder, including any rules of a self-regulatory 
     organization approved by the Commission, requires a signature 
     to be provided on any record such requirement shall be 
     satisfied by an electronic record containing an electronic 
     signature, except as the Commission shall otherwise determine 
     pursuant to Section 23 of this Act (15 USC 78w) or Section 36 
     of this Act (15 USC 78mm).
       (iii) A registered broker or registered dealer may use 
     electronic signatures in the conduct of its business with any 
     customer or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall 
     not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely 
     because it is an electronic signature.
       (iv) With regard to the use of or reliance on electronic 
     signatures, no registered broker or registered dealer shall 
     be regulated by, be required to register with, or be 
     certified, licensed, or approved by, or be limited by or 
     required to act or operate under standards, rules, or 
     regulations promulgated by, a State government or agency or 
     instrumentality thereof.
       (2) Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     USC 78q-1) is amended by adding the following new subsections 
     thereto:
       (g) Reliance on Electronic Signatures
       (i) A registered transfer agent may accept and rely upon an 
     electronic signature on any application to open an account or 
     on any other document submitted to it by a customer or 
     counterparty, and such electronic signature shall not be 
     denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely 
     because it is an electronic signature, except as the 
     Commission shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 
     23 of this Act (15 USC 78w) or Section 36 of this Act (15 
     USC 78mm).
       (ii) Where any provision of this Act or any regulation or 
     rule promulgated by the Commission thereunder, including any 
     rule of a self-regulatory organization approved by the 
     Commission, requires a signature to be provided on any record 
     such requirement shall be satisfied by an electronic record 
     containing an electronic signature, except as the Commission 
     shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 23 of this Act 
     (15 USC 78w) or Section 36 of this Act (15 USC 78mm).
       (iii) A registered transfer agent may use electronic 
     signatures in the conduct of its business with any customer 
     or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall not be 
     denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely 
     because it is an electronic signature.
       (iv) With regard to the use of or reliance on electronic 
     signatures, no registered transfer agent shall be regulated 
     by, be required to register with, or be certified, licensed, 
     or approved by, or be limited by or required to act or 
     operate under standards, rules, or regulations promulgated 
     by, a State government or agency or instrumentality thereof.
       (3) Section 215 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
     USC 80b-15) is amended by adding the following new 
     subsections thereto:
       (c) Reliance on Electronic Signatures
       (i) A registered investment adviser may accept and rely 
     upon an electronic signature on any investment advisory 
     contract or on any other document submitted to it by a 
     customer or counterparty, and such signature shall not be 
     denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely 
     because it is an electronic signature, except as the 
     Commission shall determine pursuant to 206A of this Act (15 
     USC 806-6a) or Section 211 of this Act (15 USC 80b-11).
       (ii) Where any provision of this Act or any regulation or 
     rule promulgated by the Commission thereunder, including any 
     rule of a self-regulatory organization approved by the 
     Commission, requires a signature to be provided on any record 
     such requirement shall be satisfied by an electronic record 
     containing an electronic signature, except as the Commission 
     shall otherwise determine pursuant to Section 206A of this 
     Act (15 USC 80b-6a) or Section 211 of this Act (15 USC 80b-
     11).
       (iii) A registered investment adviser may use electronic 
     signatures in the conduct of its business with any customer 
     or counterparty, and such electronic signature shall not be 
     denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely 
     because it is an electronic signature.
       (iv) With regard to the use or reliance on electronic 
     signatures no registered investment adviser shall be 
     regulated by, be required to register with, or be certified, 
     licensed, or approved by, or be limited by or required to act 
     or operate under standards, rules, or regulations promulgated 
     by, a State government or agency or instrumentality thereof.

     SEC. 6. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       The Commission is authorized to provide guidance on the 
     acceptance of, reliance on and use of electronic signatures 
     by any registered broker, dealer, transfer agent or 
     investment adviser, as provided in section 5 above.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 922. A bill to prohibit the use of the ``Made in the USA'' label 
on products of the Commonwealth of the

[[Page S4455]]

Northern Mariana Islands and to deny such products duty-free and quota-
free treatment; to the Committee on Finance.


             the ``made in usa'' label defense act of 1999

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my 
distinguished colleague Senator Hollings in introducing legislation to 
defend the truth and the integrity of the ``Made in USA'' label.
  This is the second time, Mr. President, that the Senator from South 
Carolina and I have worked together to defend the ``Made in USA'' 
label.
  Last Congress, when the Federal Trade Commission proposed to dilute 
the meaning of the ``Made in USA'' label by allowing that label on 
products with substantial foreign content, Senator Hollings and I 
introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing this plan.
  Our resolution urged the FTC to restore the traditional and honest 
standard for the use of the ``Made in USA'' label. That standard, which 
has been in existence for more than 50 years, is that products must be 
``all or virtually all'' made in the U.S.A. in order to earn the label 
``Made in USA.''
  Mr. President, there was an overwhelming outpouring of grassroots 
support from the American people for this straightforward and honest 
standard and for our Resolution. In just a few months, a total of 256 
Members of Congress, including the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
U.S. Senate, joined us as cosponsors of our Senate Resolution and its 
companion bill in the House.
  We were extremely pleased to see the FTC reverse its decision to 
dilute the ``Made in USA'' label and return to the traditional and 
time-tested standard for the use of the label. Frankly, this is the 
only standard that makes sense to the American consumers. If it says 
``Made in USA'' the U.S. consumer has a right to expect that the entire 
product and all of its components was made by U.S. citizens.
  This standard is honest. It is clear. It provides value for all those 
who look for the label and for those who have earned the use of it.
  But in order to retain that value, the integrity of the ``Made in 
USA'' label must be defended. We cannot and will not permit the ``Made 
in USA'' label to be used misleadingly. It belongs to those American 
businesses and workers who follow the rules, pay the taxes, and work 
hard--often against the odds presented by unfair foreign competition--
to continue to manufacture products here in America.
  These workers are correct to insist that Congress protect this 
cherished symbol of American pride and workmanship from abuse and 
misuse.
  That is why Senator Hollings and I recently informed our colleagues 
of our intention to introduce ``The `Made in USA' Label Defense Act of 
1999.''
  This legislation is necessary to close loopholes that currently allow 
the ``Made in USA'' label to be misused. These loopholes must be closed 
to prevent the inappropriate and misleading use of this label at the 
expense of American consumers, taxpayers, and U.S. workers.
  The particular misuse of the ``Made in USA'' label which we seek to 
address involves a U.S. territory, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, or as it is sometimes referred to, Saipan.
  To understand how this situation arose, some history is in order.
  Saipan was the site of an important battle in World War II which cost 
America 15,000 casualties. Following the end of the war, it was 
administered by the U.S. on behalf of the United Nations as a district 
of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986. In 
1986, Saipan came under U.S. sovereignty pursuant to a Covenant that 
was approved by popular vote in Saipan and by the U.S. Congress (Public 
Law 94-241.) At that point, Saipan, now known as the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI, became an insular possession of 
the United States.
  CNMI negotiators for this Covenant sought an exemption from U.S. 
immigration laws. This exemption was granted, but it came with a clear 
warning from the Reagan Administration: the exemption was not to be 
used to bring in a permanent alien labor force in order to evade duties 
and quotas on Asian textile products and to provide unfair competition 
to domestic textile industry. The duty free and quota free treatment 
provided to Headnote 3(a) industries such as textiles was to benefit 
local U.S. citizens living and working in the CNMI.
  In a letter to the Governor of the CNMI in May of 1986, the year in 
which the Covenant was adopted, the Assistant Secretary for Territorial 
and International Affairs of Interior Department in the Reagan 
Administration, Richard R. Montoya, issued the following clear warnings 
to the Government of the CNMI:

       The recent news reports on the tremendous growth in alien 
     labor in the Northern Mariana Islands are extremely 
     disturbing. . . . I would be remiss if I did not speak 
     frankly to you on the possible consequences of the NMI's 
     alien labor policy.
       As I have often stated, the intent of the Congress in 
     providing the privilege of Headnote 3(a) to the territories 
     is to benefit local and not alien job and business growth. 
     The extensive and permanent use of alien labor in Headnote 
     3(a) industries is an abuse which cannot be tolerated by the 
     [Reagan] Administration.
       The objectives of the recently negotiated Covenant 
     financial agreement could be derailed as the wholesale 
     transfer of U.S. tax, trade and social benefits to non-U.S. 
     citizens occurs under the CNMI's alien labor promotion 
     policies.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of 
this letter, dated May 7, 1986, from then-Assistant Secretary Richard 
Montoya to the then-Governor of the CNMI, Pedro Tenorio, at this point 
in my remarks.
  At the time of the concerns raised in this letter, the total number 
of aliens in the CNMI was a mere 6,600 people. Today, the number of 
alien workers in the textile industry alone greatly exceeds this 
number. The number of non-U.S. citizens in the CNMI now tops 35,000, 
and actually exceeds the number of U.S. citizens in the territory. In 
fact, 91 percent of the entire private sector workforce is composed of 
alien labor.
  Even more alarming, Mr. President, we are now told by U.S. Government 
officials and news media investigations that the People's Republic of 
China itself may actually be involved in running some of these garment 
factories in Saipan. According to the February 8, 1998 Philadelphia 
Inquirer: ``One of the biggest island factories is Marianas Garment 
Manufacturing, Inc.--indirectly owned by the China National Textiles 
Import and Export Corp. (Chinatech), a behemoth that handles $1.2 
billion in Chinese textile exports to the world, much of it to the 
United States.'' If this is true, then companies owned by the communist 
Chinese government have succeeded in deceiving U.S. consumers and 
evading U.S. trade laws. Clearly, this is a situation that demands the 
immediate attention of and a firm response by both parties in the 
Congress.
  But what concerns Senator Hollings and myself and what directly 
prompted us to introduce this legislation is the direct effect of the 
CNMI situation on American consumers.
  First, American consumers are deceived by the fact that, due to a 
loophole in U.S. law, the more than $1 billion worth of textile 
products that are now shipped each year from the CNMI to the U.S. can 
be legally labeled as ``Made in USA''--even though they are made with 
nearly all foreign labor and foreign materials.
  This deceives American consumers, who have a right to expect that 
products labeled as ``Made in USA'' are made by U.S. workers with U.S. 
materials.
  Second, American taxpayers are harmed because these foreign goods are 
allowed to be imported into the U.S. duty-free--as if they were made by 
U.S. workers. As the CNMI was so clearly warned by the Reagan 
Administration, duty free treatment for textiles from the insular 
possessions was designed to help local U.S. citizens in these 
territories.
  This abuse of our duty-Free laws is costing American taxpayers an 
estimated $200 million annually. This $200 million could be used to 
fund a tax cut to the American people or could be used to reduce other 
duties.
  Mr. President, let me say that I am a strong believer in free trade. 
I believe the U.S. and the whole world benefits form the unfettered 
movement of goods and services.
  But the fact that foreign garment exports to the U.S are laundered in 
Saipan to escape duties and quotas has

[[Page S4456]]

nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with a form of 
subterfuge. We cannot allow those nations whose imports are subject to 
lawful duties and quotas to evade these laws at the expense of American 
taxpayers.
  Third, American workers also are being harmed by this situation 
because the $200 million which these foreign imports escape paying to 
the U.S. Treasury acts as a subsidy for these misleadingly labeled 
products.
  Mr. President, in order to address these concerns, I am proud to join 
today with my colleague from South Carolina in introducing a tightly 
crafted and narrowly drawn piece of legislation that will address these 
concerns.
  Our bill is designed to protect Americans from the deleterious 
effects of the current situation by closing what we believe our 
colleagues will agree are two indefensible loopholes in current law:
  (1) The loophole that allows these factories in the CNMI to use the 
``Made in USA'' label on their products or in any way imply that they 
were produced or assembled in the United States.
  (2) The loophole that allows foreign exports from the CNMI to 
masquerade as U.S.-made products for duty and quota purposes. Further, 
I will work to ensure that the estimated $200 million derived from 
eliminating the duty-free treatment of these products is rebated to the 
American taxpayer through tax cuts or tariff reductions.
  If in the future the CNMI feels that the domestic content of its 
products has increased to the extent that a use of the ``Made in USA'' 
label on these products would no longer be deceptive to the consumer, 
then it can petition Congress for a change in the covenant. Given its 
history of ignoring warnings from both Republican and Democratic 
Administrations on this matter, Senator Hollings and I believe that the 
burden should be on the CNMI to prove to Congress and the American 
people that products coming from the CNMI deserve to be labeled ``Made 
in USA.''
  At the same time, Mr. President, we are currently engaged in the long 
and arduous process of bringing China into the World Trading 
Organization. I support China's admission into the WTO as long as they 
meet the same criteria which all member nations must meet and as long 
as they are truly dedicated to working to reduce and eliminate such 
trade barriers as quotas and tariffs. Our long-term objective must be 
to create a global trading regime where all nations conduct trade and 
commerce on a level playing field. However, until countries such as 
China demonstrate that they are prepared to adhere to such principles, 
we must continue to take certain steps to protect our own domestic 
industries and workers from the unfair trade practices utilized by some 
of our trading partners, such as those currently ongoing in the CNMI.
  This legislation is a bipartisan compromise measure that I hope 
avoids the political pitfalls of previous measures. Mindful of Members 
who wish not to interfere in the domestic laws of the CNMI, our bill 
merely takes those minimal steps necessary to defend the ``Made in 
USA'' label from misuse and to enforce U.S. trade laws for the benefit 
of the American taxpayer. It simply prevents the substantive equivalent 
of foreign textile products from evading U.S. trade laws.
  There will be those who argue that more is necessary, and this may be 
true. But Senator Hollings and I are committed to doing that which can 
be done on a bipartisan basis and achieved in this Congress.
  We urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 922

       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 ``Equality for Israel at the 
     United Nation Act of 1999.''

     SEC. 2. EFFORT TO PROMOTE FULL QUALITY AT THE UNITED NATIONS 
                   FOR ISRAEL.

       (a) Congressional Statement.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that--
       (1) the United States should help promote an end of the 
     inequity experienced by Israel in the United Nations whereby 
     Israel is the only longstanding member of the organization to 
     be denied acceptance into any of the United Nations region 
     blocs, which serve as the basis for participation in 
     important activities of the United Nations, including 
     rotating membership on the United Nations Security Council; 
     and
       (2) the United States Ambassador to the United Nations 
     should take all steps necessary to ensure Israel's acceptance 
     in the Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) regional bloc, 
     whose membership includes the non-European countries of 
     Canada, Australia, and the United States.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and on a quarterly basis 
     thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report which includes 
     the following information (in classified or unclassified form 
     as appropriate):
       (1) actions taken by representatives of the United States, 
     including the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 
     to encourage the nations of the Western Europe and Others 
     Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their regional bloc;
       (2) efforts undertaken by the Secretary General of the 
     United Nations to secure Israel's full and equal 
     participation in that body;
       (3) specific responses solicited and received by the 
     Secretary of State from each of the nations of Western Europe 
     and Others Group (WEOG) on their position concerning Israel's 
     acceptance into their organization; and
       (4) other measures being undertaken, and which will be 
     undertaken, to ensure and promote Israel's full and equal 
     participation in the United Nations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. 
        Brownback):
  S. 923. A bill to promote full equality at the United Nations for 
Israel; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                   international affairs legislation

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation requiring the Secretary of State to report on actions taken 
by our Ambassador to the United Nations to push the nations of the 
Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) to accept Israel into their 
group.
  As you may know, Israel is the only nation among the 185 member 
states that does not hold membership in a regional group. Membership in 
a regional group is the prerequisite for any nation to serve on key 
United Nations bodies such as the Security Council. In order to correct 
this inequality, I am introducing ``The Equality for Israel at the 
United Nations Act of 1999.'' I believe that this legislation will 
prompt our United Nations Representative to make equality for Israel at 
the United Nations a high priority.
  I am proud to be joined by Senators Brownback and Thomas as original 
co-sponsors of this important legislation.
  Mr. President, Israel has been a member of the United Nations since 
1949, yet it has been continuously precluded from membership in any 
regional bloc. Most member states from the Middle East would block 
Israel's membership in any relevant regional group. The Western Europe 
and Others Group, however, has accepted countries from other 
geographical areas--the United States and Australia for example.
  Last year, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that 
``It's time to usher in a new era of relations between Israel and the 
United Nations * * *. One way to rectify that new chapter would be to 
rectify an anomaly: Israel's position as the only Member State that is 
not a member of one of the regional groups, which means it has no 
chance of being elected to serve on main organs such as the Security 
council or the Economic and Social Council. This anomaly would be 
corrected.''
  I believe it is time to back Secretary General Annan's idea with 
strong support from the United States Senate and I ask all my 
colleagues to join me in sending this message to the UN to stop this 
discrimination against Israel.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Domenici, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 924. A bill entitled the ``Federal Royalty Certainty Act''; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                     federal royalty certainty act

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal 
Royalty Certainty Act. The domestic oil and gas industry is an 
essential element of the United States economy. The Administration 
needs to acknowledge the critical importance of this industry

[[Page S4457]]

and stop hindering it with regulatory obstacles. Right now, our 
domestic oil and gas procedures are reeling from low oil prices. In 
Oklahoma alone, 50,000 jobs are dependent on the oil industry. Last 
year, we had over 350 producing oil rigs in the country, now we have 
slightly over 100. The industry is in a state of depression, not a 
decline, and these conditions pose a threat to our national security 
and our economy.
  The Administration's policies have failed domestic producers. What is 
needed is a comprehensive plan to maintain the viability of the 
domestic oil and gas industry. Part of that plan should be to eliminate 
or greatly reduce the administrative costs of the current royalty 
program with simple, clear and certain guidelines. We need to eliminate 
rules that are burdensome and excessively costly. The Nation cannot 
afford to allow the devastation of our domestic oil and gas industry to 
continue.
  We should be taking action to encourage growth in the industry. 
Instead, the Administration has advocated policies that undermine it. 
We must raise our country's awareness and reverse this course of action 
by providing relief from big government and burdensome regulations. We 
must provide this critical segment of our economy fairness and 
efficiency in their contracts with the federal government.
  Several years ago, I began taking a closer look at oil and gas 
produced from federal leases and the Department of the Interior's 
administration of those lease contracts. I was pleased when Congress 
passed the Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act which I introduced 
and which became law in August of 1996. What that Act accomplished was 
to streamline the accounting processes for federal royalties. While 
that Act made significant steps forward in simplifying the payment of 
federal royalties, the heart of the issue is still before us--what 
royalty does a lessee owe to the government under its lease contract 
for oil and gas produced from a federal lease? When a person or company 
contracts with the federal government, it should know exactly what is 
owed under the contract.
  While this should be a simple question with a simple and unambiguous 
answer, that is unfortunately not the case today. There appears to be 
multiple answers, changing answers and a morass of regulatory 
interpretations that change over time. Such regulatory obstacles 
prevent industry from knowing what they owe and being able to make 
business decisions with that knowledge. It also prevents the collection 
of royalties easily and efficiently. Having a clear understanding of 
the correct amount due is the central and critical element of any 
successful royalty management program. Without it, the program cannot 
operate fairly, efficiently or cost effectively.
  In January 1997, MMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a new 
oil valuation rule. The proposed rule was met with a firestorm of 
protests and thousands of pages of comments have ensued. Despite 
serious problems that have been raised with the proposal, its 
workability and its fairness, the Department has repeatedly stated that 
it will publish its rule as final. As a result, this Congress has 
imposed two moratoriums on the proposed rule and is in the process of 
imposing another. Congress and Industry have repeatedly attempted to 
initiate negotiations with DOI/MMS to no avail. The current moratorium 
continues until June 1, 1999. Secretary Babbitt has stated that the MMS 
would publish a final rule on June 1, 1999 and in Congressional 
briefings the MMS has stated that ``MMS does not believe that further 
dialogue on the rule would be productive.'' DOI Communications Director 
Michael Gaulding stated to Inside Energy that ``we're sticking to the 
position we've taken. It gives us an issue to demogogue for another 
year.'' Rather than perpetuate the moratoria I believe Congressional 
action is needed. I am therefore today introducing the ``Federal 
Royalty Certainty Act.'' This Act addresses and resolves issues related 
to royalties both when they are paid in value and in amount.
  This bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the 
Minerals Lands Leasing Act and provides that when payment of royalties 
is made in value, the royalty due is based on oil or gas production at 
the lease in marketable condition. When royalty is paid in kind, the 
royalty due is based on the royalty share of production at the lease. 
If the payment (in value or kind) is calculated from a point away from 
the lease, the payment is adjusted for quality and location 
differentials, and the lessee is allowed reimbursements at a reasonable 
commercial rate for transportation, marketing, and processing services 
beyond the lease through the point of sale, other disposition, or 
delivery
  My bill will codify the fundamental, longstanding principle that 
royalty is due on the value of production at the lease. The Department 
of the Interior recognizes this principle and very recently has said 
``royalty payments [should be] based on no more than the value of 
production at the lease'' (News Release, MMS 2/5/98), there should be 
agreement on this codification. This legislation provides proper 
adjustments when sales are made downstream of the lease to arrive at 
values that equal the value of production at the lease. In addition, 
this legislation includes a consistent basis for valuation of royalty 
both onshore and offshore. Importantly, this legislation also resolves 
many of the core issues related to the proposed rule on oil valuation 
in a manner that is fair and equitable to the people of the United 
States and the producers who have entered into contracts with the 
federal government. These provisions will reduce the costs of a 
complicated system that spawns disputes, while preserving the 
taxpayer's right to a fair return for its resources. As I have said on 
many occasions, we need to reduce unnecessary, burdensome and 
excessively costly regulations. We need a little common sense.
  In summary, all interested parties need to work together to arrive at 
a workable, permanent solution--a system whereby the government can 
collect what is due in a manner that is simple, certain, consistent 
with lease agreements and fair to all parties involved. The Royalty 
Fairness bill was a significant first step to simplify and eliminate 
regulatory obstacles in the Department's accounting procedures. I 
believe that the Federal Royalty Certainty Act is an important next 
step.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Nickles for 
developing this legislation. Simply stated, it stands for the 
proposition that there has never been, is not now, nor ever shall be a 
``duty to market.''
  If you read a federal oil and gas lease there is no mention of a duty 
to market. It has been Mineral Management Services' (MMS) position that 
the duty to market is an implied covenant in the lease. And this 
legislation says that MMS is wrong.
  Let me back up, and explain the issue and why this legislation is 
needed.
  Oil and gas producers doing business on federal leases pay royalites 
to the federal government based on ``fair market value.'' Under the 
Clinton Administration, this is easier said than done. One of the long 
standing disputes between the Congress and the Mineral Management 
Service (MMS) has been the development of workable oil royalty 
valuation regulations that can articulate just exactly what fair market 
value is.
  Cynthia Quarterman, the former director of the MMs, set out the 
Interior Department's position that fair market value includes a ``duty 
to market the lease production for the mutual benefit of the lessee and 
the lessor,'' but without the federal government paying its share of 
the costs. Many of these costs are transportation costs and they are 
significant. MMS calls it a duty to market, I call it federal 
government mooching.
  This bill states Congressional intent: No duty to market, no federal 
government mooching. And let me be clear, whether there is a duty to 
market is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress. It 
is not the job of lawyers at the MMS to raise the Congressionally set 
royality rate through the back door.
  And, the so-called ``duty to market'' is a back door royalty 
increase--make no mistake about it.
  The MMS has been unable to develop workable royalty valuation rules 
and Congress has had to impose a moratorium on these regulations. The 
core issue has been duty to market.
  For this reason, I hope the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee will act expeditiously on this

[[Page S4458]]

legislation. In this period of hard economic times for the oil and gas 
industry, the oil royalty valuation issue should be resolved with 
certainty, fairness and without a hidden royalty rate increase.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 925. A bill to require the Secretary of the military department 
concerned to reimburse a member of the Armed Forces for expenses of 
travel in connection with leave canceled to meet an exigency in 
connection with United States participation in Operation Allied Force; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.


          reimbursement for u.s. personnel involved in Kosovo

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to 
reimburse U.S. military personnel for costs incurred due to 
cancellation of travel plans. This bill would authorize DoD to 
reimburse the men and women involved in Kosovo operations in any 
instance where they are forced to pay a fee to the airlines for changes 
in travel plans or purchased non-refundable tickets.
  In those instances where military personnel are recalled from leave 
or forced to cancel their leave plans due to the current crisis in 
Kosovo, the Defense Department is not authorized to reimburse them for 
costs incurred to change or cancel their personal travel plans.
  Military legal offices only pay the claims that Congress has 
authorized them to pay through legislation. Currently, DoD is only 
authorized to pay very specific claims. These claims usually involve 
damage to government property. Personal property is only covered if the 
damage or loss is related to official duty. There is no statutory 
authority to reimburse a member who incurs additional costs related to 
their leave, even if these costs are a direct result of performing 
their duty as members of the U.S. military.
  I find this situation preposterous. These men and women are being 
asked to cover expenses incurred through no fault of their own. In 
response to their commitment to an international security crisis, we 
tell them to foot the bill for any vacation plans they might have had.
  In light of earlier legislation we passed this year to signal to our 
military personnel that Congress will not short-change them for their 
service to this country, this measure offers one additional token of 
our appreciation and pride.
  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. 925

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

     SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED BY 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   LEAVE CANCELED FOR INVOLVEMENT IN KOSOVO-
                   RELATED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Requirement for Reimbursement.--The Secretary of the 
     military department concerned shall reimburse a member of the 
     Armed Forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for 
     expenses of travel (to the extent not otherwise reimbursable 
     under law) that have been incurred by the member in 
     connection with approved leave canceled to meet an exigency 
     in connection with United States participation in Operation 
     Allied Force.
       (b) Administrative Provisions.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall prescribe the procedures and documentation required for 
     application for, and payment of, reimbursements to members of 
     the Armed Forces under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Grams, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 926. A bill to provide the people of Cuba with access to food and 
medicines from the United States, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.


            The Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today Senator John Warner and twelve 
of our colleagues in the Senate are introducing a bill to end 
restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to Cuba--the so-called 
Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999. Our House colleagues Jose 
Serrano and Jim Leach are introducing the House companion bill today as 
well.
  Yesterday the Clinton Administration took some long overdue steps to 
end the practice of using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons. 
President Clinton has decided to reverse existing U.S. policy of 
prohibiting sales of such items to Iran, Libya, and Sudan. We applaud 
that decision. Joe Lockhart, the White House spokesman said President 
Clinton had decided that, ``food should not be used as a tool of 
foreign policy, except under the most compelling circumstances.''
  In announcing the change in policy yesterday, Under Secretary of 
State Stuart Eizenstat stated that President Clinton had approved the 
policy after a two-year review concluded that the sale of food and 
medicine ``doesn't encourage a nation's military capability or its 
ability to support terrorism.''
  I am gratified that the administration has finally recognized what we 
determined some time ago, namely that ``sales of food, medicine and 
other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's military 
capacities or support terrorism.'' On the contrary, funds spent on 
agricultural commodities and products are not available for other, less 
desirable uses.
  Regrettably, the Administration did not include Cuba in its announced 
policy changes. It seems to me terribly inconsistent to say that it is 
wrong to deny the children of Iran, Sudan and Libya access to food and 
medicine, but it is all right to deny Cuban children, living ninety 
miles from our shores, similar access. The administration's rationale 
for not including Cuba was rather confused. The best I can discern from 
the conflicting rationale for not including Cuba in the announced 
policy changes was that policy toward Cuba has been established by 
legislation rather than executive order, and therefore should be 
changed through legislative action.
  I disagree with that judgment. However, in order to facilitate the 
lifting of such restrictions on such sales to Cuba, Senator Warner, 
myself, and twelve of our Senate colleagues have decided to move 
forward with this legislation today.
  It is our assumption that the Clinton Administration will support 
this legislation, since it does legislatively for Cuba what it has just 
instituted by Executive order for Sudan, Libya and Iran.

  What about those who say that it is already possible to sell food and 
medicine to Cuba? To those people I would say, ``If that is what you 
think, then you should have no problem supporting this legislation.''
  However, I must tell you, Mr. President, that the people who say that 
are not members of the U.S. agricultural or pharmaceutical industries. 
Ask any representative of a major drug or grain company about selling 
to Cuba and they will tell you it is virtually impossible.
  The Administration's own statistics speak for themselves. Department 
of Commerce licensing statistics prove our point:
  Between 1992 and mid-1997, the Commerce Department approved only 28 
licenses for such sales, valued at less than $1 million, for the entire 
period. To give you some perspective: prior to the passage of the 1992 
Cuba Democracy Act which shut down U.S. food and medicine exports, Cuba 
was importing roughly $700 million of such products on an annual basis 
from U.S. subsidiaries.
  Moreover, since Commerce Department officials do no follow up on 
whether proposed licenses culminate in actual sales, the high water 
mark for the export of U.S. medicines to Cuba over a four and one half 
year period doesn't even represent roughly 0.1% of the exports of U.S. 
food and medicines that took place prior to 1992.
  For these reasons we feel strongly that the complexities of the U.S. 
licensing process, coupled with on-site verification requirements, 
serve as de facto prohibitions on U.S. pharmaceutical companies doing 
business with Cuba. Food sales are virtually impossible to undertake as 
well.
  Let me be clear--I am not defending the Cuban government for its 
human rights practices or some of its other

[[Page S4459]]

policy decisions. I believe that we should speak out strongly on such 
matters as respect for human rights and the treatment of political 
dissidents. But U.S. policy with respect to Cuba goes far beyond that--
it denies eleven million innocent Cuban men, women and children access 
to U.S. food and medicine.
  The highly respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch--a 
severe critic of the Cuban government's human rights practices--
recently concluded, that the ``(U.S.) embargo has not only failed to 
bring about human rights improvements in Cuba,'' it has actually 
``become counterproductive'' to achieving that goal.
  America is not about denying medicine or food to the people in Sudan, 
in Libya, or in Iran, and it shouldn't be about denying food and 
medicine to the Cuban people either, certainly not my America.
  That is why I hope my colleagues will support this legislation when 
it comes to a vote later this year.
 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today as chief co-sponsor of 
the Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999. I am pleased to join 
my good friend and colleague Senator Dodd and many of our colleagues in 
introducing this important legislation.
  The goal of this bill is simple--alleviate the suffering of the Cuban 
people created by the inadequate supplies of food, medicine and medical 
supplies on that island nation less than 100 miles from our shore. If 
enacted, this legislation would authorize the President to permit the 
sale of food, medicine and medical equipment to the Cuban people.
  The Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999 also mandates that a 
study be carried out on how to promote the consumption of U.S. 
agricultural commodities in Cuba through existing U.S. agricultural 
export promotion and credit programs and requires a report to Congress 
assessing the impact of the bill six months after its enactment.
  Yesterday, President Clinton announced an important change in U.S. 
economic sanctions policy which will enable U.S. firms to sell food and 
medicine to Iran, Sudan and Libya. In making the announcement, Under 
Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat stated ``Sales of food, medicine 
and other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's 
military capabilities or support terrorism. On the contrary, funds 
spent on agricultural commodities and products are not available for 
other, less desirable uses. Our purpose in applying sanctions is to 
influence the behavior of regimes, not to deny people their basic 
humanitarian needs.''
  This major change in the Administration's sanctions policy, however, 
will not affect Cuba because restrictions on the sale of food and 
medicine to that country are statutory. The legislation we are 
introducing today, however, would remove those restrictions on the sale 
of food and other agricultural products, medicine and medical supplies 
with regards to Cuba.
  The time has come to stop using food and medicine as a foreign policy 
tool. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important 
and timely legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 927. A bill to authorize the President to delay, suspend, or 
terminate economic sanctions if it is in the important national 
interest of the United States to do so; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


               the sanctions rationalization act of 1999

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on 
behalf of myself and Senator Hagel, which we hope will bring 
desperately needed reform to the process by which the United States 
imposes sanctions on other nations.
  Eighty years ago, President Wilson formally added economic sanctions 
to America's foreign policy arsenal for the first time, saying that 
with sanctions as a weapon, ``there will be no need for force.'' In the 
intervening decades, we have taken a greater liking to sanctions than 
President Wilson ever could have imagined. I doubt very much, however, 
that he would approve of the way in which we employ that tool today nor 
of the results accomplished by sanctions.
  When President Wilson described his idea of sanctions as a diplomatic 
tool, he was trying to convince the Senate to ratify American 
membership in the League of Nations. The sanctions he envisioned were 
broad, multi-national efforts designed to affect specific results under 
limited circumstances. He also intended sanctions to serve as one 
component of multi-stage escalation of diplomatic pressure, rather than 
a complete response.
  Our method for imposing sanctions today bears almost no resemblance 
to President Wilson's original concept. Sanctions have become the first 
response to actions which are objectionable to the United States. Very 
often, they are also a response in and of themselves, rather than part 
of a coherent escalation of pressure. In addition, the vast majority of 
American sanctions are not the multilateral efforts President Wilson 
envisioned. Rather, Mr. President, they are unilateral efforts which 
anger our allies, damage our global standing, and hurt our own 
businesses and people. And lest we excuse the drawbacks of unilateral 
sanctions with the argument that the benefits for American foreign 
policy outweigh the harm, let me be very clear: there are very rarely 
such benefits.
  For far too long we have subscribed to the mistaken view that 
sanctions represent concrete steps more powerful than mere condemnation 
and more speedy than diplomacy. Unilateral sanctions, Mr. President may 
make us feel good by severing access to American know-how, markets, 
ideas, and products. They may help us demonstrate that we are willing 
to be tough on governments with unacceptable policies or even allow us 
to appease a particular constituency that has clamored for action 
against a particular rogue nation.
  What unilateral sanctions do not do, however, is work. We are 
blindfolded by our own rhetoric, Mr. President, if we think that 
sanctions are the key to correcting the behavior of targeted nations. A 
recent study found that perhaps one out of every five unilateral 
sanctions has any desired effect at all. And in those few cases where 
our goal was met, such as a change in the President of Colombia, 
sanctions were only one of many factors.
  When we mention successes, we all too often ignore the much longer 
list of countries--including Haiti, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, 
Panama, and North Korea--where sanctions have failed. In fact, 
sanctions may even allow some authoritarian regimes to consolidate 
their control by providing them with a convenient scapegoat to blame 
for their domestic failures.
  In addition, we must not lose sight of the unintended consequences of 
sanctions. They hurt our economy. They hurt our allies. They hurt our 
ability to achieve our foreign policy goals. Perhaps most of all, they 
hurt our own citizens. Mr. President, it is imperative that we move 
expeditiously to correct the deep flaws in our system for imposing 
sanctions. In recent years, Congress has imposed sanctions intended to 
discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the 
ballistic missiles to deliver them, advance human rights and end 
genocide, end state-supported terrorism, discourage armed aggression, 
thwart drug trafficking, protect the environment and even, in a few 
cases, oust governments that are anathema to the United States.

  Since President Wilson proposed the use of sanctions to realize 
American foreign policy goals, we have imposed them more than 110 
times. Today, however, the situation is growing more acute. In just the 
past six years, Congress passed more than 70 sanctions. That is more 
than 11 per year. Last year, we had sanctions in place against 26 
different countries which included more than half of the world's 
population.
  When Congress passes these sanctions, however, it often takes a 
second congressional action to repeal them. This onerous process robs 
our nation of the ability to react to changing circumstances, 
interferes with the President and Secretary of State's mandate to 
negotiate with foreign governments and leaders and prevents the lifting 
of sanctions which have little chance of success while bringing harm on 
the United States' national interests. The bill that I am proposing 
today will correct these deficiencies by giving the

[[Page S4460]]

President the authority to delay, suspend or terminate any sanction 
that he determines is not in the United States' national interest.
  We often think of sanctions as cost-less actions since they require 
no governmental appropriation. As business leaders and workers across 
the country will tell you, however, that perception is simply 
erroneous. In 1998, the United States had sanctions, of some sort, in 
place against 26 different nations including China and India, the two 
most populous nations in the world. Those sanctions covered well over 
half of the world's population, cutting American firms off from 
billions of potential customers. According to the Institute for 
International Economics here in Washington, the economic sanctions 
currently in effect cost American businesses $20 billion annually in 
lost export sales and cost America's workers 200,000 high-wage jobs.
  Those figures, however, tell only part of the story. The cost to 
businesses does not end when the sanctions are repealed. Rather, the 
absence of American companies allows foreign competitors to make 
inroads leaving the American businesses to try battle the entrenched 
competition, along with any lingering popular resentment toward the 
United States, when the barriers fall. Needless to say, our allies 
think that American unilateral sanctions, while affording them a rather 
pleasant competitive advantage, lack a degree of rationality.
  It would be shortsighted, Mr. President, to consider the cost merely 
in terms of the monetary loss. Rather, our wholesale use of unilateral 
sanctions damages our standing in the world community. Our diplomats 
have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to assuage 
the concerns of our allies who find themselves on the receiving end of 
some of our secondary sanctions. Meanwhile, when dealing with target 
nations, they are deprived of the ability to offer a carrot in exchange 
for policy changes. Moreover, the fact that more than half of the 
world's population is now on the receiving end of American sanctions 
and our willingness to impose sanctions when the rest of the world 
finds them unnecessary degrades our ability to convince other nations 
to follow our leadership.
  Congress' current infatuation with sanctions also hampers our 
nation's ability to conduct diplomacy. The Constitution gives Congress 
a powerful role in foreign policy, from the power to declare war to the 
power to regulate commerce. Clearly, Congress is within its 
Constitutional mandate when it imposes sanctions on foreign 
governments. What Congress cannot do, however, is micro-manage our 
foreign policy on a day to day basis. The power to negotiate with 
foreign governments and leaders rests solely with the President. 
Anything which detracts from his ability to negotiate, including 
sanctions over which he has no control over, damages his ability to 
exact concessions and come to an agreement acceptable to the United 
States.

  I am not arguing, Mr. President, that sanctions are not a legitimate 
foreign policy tool nor that, if used appropriately, they can be 
efficacious. Nor am I arguing that all sanctions currently in place 
should be removed. To the contrary, I strongly support sanctions 
against countries such as Iraq and Yugoslavia.
  Sanctions, however, should be part of a comprehensive foreign policy 
with clear goals. They should be imposed for a finite period of time 
with an option to extend if the situation warrants continued pressure. 
Finally, sanctions must allow the President and Secretary of State the 
room they need to maneuver in order to effectively negotiate foreign 
governments.
  It is also essential that we strive for multinational support of our 
sanctions. Board sanctions, either global or at least in concert with 
the other industrialized countries, not only have a far greater chance 
of affecting the desired result but minimize the threat to our 
international leadership, and domestic economy in both the short and 
long term.
  Occasionally, other nations take actions so offensive to American 
policy that the United States must act regardless of foreign 
cooperation. In those cases, we must endeavor to minimize the negative 
effects our sanctions have on third countries and on our own economy. 
We must also carefully target our sanctions at the offending government 
officials rather than the general population--people who often have 
little or no ability to affect meaningful change.
  Sanctions deserve a place, even a prominent place, in our foreign 
policy tool kit. Working with our allies, they can have the power 
President Wilson described shortly after witnessing the horrors of 
World War I. At the same time, Mr. President, we must not be so 
infatuated with sanctions as to replace tools which have stood us in 
such good stead for more than two centuries, such as diplomacy.
  The legislation that my colleagues and I are introducing today will 
make the sanctions we do impose more powerful and improve the results 
while simultaneously reducing the costs to Americans and our allies. In 
fact, Mr. President, these reforms will lead to a stronger American 
foreign policy capable of realizing our foreign policy goals more 
quickly and with less effort. This bill will allow us to finally reach 
the goal Congress held when it began imposing sanctions at this 
alarming pace. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bipartisan resolution and enacting these overdue 
reforms.
 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Dodd in introducing the Sanctions Rationalization Act. This bill would 
grant broad authority to the President to waive unilateral sanctions 
that no longer make sense and that he determines harm U.S. national 
interests.
  Sanctions must remain a policy tool. But sanctions are only effective 
when they are multilateral.
  This bill will complete the package of three sanctions reform bills 
that have been introduced this Congress. Senator Dodd and I are 
sponsors or cosponsors of each of these three bills.
  The first of these three sanctions reform bills is S. 757, the 
Sanctions Policy Reform Act. This legislation, introduced by Senator 
Lugar would establish a sensible process for the enactment of future 
unilateral economic sanctions by either the President or the Congress. 
Among its safeguards, the Lugar bill would require a cost/benefit 
analysis and would require a study on the likelihood that the proposed 
sanctions would achieve their policy goals. It would also sunset all 
unilateral sanctions after two years unless reauthorized by Congress. 
The Lugar bill does not undo any existing sanctions, with one 
exception. It would make permanent the President's ability to waive the 
Glenn amendment for U.S. national security reasons. The Glenn amendment 
as originally drafted puts permanent unilateral sanctions on any 
country that tests a nuclear device.
  I introduced the second bill, which is S. 327, the Food and Medicine 
Sanctions Relief Act. Senator Dodd is the lead cosponsor on that bill. 
Food and medicine are basic humanitarian needs. As a matter of policy, 
food and medicine should not be included in unilateral sanctions. The 
President made a good first step in addressing this issue yesterday 
when he removed most, but not all, food and humanitarian goods from 
sanctions on Iran, Sudan and Libya. He did not lift restrictions on 
financing for agricultural sales, nor did he lift food and medicine 
sanctions on several other nations. He could not take these two 
additional steps because he is restricted from doing so by other 
legislation. My bill, S. 327, would enable him to adopt a comprehensive 
policy of exempting food and medicine from unilateral sanctions.
  The bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today would also grant 
the President much broader authority to protect U.S. interests by 
waiving unilateral sanctions.
  The Sanctions Rationalization Act allows the President, with 
Congressional review, to ``delay, suspend or terminate'' any unilateral 
economic sanction if he determines that it ``does not serve U.S. 
national interests.'' A Presidential waiver under the Act cannot go 
into effect for 30 days. This gives the Congress ample time to consider 
the Presidential action. The bill establishes expedited procedures to 
ensure that Congress would have a chance to disapprove the Presidential 
waiver if the action is unwise.
  Finally, the legislation restricts the use of this Presidential 
waiver authority in specific cases. The President

[[Page S4461]]

cannot waive sanctions that are multilateral rather than unilateral. He 
is also restricted from waiving sanctions based on health or safety 
concerns, treaty obligations, and specific trade laws enacted to remedy 
unfair trade practices or market disruptions.
  As a nation, we are letting unilateral sanctions isolate ourselves. 
Let me demonstrate why:
  A CRS report on January 22, 1998 listed a total of 97 unilateral 
sanctions now in place.
  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that from 
1993-1996, the U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times against 35 
countries. These 35 nations make up 42% of world population and 19% of 
world's $790 billion export market.
  A study by the International Institute of Economics estimates that in 
1995 alone unilateral sanctions cost Americans $15-20 billion in lost 
exports . . . which resulted in 200,000 lost jobs.
  The National Foreign Trade Council has identified 41 separate 
legislative statutes on the books that either require or authorize the 
imposition of unilateral sanctions.
  Repeated use of sanctions undermines confidence in America as a 
reliable supplier. Even after sanctions are lifted, Americans find it 
difficult or impossible to regain export markets.
  Mr. President, each of the three bills I mentioned addresses an 
important feature of ending the overuse of unilateral economic 
sanctions. The Lugar bill would create a process for producing more 
effective sanctions policies for the future. The Hagel bill would 
exempt food and medicine from all unilateral economic sanctions. The 
Dodd bill is a final, critical reform. It would allow the President, 
with congressional review, to waive those sanctions laws that have 
become outdated and no longer serve U.S. national interests.
  Again, I congratulate my colleague from Connecticut for his 
leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him in introducing the 
Sanctions Rationalization Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
        Lott, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Crapo, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. 
        Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, 
        Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Voinovich, 
        and Mr. Warner):
  S. 928, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-
birth abortions; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               the partial birth abortion ban act of 1999

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is identical to the legislation 
endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and vetoed by 
President Clinton in October, 1997. This bill is narrowly written to 
prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted 
late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to 
save the life of the mother.
  Also known as Intact Dilation Evacuation or Intrauterine Cranial 
Decompression, a partial birth abortion is performed over a three day 
period during the second or third trimester. After the cervix is 
dilated over a two-day period, the doctor begins the actual abortion on 
the third day. Once the doctor turns the baby into the breech position, 
he delivers all but the head through the birth canal. At this point the 
child is still alive. Then, the doctor stabs the baby in the base of 
its skull with curved scissors and uses a suction catheter to remove 
the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After the skull 
collapses, the doctor completes the delivery.
  Partial birth abortions are performed as outpatient procedures in 
clinics. They are usually done on healthy 20-25 week olds with healthy 
mothers. Estimates suggest as many as 5000 are performed annually in 
the U.S. We know of 1500 per year in one New Jersey clinic.
  The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A growing 
consensus in the medical community considers it unnecessary and even 
unethical. Yet the reason this horrific procedure is still legal in the 
United States is because President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation 
that would have outlawed partial birth abortion, except in cases of 
maternal life endangerment.
  The lies propagated by proponents of partial birth abortion have 
taken on a life of their own. First, we were told--and by we I mean 
Congress--there was no such thing as partial birth abortion. Three 
years after Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of this technique, described 
it to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the NAF sent a letter to 
Congress denying its existence. Then Congress was assured the fetus 
feels no pain during the procedure because anesthesia given to the 
mother induced ``neurological fetal demise.'' Such was the testimony of 
Dr. James McMahon, another pioneer of the partial birth abortion, to 
the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. After pregnant 
women across the country started refusing necessary surgery, Dr. Norig 
Ellison, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to set the record 
straight. He told the Committee women would have to be anesthetized to 
the point where their own health was endangered to achieve 
``neurological demise'' of the fetus. By the way, ``neurological 
demise'' refers to the ``brain death,'' not literal death. Not to be 
deterred, proponents of partial birth abortion circulated a third lie--
anesthesia kills the fetus. Yet we know from Dr. Ellison's testimony 
and Dr. Haskell's own statements that the baby is alive during the 
procedure. Lie number four asserted partial birth abortions were 
``rare.'' Then, a small newspaper in New Jersey discovered that 1500 of 
these ``rare'' procedures were performed each year in one clinic. This 
one clinic was performing three times the supposed national rate of 
partial birth abortions. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the 
National Coalition of Abortion Providers, suggested as many as 5000 
could be performed annually. Another egregious lie asserted this 
technique was only used in cases where the mother's life or health were 
at risk, or when the fetus was deformed. Ron Fitzsimmons helped spread 
this misinformation. He would later admit that he ``lied through my 
teeth.''
  The last lie, which the President continues citing in defense of this 
procedure, proports that partial birth abortion is necessary to protect 
women's health. A group of more than 600 doctors, most of whom are OB-
GYNs or perinatologists, call this lie the ``most serious distortion.'' 
In reality, partial birth is never medically necessary. That is the 
opinion of doctors across this country. The AMA says it is ``not 
medically indicated,'' ``is not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong'' 
and ``is not an accepted `medical practice' ''. Former Surgeon General 
C. Everett Koop, who has 30 years of experience in pediatric surgery, 
has publicly denounced this procedure. Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the 
most widely used textbook on performing abortions admitted he ``* * * 
would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' 
The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a group of over 600 
doctors, emphatically states that partial birth abortion is never 
medically necessary and ``should be banned in the interests of women, 
their children, and the proper practice of medicine.''
  There is absolutely no evidence that partial birth abortion is a safe 
procedure. There are no peer reviewed scientific studies. It is not 
mentioned in medical textbooks or taught in medical schools. The facts, 
as reviewed by doctors, suggest this technique is in fact dangerous for 
women. Because of the deliberate breech positioning and the blind 
procedure of stabbing the baby at the base of its skull, partial birth 
abortion subjects women to risks beyond those normally encountered in 
conventional late term abortions. Furthermore, it could not be used in 
the two most common life endangering conditions during pregnancy, 
infection and hemorrhage, because it puts women at greater risk for 
both.

[[Page S4462]]

  Conditions such as hydrocephaly, trisomy, Downs Syndrome, and 
development of the organs or brain outside the body have been cited as 
instances in which partial birth abortion was recommended to preserve a 
woman's life, health, or future fertility. There are tragic situations 
that require separation of the child from the mother. But it is never 
necessary to kill the child during that separation to preserve maternal 
health.
  I have met families who were advised to have a partial birth abortion 
after their child was diagnosed with a disability. These mothers faced 
many of the same struggles, such as concerns for their other children, 
concerns about whether they would be able to care for a handicapped 
baby, and finding a doctor who was willing to deliver the child. As the 
Senate considers the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I will tell the 
stories of these families and the children.
  In closing, I ask my colleagues to examine this issue with their 
hearts. We know of two baby girls, one born in Phoenix and the other in 
Ohio, who survived this brutal procedure. Baby Phoenix overcame cuts 
and a skull fracture sustained during a partial birth abortion 
procedure. Today, she lives with her adopted parents in Texas. Baby 
Hope lived only three hours and eight minutes. She was born prematurely 
during the first dilation stage of a partial birth abortion. Her life 
was short, but she personalized this issue for the hospital staff who 
gently nursed her for those few hours. I ask that my colleagues 
consider whether these little girls deserved to be subjected to partial 
birth abortions. I ask them to consider that these children were not 
catch phrases, slogans, or concepts. These babies, and other candidates 
for partial birth abortions, are human beings. They are being killed 
with a procedure that would not be legal for use on animals. I ask my 
colleagues to do the right thing and vote to outlaw this horrific 
procedure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Partial 
Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 be inserted into the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 928

       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 ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 73 the following:

                 ``CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS

``Sec.
``1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.

     ``Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

       ``(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion 
     and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is 
     necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is 
     endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. This 
     paragraph shall become effective one day after enactment.
       ``(b)(1) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth 
     abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing 
     the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus 
     before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
       ``(2) As used in this section, the term `physician' means a 
     doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to 
     practice medicine and surgery by the State in which the 
     doctor performs such activity, or any other individual 
     legally authorized by the State to perform abortions: 
     Provided, however, That any individual who is not a physician 
     or not otherwise legally authorized by the State to perform 
     abortions, but who nevertheless directly performs a partial-
     birth abortion, shall be subject to the provisions of this 
     section.
       ``(3) As used in this section, the term `vaginally delivers 
     a living fetus before killing the fetus' means deliberately 
     and intentionally delivers into the vagina a living fetus, or 
     a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing 
     a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and 
     kills the fetus.
       ``(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time 
     she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the 
     mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of 
     the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in 
     a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the 
     pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or 
     the plaintiff consented to the abortion.
       ``(2) Such relief shall include--
       ``(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and 
     physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and
       ``(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of 
     the partial-birth abortion.
       ``(d)(1) A defendant accused of an offense under this 
     section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on 
     whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the 
     life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, illness or injury.
       ``(2) The findings on that issue are admissible on that 
     issue at the trial of the defendant. Upon a motion of the 
     defendant, the court shall delay the beginning of the trial 
     for not more than 30 days to permit such a hearing to take 
     place.
       ``(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is 
     performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under 
     section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:

``74. Partial-birth abortions...............................1531''.....

 Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, in introducing this 
legislation to ban one of the most barbaric practices ever tolerated in 
a civilized society. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a measure we 
have already passed twice, only to see it overturned by Presidential 
vetoes. Enactment of this bill into law is long overdue.
  A recent tragic event in my own home state of Ohio brings home yet 
again the need for this ban.
  On April 6, a young woman went into the Dayton Medical Center in 
Montgomery County, Ohio, to undergo a partial-birth abortion. This is a 
procedure that usually takes place behind closed doors, where it can be 
ignored, its moral status left unquestioned.
  But this particular procedure was different. In this procedure, on 
April 6, things did not go as planned. Here's what happened.
  The Dayton abortionist, Dr. Martin Haskell, started a procedure to 
dilate her cervix, so the child could eventually be removed and killed. 
He applied seaweed to start the procedure. He then sent her home--
because this procedure usually takes two or three days. In fact, the 
patient is supposed to return on the second day for a further 
application of seaweed--and then come back a third time for the actual 
partial-birth abortion.
  So the woman went home to Cincinnati, expecting to return to Dayton 
and complete the procedure in two or three days. But her cervix dilated 
far too quickly. Shortly after midnight in the first day, after 
experiencing severe stomach pains, she was admitted to Bethesda North 
Hospital in Cincinnati.
  The child was born. After three hours and eight minutes, the child 
died.
  The cause of death was listed on the death certificate as 
``prematurity secondary to induced abortion.''
  True enough, Mr. President. But also on the death certificate is a 
space for ``Method of death.'' And it says, in the case of this child, 
quote, ``Method of death: natural.''
  Now that, Mr. President, may well be true in the technical sense. But 
if you look at the events that led up to her death, you'll see that 
there was really nothing natural about them about them at all.
  The medical technician who held that little girl for the three hours 
and eight minutes of her short life named her Baby Hope. Baby Hope did 
not die of natural causes. She was the victim of a barbaric procedure 
that is opposed by the vast majority of the American people. A 
procedure that has twice been banned by act of Congress--only to see 
the ban repeatedly overturned by a Presidential veto.
  The death of Baby Hope did not take place behind the closed doors of 
an abortion clinic. It took place in public--in a hospital dedicated to 
saving lives, not taking them. It reminds us of the brutal reality and 
tragedy of what partial birth abortion really is.
  When we voted to ban partial-birth abortions, we talked about this 
procedure in graphic detail. The public reaction to this disclosure--
the disclosure of what partial-birth abortion really is--was loud and 
it was decisive. And there is a very good reason for this. The 
procedure is barbaric.
  One of the first questions people ask is ``why?''

[[Page S4463]]

  ``Why do they do this procedure? Is it really necessary? Why do we 
allow this to happen?''
  Dr. C. Everett Koop speaks for the consensus of the medical 
profession when he says this is never a medically necessary procedure. 
Even Martin Haskell--the abortionist in the Baby Hope case--has 
admitted that at least eighty percent of the partial-birth abortions he 
performs are elective.
  The facts are clear. Partial-birth abortion is not that rare a 
procedure. What is rare is that we--as a society--saw it happen. It 
happened by surprise, at a regular hospital, where it wasn't supposed 
to.
  Baby Hope was not supposed to die in the arms of a medical 
technician. But she did. And she cannot easily be ignored.
  This procedure is not limited to mothers and fetuses who are in 
danger. It's performed on healthy women--and healthy babies--all the 
time.
  The goal of a partial birth abortion is not to protect somebody's 
health but to kill a child. That is what the doctor wants to do.
  Dr. Haskell himself has said as much. In an interview with the 
American Medical News, he said--and I quote--``you could dilate further 
and deliver the baby alive but that's really not the point. The point 
is you are attempting to do an abortion. And that's the goal of your 
work, is to complete an abortion. Not to see how do I manipulate the 
situation so that I get a live birth instead.'' Unquote.
  Dr. Haskell admitted it. Why don't we?
  Again, let's hear Dr. Haskell describe this procedure. Quote: ``I 
just kept on doing D&Es (dilation and extractions) because that was 
what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very 
tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of 
the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they 
all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length 
presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the 
fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the 
head and take it out. It was easy.''
  It was easy, Mr. President. Easy for him. He doesn't say it was easy 
for the mother, and I suspect he doesn't care. His goal is to perform 
abortions. Is he the person we're going to trust to decide when 
abortions are necessary? He's got a production line going--and 
nothing's going to stop him from meeting his quota.
  Dr. Haskell continues: ``At first, I would reach around trying to 
identify a lower extremity blindly with the tip of my instrument. I'd 
get it right about 30-50 percent of the time. Then I said, `Well gee, 
if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't 
have to feel around for it.' I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 
percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.'' End of quote.
  Serendipity, Mr. President.
  Let me conclude.
  We need to ask ourselves, what does our toleration of this procedure 
say about us, as a nation?
  Where do we draw the line? At what point do we finally stop saying, 
``I don't really like this, but it doesn't really matter to me, so I'll 
put up with it?''
  At what point do we say, unless we stop this from happening, we 
cannot justly call ourselves a civilized nation?
  Mr. President, when you come right down to it, America's moral 
anesthetic is wearing off. We know what's going on behind the curtain--
and we can't wish that knowledge away. We have to face it--and do 
what's right.
  We have to make the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act the law of the 
land. Twice in the last three years, Congress has passed this 
legislation with strong, bipartisan support, only to see it fall victim 
to a Presidential veto. Once again, I am confident Congress will do the 
right thing and pass this very important bill.
  But that's not enough, Mr. President. Passing this legislation in 
Congress is not enough. It will not save any lives. For lives to be 
saved, the bill must become law.
  If something happens behind the iron curtain of an abortion clinic 
it's easier to pretend that it doesn't happen. But the death of Baby 
Hope has torn that curtain, revealing the truth of this barbaric 
procedure. Let people not ask about us fifty years from now, ``How can 
they not have known?'' and ``Why didn't they do anything?''
  Because, Mr. President, the fact is: We do know. And we must take 
action.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Abraham, 
        and Mr. Hutchinson):
  S. 929. A bill to provide for the establishment of a National 
Military Museum, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.


                      national military museum act

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, when future generations search for ``lessons 
learned'' from America's 18th, 19th and 20th century military 
experiences, they no doubt will be accessible through dusty texts, 
dated documentary videos, or long-forgotten Congressional transcripts.
  I am concerned, however, that these lessons will not carry forward 
into the next century as an enduring reminder of the true costs, and 
the true benefits, of waging wars, on behalf of freedom and democracy.
  Increasingly, we have seen the gap between the military, and the rest 
of society, widen.
  Early in the next century, for example, we expect that less than four 
percent of the population will be veterans, down from over 11 percent 
in 1980.
  This means that fewer and fewer civilians will have a personal 
understanding of the military, making it more and more difficult to 
pass on to successive generations, one of our most powerful military 
assets--our experience.
  How then do we ensure that we don't ``repeat'' our past mistakes--and 
that we build on our past successes?
  Mr. President, I am joined by Senators Hutchison, of Texas, Kerrey of 
Nebraska, Hagel, Reed of Rhode Island, Smith of New Hampshire, Cleland, 
Abraham, and Hutchinson of Arkansas in introducing the National 
Military Museum Act.
  It will teach visitors about each of the major wars in which America 
has fought.
  Finally, it will help build pride, in our military, and the nation.
  The United States, through the fine stewardship of the Smithsonian 
Institution, operates over a score of excellent national museums--from 
the National Portrait Gallery, to the National Postal Museum, yet none 
of these are dedicated to the armed forces.
  In fact, the individual military services have many museums--the Army 
alone, has over 60.
  We also have military artifacts and battles represented in sections 
of some of the Smithsonian museums.
  Yet we do not have a single, prestigious, integrated national museum 
to tell America's military story and to honor our armed forces.
  This is an extraordinary shortcoming in the telling of our national 
heritage.
  By contrast, many of our key allies have national military museums.
  The British Imperial War Museum, and the Australian War Memorial, are 
two fine examples.
  The United States is a nation that has influenced world events 
decisively over the last century and will continue to do so for 
centuries to come.
  And it is a military power that has sought not to conquer other 
lands, but to bring freedom, and democracy to the entire world.
  History shows few if any nations, with such disproportionate means, 
employing force for such consistently altruistic ends.
  Yet we have no national place to tell, this extraordinary story.
  Mr. President, where, would a teenager interested in World War I, 
World War II, Korea, or Vietnam, go, to learn more about these wars? 
There really is no museum displaying artifacts from these wars, in a 
comprehensive fashion.
  We do in fact have several fine Civil War museums, but the lack of 
representations of so many other wars is remarkable.
  The idea of a National Military Museum goes back to the late 1800s.
  Several attempts to build this museum, (including a concerted effort 
by President Truman) failed, for various reasons: inadequate funding, 
post-war disillusionment, or blueprints that were too ambitious.

[[Page S4464]]

  Now, as we enter the 21st century, the time is right to display the 
enormous inventories of artifacts, that have been accumulated from this 
century--especially from conflicts since World War II.
  As now envisioned, the National Military Museum would include display 
sections for each of the military services as well as separate sections 
for each of the country's major wars.
  A spectacular atrium would house large items, from: missiles to ship 
sections to aircraft.
  Based on a review of numerous potential sites, this legislation 
authorizes that the new museum be located on the Navy Annex property 
just west of the Pentagon.
  Bounded symbolically, by Arlington National Cemetery, to the north, 
and offering a commanding view of the capital area, this location is 
ideal, and one of the last available parcels, in the area, suitable for 
a museum of this scope and importance.
  The museum would share a large 55-acre tract of land with an 
expansion of Arlington National Cemetery and possibly other veterans' 
memorials.
  The buildings currently on this land, are slated for demolition 
around 2015.
  The National Military Museum Act establishes a National Military 
Museum Foundation, which will be responsible for the design 
construction, and operation, of the museum.
  The Foundation's Board, will consist of 10 members, and their first 
action will be to conduct a study on the siting, design, environmental 
impact, and governing of the museum.
  The Foundation may recommend that the museum, become part, of the 
Smithsonian Institution.
  Assuming no Congressional action, upon receipt of both this study, 
and a General Accounting Office evaluation, the Foundation will proceed 
with final design preparations, and pursue fundraising.
  Construction would begin after demolition of the existing Navy Annex 
buildings.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce this legislative 
cornerstone, for building, one of the most important, and--I would 
anticipate--most visited museums, in the world.
  Let us honor our nation's military with this long overdue museum.
  Let us safeguard our past, so that future generations will know what 
has been done before--and what may have to be done again, in the 
future--to push back the forces of tyranny, and to preserve the 
freedoms, we are so fortunate to enjoy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 930. A bill to provide for the sale of certain public land in the 
Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to the Clark County, Nevada, Department of 
Aviation; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


            ivanpah valley airport public land transfer act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Ivanpah Valley 
Airport Public Land Transfer Act. This act authorizes the Secretary of 
Interior to convey, at fair market value, certain lands in the Ivanpah 
Valley to the Clark County Department of Aviation. Authorization of 
this conveyance will allow the Department to proceed with the proposed 
development of a new airport to serve Southern Nevada.
  As you are aware, growth in both the general population and the 
tourism industry in Southern Nevada has been and is expected to 
continue to be very strong. Statistics show that over half the people 
who come to Southern Nevada now come by air. From 1985 to 1998, 
operations at McCarran Airport increased at an annual rate of 
approximately five percent. Even if this growth rate slows to two 
percent, activities at McCarran will be at or exceed capacity by the 
year 2014. At this level, the traveling public will also experience 
significant delays. It is obvious we must begin to plan now for the 
future.
  The Department of Aviation has completed an extensive review of 
options available for meeting the growing needs for air traffic in 
Southern Nevada. These options included construction of a new runway at 
McCarran and the building of an entirely new airport at any one of four 
different sites. Analysis of these options shows that for a variety of 
technical, safety-related, and economic reasons, the Ivanpah site is 
the only option that can accommodate the growing air traffic needs of 
the region.
  The bill Senator Bryan and I introduce today is based on similar 
legislation that was introduced in both the House and Senate in the 
105th Congress. However, this bill incorporates changes from the prior 
legislation to address environmental concerns and issues that were 
raised by the Bureau of Land Management in testimony before the House 
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands last year. 
Some of those concerns were related to endangered species habitat, 
potential conflicts with existing uses, and determination of fair 
market value for the lands to be conveyed.
  Congress should be aware that this is not a giveaway. Clark County 
will pay fair market value for the land and the airport will be 
publicly owned and operated. The bill also provides that the revenues 
collected by the government for the sale will be available for other 
use by the BLM under the terms of the Southern Nevada Public Land 
Management Act of 1998.
  The Clark County Department of Aviation is committed to the 
preparation of necessary environmental documentation for airport 
construction once Congressional approval for the land sale is granted. 
The County cannot, however, invest the substantial amounts of time, 
dollars, and resources an environmental study demands without assurance 
the site will be available for purchase should an airport be deemed to 
have no significant negative impacts. The bill also provides for return 
of the land to the Department of Interior, should airport development 
prove to be infeasible.
  I thank my fellow Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, for his support on 
this issue and urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 930

       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 ``Ivanpah Valley Airport 
     Public Land Transfer Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF 
                   AVIATION.

       (a) In general.--
       (1) Conveyance.--Notwithstanding the land use planning 
     reqirements contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1711, 
     1712), on occurrence of the conditions specified in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Secretary'') shall convey to Clark 
     Country, Nevada, on behalf of the Department of Aviation 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Department''), all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     public land identified for disposition on the map entitled 
     ``Ivanpah Valley, Nevada-Airport Selections'' numbered 01 and 
     dated April 1999, for the purpose of developing an airport 
     facility and related infrastructure.
       (2) Map.--The map described in paragraph (1) shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the offices of 
     the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Las 
     Vegas District of the Bureau of Land Management.
       (b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall make the conveyance 
     under subsection (a) if--
       (1) the Department conducts an airspace assessment to 
     identify any potential adverse effect on access to the Las 
     Vegas basin under visual flight rules that would result from 
     the construction and operation of a commercial or primary 
     airport, or both, on the land to be conveyed;
       (2) the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration certifies to the Secretary that--
       (A) the assessment under paragraph (1) is thorough; and
       (B) alternatives have been developed to address each 
     adverse effect identified in the assessment, including 
     alternatives that ensure access to the Las Vegas basin under 
     visual flight rules at a level that is equal to or better 
     than the access in existence as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (3) the Department enters into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to retain ownership of Jean Airport and to maintain 
     and develop Jean Airport as a general aviation airport.
       (c) Phased Conveyances.--At the option of the Department, 
     the Secretary shall convey the land described in subsection 
     (a) in parcels over a period of up to 20 years, as may be 
     required to carry out the phased construction and development 
     of the airport facility and infrastructure on the land.

[[Page S4465]]

       (d) Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance of 
     each parcel, the Department shall pay the United States an 
     amount equal to the fair market value of the parcel.
       (2) Determination of fair market value.--
       (A) Initial 3-year period.--During the 3-year period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the fair 
     market value of a parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a) 
     shall be based on an appraisal of the fair market value of 
     the parcel as of a date not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Subsequent appraisals.--
       (i) In general.--The fair market value of each parcel 
     conveyed after the end of the 3-year period referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be based on a subsequent appraisal.
       (ii) Factors.--An appraisal conducted after that 3-year 
     period--

       (I) shall take into consideration the parcel in its 
     unimproved state; and
       (II) shall not reflect any enhancement in the value of the 
     parcel based on the existence or planned construction of 
     infrastructure on or near the parcel.

       (3) Use of proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale of each 
     parcel--
       (A) shall be deposited in the special account established 
     under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land 
     Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
       (B) shall be disposed of by the Secretary as provided in 
     section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 Stat. 2346).
       (e) Reversionary Interest.--
       (1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning 20 
     years after the date on which the Secretary conveys the first 
     parcel under subsection (a), if the Secretary determines that 
     the Department is not developing or progressing toward the 
     development of the parcel as part of an airport facility, the 
     Secretary may exercise a right to reenter the parcel.
       (2) Procedure.--Any determination of the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) shall be made on the record after an 
     opportunity for a hearing.
       (3) Refund.--If the Secretary exercises a right to reenter 
     a parcel under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall refund to 
     the Department an amount that is equal to the amount paid for 
     the parcel by the Department.
       (f) Withdrawal.--The public land described in subsection 
     (a) is withdrawn from mineral entry under--
       (1) sections 910, 2318 through 2340, and 2343 through 2346 
     of the Revised Statutes (commonly known as the ``General 
     Mining Law of 1872'') (30 U.S.C. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 through 
     30, 33 through 43, 46 through 48, 50 through 53); and
       (2) the Act of February 25, 1920 (commonly known as the 
     ``Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920'') (41 Stat. 437, chapter 
     85; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
       (g) Mojave National Preserve.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall consult with the Secretary in the 
     development of an airspace management plan for the Ivanpah 
     Valley Airport that, to the extent practicable and without 
     adversely affecting safety considerations, restricts aircraft 
     arrivals and departures over the Mojave National Preserve, 
     California.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Conrad):
  S.J. Res. 23. A joint resolution expressing the sense of the Congress 
regarding the need for a Surgeon General's report on media and 
violence; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


              surgeon general's media violence report act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, an entire nation was stunned this past 
week with the shocking violence that unfolded in Littleton, Colorado. 
Perhaps, if this had been an isolated incident, we could have written 
it off as two crazed individuals. However, the tragic reality is that 
it was not an isolated incident, but another in an increasing pattern 
of violence in our schools. Even more disturbing is that these 
schoolyard shootings are occurring against the backdrop of ever-
escalating youth violence, and suicide.
  This is an extraordinarily complex problem, with many contributing 
factors. However, what this comes down to is responsibility, and the 
most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any culture--
has, is raising its children. We are failing that responsibility, and 
the extent of our failure is being measured in the deaths, and injuries 
of our kids in the schoolyard and on the streets of our neighborhoods 
and communities.
  Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not 
parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in 
our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with 
their time, the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, our 
paramount responsibility, and most unfortunately, we are failing. We 
must get our priorities straight, and that means putting our kids 
first.
  However, parents need help. They need help because our homes and our 
families--our children's minds, are being flooded by a tide of 
violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society: our movies 
depict graphic violence; our children are taught to kill and maim by 
interactive video games; the Internet, which holds such tremendous 
potential in so many ways, is tragically used by some to communicate 
unimaginable hatred, images and descriptions of violence, and ``how-
to'' manuals on everything from bomb construction to drugs. Our culture 
is dominated by media, and our children, more-so than any generation 
before them, is vulnerable to the images of violence and hate that, 
unfortunately, are dominant themes in so much of what they see, and 
hear.
  Thus, today I rise to introduce, calling upon the Surgeon General to 
conduct a comprehensive study of media violence, in all its forms, and 
to issue a report on its effects, and recommendations on how we can 
turn this tragic tide of youth violence.
  As I have said, this is a complex challenge. Certainly, working with 
the media industry, we can come to some consensus on immediate measures 
that can be taken to curb our children's access to the types of 
excessive and gratuitous violence that is currently flooding our homes 
and families. However, the crisis we are currently facing did not occur 
overnight, and we must take time to achieve a comprehensive 
understanding of how media violence affects childhood development, and 
what children are most at risk to its impact.
  Again, I urge all Americans to get involved in their kids' lives. Ask 
questions, listen to their fears and concerns, their hopes and their 
dreams. Children are not simply small adults.
  Childhood is a time of innocence, a time to teach discipline and 
values. Our children are our most precious gift, they are full of 
innocence and hope. We must work together to preserve the sanctity of 
childhood.

                          ____________________