[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 82 (Thursday, June 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6857-S6877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 1199. A bill to require the Secretary of State to report on United 
States citizens injured or killed by certain terrorist groups; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. 1199

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

     SECTION 1. REPORT ON TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN WHICH UNITED 
                   STATES CITIZENS WERE KILLED AND RELATED 
                   MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 1999, and every 
     6 months thereafter, the Secretary of State shall prepare and 
     submit a report, with a classified annex as necessary, to the 
     appropriate congressional committees regarding terrorist 
     attacks in Israel, in territory administered by Israel, and 
     in territory administered by the Palestinian Authority. The 
     report shall contain the following information:
       (1) A list of formal commitments the Palestinian Authority 
     has made to combat terrorism.
       (2) A list of terrorist attacks, occurring between October 
     1, 1992 and the date of the report, against Israeli or United 
     States citizens in Israel, in territory administered by 
     Israel, or in territory administered by the Palestinian 
     Authority, including--
       (A) a list of all citizens of the United States killed or 
     injured in such attacks;
       (B) a list of all citizens of Israel killed or injured in 
     such attacks;
       (C) the date of each attack, the total number of people 
     killed or injured in each attack, and the name and 
     nationality of each victim;
       (D) the person or group claiming responsibility for the 
     attack and where such person or group has found refuge or 
     support;
       (E) a list of suspects implicated in each attack and the 
     nationality of each suspect, including information on--
       (i) which suspects are in the custody of the Palestinian 
     Authority and which suspects are in the custody of Israel;
       (ii) which suspects are still at large in areas controlled 
     by the Palestinian Authority or Israel; and
       (iii) the whereabouts (or suspected whereabouts) of 
     suspects implicated in each attack.
       (3) Of the suspects implicated in the attacks described in 
     paragraph (2) and detained by Palestinian or Israeli 
     authorities, information on--
       (A) the date each suspect was incarcerated;
       (B) whether any suspects have been released, the date of 
     such release, whether the Secretary considers the release 
     justified based on the evidence against the suspect, and 
     whether any released suspect was implicated in subsequent 
     acts of terrorism; and
       (C) the status of each case pending against a suspect, 
     including information on whether the suspect has been 
     indicted, prosecuted, or convicted by the Palestinian 
     Authority or Israel.
       (4) Statistics on the release by the Palestinian Authority 
     of terrorist suspects compared to the release of suspects in 
     other violent crimes.
       (5) The policy of the Department of State with respect to 
     offering rewards for information on terrorist suspects, 
     including any determination by the Department of State as to 
     whether a reward should be posted for suspects involved in 
     terrorist attacks in which United States citizens were either 
     killed or injured, and, if not, an explanation of why a 
     reward should not or has not been posted for a particular 
     suspect.
       (6) A list of each request by the United States for 
     assistance in investigating terrorist attacks against United 
     States citizens, a list of each request by the United States 
     for the transfer of terrorist suspects from the Palestinian 
     Authority and Israel, and the response to each request from 
     the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
       (7) A list of meetings and trips made by United States 
     officials to the Middle East to investigate cases of 
     terrorist attacks in the 7 years preceding the date of the 
     report.
       (8) A list of any terrorist suspects or those aiding 
     terrorists who are members of Palestinian police or security 
     forces, the Palestine Liberation Organization, or any 
     Palestinian governing body.
       (9) A list of all United States citizens killed or injured 
     in terrorist attacks in Israel or in territory administered 
     by Israel between 1948 and October 1, 1992, and a 
     comprehensive list of all suspects involved in such attacks 
     and their whereabouts.
       (10) The amount of compensation the United States has 
     requested for United States citizens, or their families, 
     injured or killed in attacks by terrorists in Israel, in 
     territory administered by Israel, or in territory 
     administered by the Palestine Authority, and, if no 
     compensation has been requested, an explanation of why such 
     requests have not been made.
       (b) Consultation With Other Departments.--The Secretary of 
     State shall, in preparing the report required by this 
     section, consult and coordinate with all other Government 
     officials who have information necessary to complete the 
     report.
       (c) Initial Report.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (a)(9), the initial report filed under this section shall 
     cover the 7 years preceding October 1, 1999.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     Committee'' means the Committees on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Warner, Mr. Torricelli, 
        Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Milulski, Mr. Smith 
        of Oregon, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Specter, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Robb, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Cleland, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Bryan):
  S. 1200. A bill to require equitable coverage of prescription 
contraceptive drugs and devices, and contraceptive

[[Page S6858]]

services under health plans; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


    Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Harry Reid, to reintroduce the Equity in Prescription 
Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act. We are back today, with the 
support of 30 Members of the Senate, to finish the work we began in the 
last Congress.
  Why are we back again this year? Because the need behind the Equity 
in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act has not 
abated. There are three million unintended pregnancies every year--half 
of all pregnancies that occur every year in this country. And 
frighteningly, approximately half of all unintended pregnancies end in 
abortion.
  I am firmly pro-choice and I believe in a woman's right to a safe and 
legal abortion when she needs this procedure. But I want abortion to be 
an option that a woman rarely needs. So how do we prevent this? How do 
we reduce the number of unintended pregnancies?
  The safest and most effective means of preventing unintended 
pregnancies are with prescription contraceptives. And while the vast 
majority of insurers cover prescription drugs, they treat prescription 
contraceptives very differently. In fact, half of large group plans 
exclude coverage of contraceptives. And only one-third cover oral 
contraceptives--the most popular form of reversible birth control.
  When one realizes the insurance ``carve-out'' for these prescriptions 
and related outpatient treatments, it is no longer a mystery why women 
spend 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs. No 
woman should have to forgo or rely on inexpensive and less effective 
contraceptives for purely economic reasons, knowing that she risks an 
unintended pregnancy.
  In last year's Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress instructed the 
health plans participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
Plan--the largest employer-sponsored health insurance plan in the 
world--to provide prescription contraceptive coverage if they cover 
prescription drugs as a part of their benefits package. The protections 
we afford to Members of Congress, their staff, other federal employees 
and annuitants, and to the approximately two million women of 
reproductive age who are participating in FEHBP need to be extended to 
the rest of the country.
  Unfortunately, the lack of contraceptive coverage in health insurance 
is not news to most women. Countless American women have been shocked 
to learn that their insurance does not cover contraceptives, one of 
their most basic health care needs, even though other prescription 
drugs which are equally valuable to their lives are routinely covered. 
Less than half--49 percent --of all large-group health care plans cover 
any contraceptive method at all and only 15 percent cover the five most 
common reversible birth control methods. HMOs are more likely to cover 
contraceptives, but only 39 percent cover all five reversible methods. 
And ironically, 86 percent of large group plans, preferred provider 
organizations, and HMOs cover sterilization and between 66 and 70 
percent of these different plans do cover abortion.
  The concept underlying EPICC is simple. This legislation says that if 
insurers cover prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover 
FDA-approved prescription contraceptives. And in conjunction with this, 
EPICC requires health plans which already cover basic health care 
services to also cover outpatient services related to prescription 
contraceptives.
  The bill does not require insurance companies to cover prescription 
drugs. What the bill does say is that if insurers cover prescription 
drugs, they cannot carve prescription contraceptives out of their 
formularies. And it says that insurers which cover outpatient health 
care services cannot limit or exclude coverage of the medical and 
counseling services necessary for effective contraceptive use.
  This bill is good health policy. By helping families to adequately 
space their pregnancies, contraceptives contribute to healthy 
pregnancies and healthy births, reduce rates of maternal complications, 
and reduces the possibility of low-birthweight births.
  Furthermore, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive 
Coverage Act makes good economic sense. We know that contraceptives are 
cost-effective: in the public sector, for every dollar invested in 
family planning, $4 to $14 is saved in health care and related costs. 
And all methods of reversible contraceptives are cost-effective when 
compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. A sexually active woman 
who uses no contraception costs the health care provider an average of 
$3,225 in a given year. The average cost of an uncomplicated vaginal 
delivery in 1993 was approximately $6,400. And for every 100 women who 
do not use contraceptives in a given year, 85 percent will become 
pregnant.
  Why do insurance companies exclude prescription contraceptive 
coverage from their list of covered benefits--especially when they 
cover other prescription drugs? The tendency of insurance plans to 
cover sterilization and abortion reflects, in part, their long-standing 
tendency to cover surgery and treatment over prevention. Sterilization 
and abortion is also cheaper. But insurers do not feel compelled to 
cover prescription contraceptives because they know that most women who 
lack contraceptive coverage will simply pay for them out of pocket. And 
in order to prevent an unintended pregnancy, a woman needs to be on 
some form of birth control for almost 30 years of her life.
  The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act 
tells insurance companies that we can no longer tolerate policies that 
disadvantage women and disadvantage our nation. When our bill is 
passed, women will finally be assured of equity in prescription drug 
coverage and health care services. And America's unacceptably high 
rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions will be reduced in the 
process.
  The philosophy behind the bill is that contraceptives should be 
treated no differently than any other prescription drug or device. It 
does not give contraceptives any type of special insurance coverage, 
but instead seeks to achieve equity of treatment and parity of 
coverage. For that reason, the bill specifies that if a plan imposes a 
deductible or cost-sharing requirement on prescription drugs or 
devices, it can impose the same deductible or cost-sharing requirement 
on prescription contraception. But it cannot charge a higher cost-
sharing requirement or deductible on contraceptives. Outpatient 
contraceptive services must also be treated similarly to general 
outpatient health care services.
  Time and time again Americans have expressed the desire for their 
leaders to come together to work on the problems that face us. This 
bill exemplifies that spirit of cooperation. It crosses some very wide 
gulfs and makes some very meaningful changes in policy that will 
benefit countless Americans.
  As someone who is pro-choice, I firmly believe that abortions should 
be safe, legal, and rare. Through this bill, I invite both my pro-
choice and pro-life colleagues to join with me in emphasizing the 
rare.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today, with Senator 
Snowe, the Equity in Prescription and Contraception Coverage Act of 
1999. Senator Snowe and I first introduced this bill in 1997.
  The legislation we introduce today would require insurers, HMO's and 
employee health benefit plans that offer prescription drug benefits to 
cover contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the FDA. Further, it 
would require these insurers to cover outpatient contraceptive services 
if a plan covers other outpatient services. Lastly, it would prohibit 
the imposition of copays and deductibles for prescription 
contraceptives or outpatient services that are greater than those for 
other prescription drugs.
  I hope that we have the success this year that we had last year in 
directing the Federal Health Benefit Plans to cover contraception. As 
many of you recall, after a tough fight, Congresswoman Lowey and I were 
able to amend the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill so that Federal 
Health Plans must cover FDA approved contraceptives.
  EPICC is about equality for women, healthy mothers and babies, and 
reducing the number of abortions that are

[[Page S6859]]

performed in this country each year. For all the advances women have 
made, they still earn 74 cents for every dollar a man makes and on top 
of that, they pay 68 percent more in out of pocket costs for health 
care than men. Reproductive health care services account for much of 
this 68 percent difference. You can be sure, if men had to pay for 
contraceptive drugs and devices, the insurance industry would cover 
them.
  The health industry has done a poor job of responding to women's 
health needs. According to a study done by the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute, 49 percent of all large-group health care plans do not 
routinely cover any contraceptive method at all, and only 15 percent 
cover all five of the most common contraceptive methods.
  Women are forced to use disposable income to pay for family planning 
services not covered by their health insurance--``the pill'' one of the 
most common birth control methods, can cost over $300 a year. Women who 
lack disposable income are forced to use less reliable methods of 
contraception and risk an unintended pregnancy.
  If our bill was only about equality in health care coverage between 
men and women, that would be reason enough to pass it. But our 
legislation also provides the means to reduce abortions, and have 
healthier mothers and babies. Each year approximately 3 million 
pregnancies, or 50 percent of all pregnancies, in this country are 
unintended. Of these unintended pregnancies, about half end in 
abortion.
  Reliable family planning methods must be made available if we wish to 
reduce this disturbing number.
  Ironically, abortion is routinely covered by 66 percent of indemnity 
plans, 67 percent of preferred provider organizations, and 70 percent 
of HMO's. Sterilization and tubal ligation are also routinely covered. 
It does not make sense financially for insurance companies to cover 
these more expensive services, rather than contraception. But insurance 
companies know that women will bear the costs of contraception 
themselves--and if they can not afford their method of choice, there 
are always less expensive means to turn to. Of course less expensive 
also means less reliable.
  This just seems like bad business to me. If a woman can not afford 
effective contraception, and she turns to a less effective method and 
gets pregnant, that pregnancy will cost the insurance company much more 
than it would cost them to prevent it. According to one recent study in 
the American Journal of Public Health, by increasing the number of 
women who use oral contraceptives by 15 percent, health plans would 
accrue enough savings in pregnancy care costs to cover oral 
contraceptives for all users under the plan. Studies indicate that for 
every dollar of public funds invested in family planning, four to 
fourteen dollars of public funds is saved in pregnancy and health care-
related costs. Not only will a reduction in unintended pregnancies 
reduce abortion rates, it will also lead to a reduction in low-birth 
weight, infant mortality and maternal morbidity.
  Low birth weight refers to babies who weigh less than 5.5 pounds at 
birth. How much a baby weighs at birth is directly related to the 
baby's survival, health and development. In Nevada, during the past 
decade, the percent of low birth weight babies has increased by 7 
percent. These figures are important because women who use 
contraception and plan for the birth of their baby are more likely to 
get prenatal care and lead a healthier life style. The infant mortality 
rate measures the number of babies who die during their first year of 
life. In Nevada, between the years of 1995 and 1997, the infant 
mortality rate was 5.9, this means that of the 77,871 babies born 
during this period, 459 infants died before they reached their first 
birthday. The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality 
determined that ``infant mortality could be reduced by 10 percent if 
all women not desiring pregnancy used contraception.''
  It is vitally important to the health of our country that quality 
contraception is not beyond the financial reach of women. Providing 
access to contraception will bring down the unintended pregnancy rate, 
insure good reproductive health for women, and reduce the number of 
abortions. It is a significant step, in my opinion, to have support 
from both pro-life and pro-choice Senators for this bill. Prevention is 
the common ground on which we can all stand. Let's begin to attack the 
problem of unintended pregnancies at its root.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 1201. A bill to prohibit law enforcement agencies from imposing a 
waiting period before accepting reports of missing persons between the 
ages of 18 and 21; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                             suzanne's law

 Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
to remedy what I believe is a significant shortcoming in federal law 
relating to missing person reports. My bill is entitled ``Suzanne's 
Law,'' to serve as a continuing reminder of the plight of Suzanne 
Lyall. Suzanne, a resident of Ballston Spa, New York, disappeared last 
year at age 19 during the course of her senior year at the State 
University of New York at Albany. All indications are that her 
disappearance was due to foul play. She has never been found, despite 
investigations by campus security, the local police, and the FBI. 
Suzanne's family, friends and relatives dearly miss her and have 
undertaken admirable efforts to secure improvements in campus security 
and in missing person reporting.
  The Lyall family has brought it to my attention that federal law 
currently prohibits state and local law enforcement officials from 
imposing a 24-hour waiting period before accepting a report regarding 
the disappearance of a person under the age of 18, yet it does not 
extend similar protection for reports of missing persons between the 
ages of 18 and 21. This is an oversight that must be remedied. Prompt 
action on the part of law enforcement authorities is of the essence in 
missing person cases. Thus, my bill would prohibit state and local law 
enforcement officials from imposing a 24-hour waiting period before 
accepting ``missing youth'' reports--defined as reports indicating that 
a person of at least 18 years of age and less than 21 years of age was 
missing under suspicious circumstances. Enactment of this legislation 
would enhance the prospects for family reunification in missing person 
cases and may spare other families the pain and sacrifice experienced 
by the Lyalls.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1202. A bill to require a warrant of consent before an inspection 
of land may be carried out to enforce any law administered by the 
Secretary of the Interior; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                private property protection act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Private Property 
Protection Act of 1999.
  This bill would require that Interior Department personnel obtain 
either the property owner's permission or a properly attained and legal 
search warrant before they enter someone's private property.
  America's law abiding private property owners, especially our 
ranchers and farmers, should not be subject to unwarranted trespassing 
and egregious random searches by federal bureaucrats. They deserve to 
be treated fairly and according to the law, just like other Americans. 
They deserve the same private property rights that other Americans 
enjoy.
  Under our legal system, if appropriate sworn law enforcement officers 
can demonstrate to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that 
a person has broken the law, and that there is a justified need to 
enter a property, then those law enforcement officials can obtain a 
search warrant to enter and search a private property. This is 
reasonable, just and how it should be. I have a firsthand understanding 
of this from the time I served as a Deputy Sheriff.
  However, all too often our ranchers, farmers and other private 
property owners are being denied these same basic legal property rights 
when it comes to federal employees operating under endangered species 
laws. Interior Department employees are trespassing on private property 
without the owner's permission or a search warrant. Many of these 
Interior Department employees who are trespassing have no sworn legal 
authority whatsoever.
  Disturbing incidents of federal agency personnel operating outside of 
the law, and willfully trespassing on private property without any 
legal just

[[Page S6860]]

cause, threatens to erode our fundamental property rights. One 
particular case that occurred in El Paso County, in my home state of 
Colorado, stands as a prime example.
  A February 5th, 1999 article entitled ``Federal employee pleads no 
contest to trespassing'' in the AG JOURNAL illustrates this El Paso 
County case. Last fall, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist 
pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree criminal trespassing. 
This individual is one of the many thousands employed by the Interior 
Department, and had no legal basis to be on a private ranch located 
near Colorado Springs. His sentence included a $138 fine and 30 hours 
of community service.
  I applaud the El Paso County District Attorney's Office for standing 
up to federal lawyers and pursuing this case to its rightful 
conclusion. It is a small but important victory for American private 
property owners. It also illustrates a disturbing ability of some 
federal employees to act as though they are above the law.
  Furthermore, the American taxpayers are picking up the tab for the 
legal defense of these trespassers. When I inquired with both the 
Interior Department and the Justice Department as to how much taxpayer 
money was spent to defend the convicted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
trespasser, they did not disclose the specific dollar amount. These 
agencies seem to be sending federal personnel the message: ``Go ahead 
and trespass on private property. If you get caught, we'll go ahead and 
fix it because we think that the benefits of trespassing outweigh the 
costs of getting caught.'' This is not acceptable.
  Unfortunately, the El Paso County incident is far from isolated. It 
is certain that every year, hundreds of private property owners, 
ranchers and farmers are subject to trespassing by federal employees. 
We will never know how many trespassing cases go unreported because 
Americans feel that they can not beat the federal government's 
bureaucrats and lawyers, and fear that if they do, there may be 
retribution.
  The Colorado Cattlemen's Association has written a letter of support 
for the Private Property Protection Act of 1999. I appreciate their 
support for this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1202

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

     SECTION 1. INSPECTIONS OF LAND TO ENFORCE LAWS ADMINISTERED 
                   BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

       (a) In General.--During fiscal year 2000 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, notwithstanding any law that authorizes any 
     officer or employee of the Department of the Interior to 
     enter private land for the purpose of conducting an 
     inspection or search and seizure for the purpose of enforcing 
     the law, any such officer or employee shall not enter any 
     private land without first obtaining--
       (1) a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; 
     or
       (2) the consent of the owner of the land.
       (b) Violation and Emergency Exception.--An officer or 
     employee of the Department of the Interior may enter private 
     land without meeting the conditions described in subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) for the purpose of enforcing the law, if the officer or 
     employee has reason to believe that a violation of law is 
     being committed; or
       (2) as required as part of an emergency response being 
     conducted by the Department of the Interior.
                                  ____



                             Colorado Cattlemen's Association,

                                         Arvada, CO, May 10, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: The Colorado Cattlemen's Association 
     (CCA) supports your efforts to amend the Endangered Species 
     Act which limits access to private property by federal 
     government employees or agents thereof, unless by court-
     issued warrant or the consent of the landowner.
       CCA is aware of documented instances in Colorado where 
     Department of Interior employees repeatedly trespassed onto 
     private lands to conduct endangered species surveys. CCA 
     needs your help to halt this practice! We would appreciate 
     your assistance in ensuring that private property rights and 
     trespass laws are obeyed. Thank you for your time and 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Freeman Lester,
     President.
                                  ____



                                         Colorado Farm Bureau,

                                      Englewood, CO, May 24, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: Colorado Farm Bureau strongly 
     supports legislation to require officers or employees of the 
     Department of the Interior to obtain a warrant or consent of 
     the landowner before conducting inspections or search and 
     seizure of private property. While our Bill of Rights 
     contains protection for property owners, the provision is 
     largely ignored in regard to the regulatory actions of the 
     Department of the Interior.
       Farm Bureau policy opposes allowing public access to or 
     through private property without permission of the property 
     owner or authorized agent. We support legislation that 
     requires federal officials to notify property owners and 
     obtain permission before going onto private lands.
       Property rights protection for farmers and ranchers is 
     critical to the success of their operations and future well 
     being. Farm Bureau supports your efforts to protect 
     landowners from the Interior Department entering their land 
     without permission or a warrant.
       Thank you for your continued support of agriculture.
           Sincerely,
                                              Roger Bill Mitchell,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mrs. Lincoln) (by request):
  S. 1203. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to extend 
authorizations of appropriations for programs under the Act through 
fiscal year 2004, to establish a National Family Caregiver Support 
Program, to modernize aging programs and services, to address the need 
to engage in life course planning, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                 older americans act amendments of 1999

 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Older Americans Act (OAA). 
The Older Americans Act is a vital program that meets the day-to-day 
needs of our nation's seniors. Through an aging network that involves 
57 state agencies on aging, 660 area agencies on aging, and 27,000 
service providers, the OAA provides countless services to our country's 
older Americans. The OAA was last reauthorized in 1992 and its 
authorization expired in 1995. The time is long overdue for Congress to 
reauthorize this program. That is why, as the Ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Aging, I am working with the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee to introduce a bipartisan bill in the Senate to 
reauthorize the OAA. That's why I am here today to introduce the 
Administration's plan to reauthorize the Act as a courtesy and to 
remind my fellow colleagues about the importance of passing an OAA 
reauthorization bill.
  Many Americans have not heard of the Older Americans Act. They've 
probably heard of Meals on Wheels and maybe they know about the senior 
center down the street. But our country's seniors who count on the 
services provided under the Act couldn't do without them. Whether it's 
congregate or home delivered meals programs, legal assistance, the 
long-term care ombudsman, information and assistance, or part-time 
community service jobs for low-income seniors. This Act covers 
everything from transportation to a doctor's appointment to a hot meal 
and companionship at a local senior center to elder abuse prevention.
  But we're not going to just settle for the status quo. We must make 
the most of this opportunity to modernize and improve the OAA to meet 
the needs of seniors. That's why I'm including the National Family 
Caregiver Support Program in this bill I'm introducing today. Through a 
partnership between states and area agencies on aging, this program 
will provide information about resources available to family 
caregivers; assistance to families in locating services; caregiver 
counseling, training, and peer support to help them deal with the 
emotional and physical stresses of caregiving; and respite care. We 
must get behind our nation's caregivers by helping those who practice 
self-help. Caregivers often put in a 36 hour day: taking care of the 
family, pursuing a career, caring for the senior who needs care, and 
finding the information on care and putting together a support system. 
We need to

[[Page S6861]]

support those who are providing this invaluable care.
  I want to reauthorize the OAA this year before the new millennium 
when our population over age 65 will more than double. I'm pleased that 
our colleagues in the House are moving in this direction as well. I 
urge my colleagues here in the Senate to act promptly once a bill is 
voted out of committee and support our nation's seniors by 
reauthorizing the Older Americans Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM:
  S. 1204. A bill to promote general and applied research for health 
promotion and disease prevention among the elderly, to amend title 
XVIII of the Social Security Act to add preventative benefits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                 healthy seniors promotion act of 1999

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction 
of the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.
  This bill has a clear, simple, yet profoundly important message. That 
message is, ``Preventive health care for the elderly works.''
  Regardless of your age, preventive health care improves quality of 
life. And despite common misperceptions, declines in health status are 
not inevitable with age. a healthier lifestyle, even one adopted later 
in life, can increase active life expectancy and decrease disability.
  The Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999 has a broad base of support 
from across the health care and aging communities, including the 
National Council on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, the 
American Heart Association, the American Council of the Blind, the 
American College of Preventive Medicine, the National Osteoporosis 
Foundation, and the Partnership for Prevention.
  This bill goes a long way toward changing the fundamental focus of 
the Medicare program from one that continues to focus on the treatment 
of illness and disability--a function which is reactionary--to one that 
is proactive and increases the attention paid to prevention for 
Medicare beneficiaries.
  This bill has 4 main components: First, the bill establishes the 
healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be spearheaded by 
an interagency workgroup within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, including the Health Care Financing Administration, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Health Care 
Policy Research, the National Institute on Aging, and the 
Administration on Aging.
  This working group, first and foremost, will bring together all the 
agencies within HHS that address the social, medical, and behavioral 
health issues affecting the elderly, and instructs them to undertake a 
series of actions which will serve to increase prevention-related 
services among the elderly.
  A major function of this working group will be to oversee the 
development, monitoring, and evaluation of an applied research 
initiative whose main goals will be to study: (1) The effectiveness of 
using different types of providers of care, as well as looking at 
alternative delivery settings, when delivering health promotion and 
disease prevention services, and (2) the most effective means of 
educating Medicare beneficiaries and providers regarding the importance 
of prevention and to examine ways to improve utilization of existing 
and future prevention-related services.
  Mr. President, this latter point is critical. The fact is that there 
are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare 
beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer 
screening. But those services are seriously underutilized.
  In a study published by Dartmouth University this spring--The 
Dartmouth Atlas of health Care 1999--it was found that only 28 percent 
of women age 65-69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of 
beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer.
  These are disturbing figures and they clearly demonstrate the need to 
find new and better ways to increase the rates of utilization of 
proven, demonstrated prevention services. Our bill would get us the 
information we need to increase rates of utilization for these 
services.
  A second major portion of this bill is the coverage of additional 
preventive services for the Medicare program. The services that I am 
including focus on some of the most prominent, underlying risk factors 
for illness that face all Medicare beneficiaries. This bill would 
include screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, 
screening for glaucoma, and counseling for hormone replacement therapy. 
Attacking these prominent risk factors would reduce Medicare 
beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, osteoporosis, 
heart disease, and blindness.
  How did we choose these risk factors? We turned to the experts. Based 
on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 
these prevention services represent the recommendations of the Task 
Force which is the nationally recognized body in the area of clinical 
prevention services.
  But simply screening or counseling for a preventive benefit is not 
enough. For example, to tell a 68-year-old woman that she ought to 
receive hormone replacement therapy in order to reduce her risk or 
osteoporosis and bone fractures from falls, and then to tell her you 
won't pay for the treatment makes no sense.
  Since falls and the resulting injuries are among the most serious and 
common medical problems suffered by the elderly--with nearly 80-90 
percent of hip fractures and 60-90 percent of forearm and spine 
fractures among women 65 and older estimated to be osteoporosis-
related--to sit idly by and not take the extra steps needed would be 
irresponsible.
  That is why, Mr. President, we are going the extra mile. The third 
major section of our bill includes a limited, prevention-related 
outpatient prescription drug benefit. This benefit directly mirrors the 
services I just described, plus it provides coverage of outpatient 
prescription drugs for the preventive services added to the Medicare 
program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997--e.g., mammograms, 
diabetes, colorectal cancer.
  For example, if a 70-year-old smoker is counseled by his physician to 
stop smoking, that individual will now have access to all necessary and 
appropriate outpatient prescription drugs used as part of an approved 
tobacco cessation program.
  By linking counseling and drug treatment, we increase the chances of 
success tremendously. For example, there is a 60 percent higher 
survival rate among individuals who quit smoking compared to smokers of 
all ages. And because the number of older people at risk for cancer and 
heart disease is higher, tobacco cessation has the potential to have a 
larger aggregate benefit among older persons.
  Our bill also provides outpatient drugs for the treatment of 
hypertension, hormone replacement therapy, osteoporosis and heart 
disease, and glaucoma. It also provides coverage of drugs stemming from 
the preventive services added by the Balanced Budget Act.
  While many of my colleagues would prefer to see a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit that is comprehensive in nature, the facts 
are that such a benefit is simply not affordable--$20+ billion per 
year--at this point in time. This bill is a down payment to current and 
future Medicare beneficiaries and provides them access to prescription 
drugs that will make a profound impact in their lives.
  Important to note, this bill also states that if the Administration 
moves forward with and prevails in its efforts to sue the tobacco 
industry for the recovery of funds paid by Federal programs such as 
Medicare for tobacco-related illness, that half of those funds would be 
used to add additional categories of drugs to this limited benefit.
  This bill would also instruct the Institute of Medicine to conduct a 
study that would, in part, create a prioritized list of prescription 
drugs that would be used to add new categories of drugs to the program, 
if and when, tobacco settlement funds become a reality in the future.
  Finally, the bill contains two important studies that will be 
conducted on a routine, periodic basis.
  The first study would require MedPAC to report to Congress every two 
years on how the Medicare program is, or is not, remaining competitive 
and modern in relationship to private sector health programs. This will

[[Page S6862]]

give the Congress [information it doesn't now have] the ability to 
assess, on an ongoing basis, how Medicare is faring in its efforts to 
modernize over time.
  The second study will again be conducted by the Institute of 
Medicine. The Institute of Medicine, with input from new, original 
research on prevention and the elderly that we will be funding through 
the National Institute on Aging, will conduct a study every 5 years to 
assess the preventive benefit package, including prescription drugs. 
The study will determine whether or not the preventive benefit package 
needs to be modified or changed based on the most current science. A 
critical component of this study will be the manner in which it is 
presented to Congress.
  To this end, I have borrowed a page from our Nation's international 
trade laws (The Trade Act of 1974) and developed a fast track proposal 
for the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. This is a deliberate 
effort, Mr. President, to finally get Congress out of the business of 
micro-managing the Medicare program and the medical and health care 
decisions within it. While limited to the preventive benefits package, 
this will offer a litmus test on a new and creative approach to future 
Medicare decision making. This provision would put the substantive 
decision making authority where it belongs, in the hands of the real 
experts, not the politicians and not the lobbyists who come to our 
offices every day. Congress, after some deliberation, would either have 
to accept or reject the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. A 
change, in my view, that would be a major, positive change in how we do 
business in this body.
  A few final thoughts. There are many here in Congress who argue that 
at a time when Medicare faces an uncertain financial future, this is 
the last time to be adding benefits to a program that can ill afford 
the benefits it currently offers. Normally I would agree with this 
assertion. But the issue of prevention is different. The old adage of 
``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' is very relevant 
here. Do preventive benefits ``cost'' money in terms of making them 
available? Sure they do. But the return on the investment, the 
avoidance of the pound of cure and the related improvement in quality 
of life is unmistakable.
  Along these lines, a longstanding problem facing lawmakers and 
advocates of prevention has been the position taken by the 
Congressional Budget Office, as they evaluate the budgetary impact of 
all legislative proposals, that only costs incurred by the Federal 
government over the next ten years can be considered in weighing the 
``cost'' of adding new benefits. From a public health and quality of 
life standpoint, this premise is unacceptable.
  Among the problems with this practice is that ``savings'' incurred by 
increasing the availability and utilization of preventive benefits 
often occur over a period of time greater than 10 years. And with the 
average lifespan of individuals whom are 65 being nearly 20 years--and 
individuals 85 and older are the fastest growing segment of the elder 
population--it only makes sense to look at services and benefits that 
improve the quality of their lives and reduce the costs to the Federal 
government for that 20-year lifespan and beyond.
  In addition to increased lifespan, a ten-year budget scoring window 
doesn't factor into consideration the impact of such services on the 
private sector, such as productivity and absenteeism, for the many 
seniors that continue working beyond age 65.
  The bottom line is, the most important reason to cover preventive 
services is to improve health. As the end of the century nears, 
children born now are living nearly 30 years longer than children born 
in 1900. While prevention services in isolation won't reduce costs, 
they will moderate increases in the utilization and spending on more 
expensive acute and chronic treatment services.
  I want to leave you with these last thoughts, Mr. President. As 
Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, several basic 
questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of 
the debate.
  (1) Is the value of improve quality of life worth the expenditure?
  (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to 
maintain healthy, functional and productive lives?
  (3) Do we, as a Nation, accept the premise that quality of life for 
our elderly is as important as any other measure of health?
  (4) If we can, in fact, delay the onset of disease for the Medicare 
population by improving access to preventive services and compliance 
with these services, how important is it to ensure that there is an 
overall saving to the system?
  These are just some of the questions we must answer in the coming 
debate over Medicare reform. While improving Medicare's financial 
outlook for future generations is imperative, we must do it in a way 
that gives our seniors the ability to live longer, healthier and valued 
lives. I believe that by pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses 
some of the most fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and 
disability that face seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution 
to the Medicare reform debate and, more importantly, to current and 
future generations of Medicare beneficiaries.
  I urge colleagues to support the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 
1999.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                   Partnership for Prevention,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I am writing on behalf of Partnership 
     for Prevention to express support for ``The Healthy Seniors 
     Promotion Act of 1999.'' Partnership is a national non-profit 
     organization committed to increasing the visibility and 
     priority for prevention within national health policy and 
     practice. Its diverse membership includes leading groups in 
     health, business and industry, professional and trade 
     associations.
       We believe prevention does work for all ages--a decline in 
     health status is not inevitable with age. A healthier 
     lifestyle adopted later in life can increase active life 
     expectancy and decrease disability. This is the time for 
     greater emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention 
     among older Americans. By delaying the onset of disease, we 
     expect to have a healthier elderly population living longer 
     lives and ultimately embracing Medicare's financial 
     stability.
       In this bill, your focus on specific prevention measures is 
     well supported by the existing literature. For individuals 
     over 65, the United States Preventive Services Task Force 
     recommends tobacco cessation counseling with access to 
     appropriate nicotine replacement or other appropriate 
     products to help the individual combat nicotine addiction; 
     hormone replacement therapy and hypertension screening with 
     access to the appropriate drug therapy for both conditions.
        A case can be made that dollar for dollar, prevention 
     services offer an invaluable return on the investment for the 
     Medicare eligible population especially when compared to 
     treatment costs. We need more information on these issues and 
     hope to work closely with the Institute of Medicine to 
     determine additional changes to the Medicare system in the 
     future.
       I would like to highlight one additional issue. Partnership 
     for Prevention supports using a significant portion of any 
     funds recouped by the Federal Government from the tobacco 
     industry for tobacco control and prevention. Public and 
     private direct expenditures to treat health problems caused 
     by tobacco use total more than $70 billion annually and 
     Medicare pays more than $10 billion of that amount.
       Applying a significant portion of this money will decrease 
     tobacco use and reduce the cost to the Medicare program in 
     the future.
       Prevention services may moderate increases in health care 
     use and spending. We believe this country should be able to 
     reach a consensus around the importance of maintaining the 
     quality of life and social contribution of our seniors and we 
     applaud your initiative in moving this issue forward.
           Sincerely,
                                        William L. Roper, MD, MPH,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                       American Heart Association,


                        Office of Communications and Advocacy,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The American Heart Association 
     applauds your efforts in the ``Healthy Seniors Promotion 
     Act'' to modernize the Medicare system by addressing both 
     coverage for preventative screening and counseling, as well 
     as access to prescription drugs for senior citizens.
       Science continues to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
     preventative care. Because it has not kept pace with the 
     changing science, Medicare is an antiquated system to treat

[[Page S6863]]

     the sick, rather than a modern healthcare system to maintain 
     the health of the elderly. Counseling and drug therapy for 
     smoking cessation, hypertension screening and drug treatment 
     and counseling for hormone replacement therapy are important 
     services that the American Heart Association believes ought 
     to be included in a modern healthcare benefits plan. The 
     association believes that hormone replacement therapy 
     counseling is important because the science related to HRT 
     and cardiovascular risk is still evolving.
       As you know, the American Heart Association is dedicated to 
     reducing death and disability from heart disease and stroke. 
     Each year, cardiovascular disease claims more than 950,000 
     lives. In 1999, the health care and lost productivity costs 
     associated with cardiovascular disease are estimated to total 
     $286.5 billion.
       To achieve our mission of reducing the burden of this 
     devastating disease, we are committed to ensuring that 
     patients have access to quality health care, including the 
     medical treatment necessary to effectively prevent and 
     control disease. For too long, senior citizens have had to 
     work with an outdated healthcare delivery system.
       Thank you for your leadership in the fight to modernize 
     Medicare. The American Heart Association looks forward to 
     continuing to work with you to ensure that senior citizens 
     have access to preventive services and affordable 
     prescription drugs.
           Sincerely,
                                               Diane Canova, Esq.,
     Vice President, Advocacy.
                                  ____



                              The American Geriatrics Society,

                                       New York, NY, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) 
     strongly supports your bill, the Healthy Seniors Promotion 
     Act of 1999. The AGS thanks you for introducing this 
     important legislation that will provide comprehensive 
     preventive health benefits to the elderly.
       The AGS is comprised of more than 6,000 physicians and 
     other health professionals that treat frail elderly patients 
     with chronic diseases and complex health needs.
       As you know, preventive health care for the elderly can 
     improve quality of life and delay functional decline. 
     However, the current Medicare program does not cover 
     substantive preventive health services. Your bill authorizes 
     Medicare coverage of new preventive services as well as a 
     prevention-related outpatient drug benefit. In this way, your 
     bill would change the Medicare program from one that treats 
     illness and disability to one that focuses on health 
     promotion and disease prevention for Medicare beneficiaries. 
     As the organization that represents physicians that treat 
     only the elderly, we believe that this is a long overdue and 
     critical program reform.
       We applaud your long interest in Medicare prevention and we 
     look forward to working with you on legislation that will 
     enable the elderly to live longer, more productive, and 
     healthier lives.
           Sincerely,
                                          Jospeh G. Ouslander, MD,
     President.
                                  ____



                            The National Council on the Aging,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Hart Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the National Council on 
     the Aging (NCOA), I write to express our organization's 
     support for the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.
       NCOA strongly believes that increased attention must be 
     focused on actions and techniques intended to prevent illness 
     or disability. It is easier to prevent disease than it is to 
     cure it. The time has come to take action that would broaden 
     and further coordinate federal programs such as Medicare 
     related to health promotion.
       Disease prevention, including access to health promotion 
     activities, protocols, and regimens for older and disabled 
     persons--should be included as an essential component 
     throughout the continuum of care.
       NCOA supports expanding the Medicare program to include 
     coverage of a full range of preventive services, prevention 
     education, and counseling, as well as prescription drugs. 
     Your proposal is a significant step in achieving these 
     objectives on a cost effective basis, in a manner which will 
     dramatically improve the quality of the lives of millions of 
     older Americans.
       We deeply appreciate your strong leadership in the area of 
     preventive care. NCOA looks forward to working with you and 
     your staff to pass the Healthy Seniors Promotion Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Howard Bedlin,
     Vice President, Public Policy and Advocacy.
                                  ____



                                American Council of the Blind,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Senator Robert Graham,
     Hart Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham. The American Council of the Blind is 
     pleased to have the opportunity to support the Healthy 
     Seniors Promotion Act. This legislation contains provisions 
     for expanded Medicare coverage that are needed by a large 
     number of visually impaired persons in this country, namely, 
     coverage for glaucoma screening and medications.
       The American Council of the Blind is a national 
     organization of persons who are blind and visually impaired. 
     Many of our members are seniors who have lost their vision 
     due to glaucoma, diabetes or macular degeneration. In fact, 
     this is the fastest growing segment of our membership. The 
     expansion of Medicare coverage proposed in this bill would 
     benefit these individuals by alleviating some of the 
     financial burdens faced by those who have already developed 
     conditions that cause vision loss, and giving peace of mind 
     to those who can still take measures to prevent the onset of 
     vision loss. We congratulate you for your foresight in 
     proposing these measures and look forward to working with you 
     to see that this legislation is approved by both houses of 
     congress and signed into law by the president.
       Thank you very much.
           Respectfully,
                                                  Melanie Brunson,
     Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs.
                                  ____



                             National Osteoporosis Foundation,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The National Osteoporosis Foundation 
     is pleased to offer its support for ``The Healthy Seniors 
     Promotion Act of 1999''. We applaud your foresight regarding 
     preventive health care and support your efforts to reduce, 
     for example, stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, and 
     blindness.
           Sincerely,
                                             Bente E. Cooney, MSW,
     Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                               American College of


                                          Preventive Medicine,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Senator Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: The American College of Preventive 
     Medicine is pleased to express its enthusiastic support for 
     the ``Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.'' Your 
     introduction of this bill underscores what preventive 
     medicine professionals have known for many years, namely, 
     that the benefits of preventive services for older Americans 
     are just as great as for younger Americans. For many seniors, 
     access to high quality preventive services can add years to 
     life and life to years.
       Your bill adds to the list of services covered by Medicare 
     several services that we know to be effective in preventing 
     serious disease. After an exhaustive and rigorous review of 
     the scientific literature, the U.S. Preventive Services Task 
     Force--considered by many to be the gold standard in 
     determining the effectiveness of clinical preventive 
     services--has identified a number of services for older 
     Americans that are effective in preventing disease. These 
     include tobacco cessation counseling, hypertension screening, 
     and counseling on the benefits and risks of hormone 
     replacement therapy--all of which would be covered under the 
     ``Healthy Seniors Promotion Act of 1999.''
       Your bill also helps ensure that important research gaps 
     concerning preventive services for seniors are filled. It is 
     incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that Medicare's 
     preventive benefit package reflects the latest scientific 
     research on the effectiveness of preventive services.
       Basing coverage decisions on what the science tells us is 
     effective is sound national health care policy. The American 
     College of Preventive Medicine, which represents physicians 
     concerned with health promotion and disease prevention, 
     stands ready to assist you in working toward passage of this 
     forward-looking and important bill.
           Sincerely,
                                      George K. Anderson, MD, MPH,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1207. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure 
that income averaging for farmers not increase a farmer's liability for 
the alternative minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.


                      the farmer tax fairness act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farmer Tax 
Fairness Act, along with my farm state colleagues, Senators Burns and 
Hagel. This legislation is a targeted provision that will help ensure 
that farmers have access to tax benefits rightfully owed to them.
  As you know, farmers' income often fluctuates from year to year based 
on unforeseen weather or market conditions. Income averaging allows 
farmers to ride out these unpredictable circumstances by spreading out 
their income over a period of years. Last year, we acted in a 
bipartisan manner to make income averaging a permanent provision of the 
tax code. Unfortunately, since that time, we have learned that, due to 
interaction with another tax code provision, the Alternative Minimum 
Tax (AMT), many of

[[Page S6864]]

our nation's farmers have been unfairly denied the benefits of this 
important accounting tool.
  As you know, the AMT was originally designed to ensure that all 
taxpayers, particularly those eligible for certain tax preferences, 
paid a minimum level of taxes. Due to inflation and the enactment of 
other tax provisions, more and more Americans are now subject to the 
AMT. While other reforms are required to keep the AMT focused on its 
original mission, our legislation addresses the specific concern of 
farmers relying on income averaging. Under our legislation, if a 
farmer's AMT liability is greater than taxes due under the income 
averaging calculation, that farmer would disregard the AMT and pay 
taxes according to the averaging calculation. In this way, farmers 
would still pay tax, but would also have access to tools designed to 
alleviate the inevitable ups and downs of the agricultural economy.
  This provision is a modest and reasonable measure designed to ensure 
farmers are treated fairly when it comes time to file their taxes. I 
urge my colleague to lend their support. Thank you.
  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. 1207

       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 ``Farmer Tax Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. INCOME AVERAGING FOR FARMERS NOT TO INCREASE 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 55(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining regular tax) is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Coordination with income averaging for farmers.--
     Solely for purposes of this section, section 1301 (relating 
     to averaging of farm income) shall not apply in computing the 
     regular tax.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1208. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for 
charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                           CHARITABLE MILEAGE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce modest legislation 
that will eliminate controversy between the IRS and people who use 
their automobiles to perform charitable work.
  Two years, ago I was successful in convincing my colleagues that the 
standard mileage rate for charitable activities should be raised to 14 
cents a mile. I would have preferred that the mileage rate would have 
been set higher, but at least this was a step in the right direction.
  It has recently come to my attention that if a charity reimburses a 
volunteer at a rate higher than 14 cents a mile, the volunteer must 
include such higher reimbursement in income. Thus, for example, if a 
person uses his car for a voluntary food delivery program or for 
patient transportation and the charity reimburses the volunteer 25 
cents a mile, the individual would have 11 cents of income. That is 
absurd, Mr. President, especially when one considers that if a person 
was performing the same service as an employee of a company, the person 
could be reimbursed tax-free at the rate of 31 cents a mile.
  I understand that there have been cases where volunteer drivers have 
been audited and subjected to back taxes, penalties, and interest 
because of unreported volunteer mileage reimbursement, even though that 
reimbursement did not exceed the allowable business rate and the dollar 
amounts were quite small. Does IRS have nothing better to do than audit 
such individuals?
  My bill would eliminate this problem. It provides that all charitable 
volunteer mileage reimbursement is non-taxable income to the extent 
that it does not exceed the standard business mileage rate and 
appropriate records are kept. It is important to note that my bill does 
not increase the allowable deduction claimed by volunteers who are not 
reimbursed by a charity.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1208

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

     SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS 
                   EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating 
     section 139 as section 140 and by inserting after section 138 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Gross income of an individual does not 
     include amounts received, from an organization described in 
     section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating expenses with 
     respect to use of a passenger automobile for the benefit of 
     such organization. The preceding sentence shall apply only to 
     the extent that such reimbursement would be deductible under 
     this chapter if section 274(d) were applied--
       ``(1) by using the standard business mileage rate 
     established under such section, and
       ``(2) as if the individual were an employee of an 
     organization not described in section 170(c).
       ``(b) No Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to any expenses if the individual claims a 
     deduction or credit for such expenses under any other 
     provision of this title.
       ``(c) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041 
     shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from 
     income under subsection (a).''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 139 and inserting the 
     following new items:

``Sec. 139. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for charity.
``Sec. 140. Cross reference to other Acts.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1209. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 
pension limits to equitable levels, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                Modifications to the Section 415 Limits

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
on behalf of workers who have responsibly saved for retirement through 
collectively bargained, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. I 
am pleased to be joined by Senators Stevens and Santorum in sponsoring 
this bill. This legislation would raise the Section 415 limits and 
ensure that workers are not unfairly penalized in the amount they may 
receive when they retire.
  Under the current rules, for some workers, benefit cutbacks resulting 
from the current rules means that they will not be able to retire when 
they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with 
less income to live on.
  The bill that I am introducing today will give all of these workers 
relief from the most confiscatory provisions of Section 415 and enable 
them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings.
  Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of Section 
415 on government employee pension plans. Most recently, as part of the 
Tax Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and the Small Business Jobs 
Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188), we exempted government 
employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain 
early retirement limits, and from other provisions of Section 415. 
Other relief for government employee plans was included in earlier 
legislation amending Section 415.
  Section 415 was enacted more then two decades ago when the pension 
world was quite different than it is today. The Section 415 limits were 
designed to place limits on pensions that could be received by highly 
paid executives. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood 
this original design on its head. The limits are forcing cutbacks in 
the pensions of middle income workers.
  Section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker in a defined 
benefit

[[Page S6865]]

pension plans to the lessor of: (1) the worker's average annual 
compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was 
the highest [the ``compensation-based limit'']; and (2) a dollar limit 
that is sharply reduced for retirement before the worker's Social 
Security normal retirement age.
  The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a 
plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate 
pension plans. Unfortunately, that formula does not work properly when 
applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which 
cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits 
on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered 
employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute 
to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan 
have no relationship to the wages received by a worker form the 
contributing employers. The same benefits level is paid to all workers 
with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of 
their individual wage histories.
  A second assumption underlying the compensation-based limit is that 
workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so 
that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive 
years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate 
world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer 
plan industries like building and construction, workers' wage earnings 
typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables, 
including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is 
unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's 
wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these 
fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many 
multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the 
Section 415 compensation-based limit for the workers is artificially 
low; lower than it would be if they were covered by corporate plans.
  Thus, the premises on which the compensation-based limit is founded 
do not fit the reality of workers covered by multiemployer plans. And, 
the limit should not apply.
  This bill would exempt workers covered by multiemployer plans from 
the compensation-based limit, just as government employees are now 
exempt.
  Section 415's dollar limits have also been forcing severe cutbacks in 
the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension 
plans before they reach age 65.
  Construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under 
harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than in most 
other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer 
pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered workers by 
providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that 
provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit.
  Section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar 
limit is severely reduced for each year younger than the Social 
Security normal retirement age that a worker is when he retires. For a 
worker who retires at age 50, the reduced dollar limit is now about 
$40,000 per year.
  This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under 
which the worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding 
retirement age. A multiemployer plan participant worn out after years 
of physical challenge who is forced into early retirement is 
nonetheless subject to a reduced limit. A construction worker who, 
after 30 years of demanding labor, has well earned a 30-and-out service 
pension at age 50 is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit.
  This bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by 
extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more 
favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee 
pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for 
a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the 
reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to 
multiemployer plans.
  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. 1209

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever 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 Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL RETIREMENT PLAN LIMITS.

       (a) Defined Benefit Plans.--
       (1) Dollar limit.--
       (A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 415(b)(1) 
     (relating to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended 
     by striking ``$90,000'' and inserting ``$180,000''.
       (B) Age adjustments.--Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 
     415(b)(2) are each amended by striking ``$90,000'' each place 
     it appears in the headings and the text and inserting 
     ``$180,000''.
       (C) Collectively bargained plans.--Paragraph (7) of section 
     415(b) (relating to benefits under certain collectively 
     bargained plans) is amended by striking ``the greater of 
     $68,212 or one-half the amount otherwise applicable for such 
     year under paragraph (1)(A) for `$90,000' '' and inserting 
     ``one-half the amount otherwise applicable for such year 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for `$180,000' ''.
       (2) Limit reduced when benefit begins before age 62.--
     Subparagraph (C) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears 
     in the heading and text and inserting ``age 62''.
       (3) Limit increased when benefit begins after age 65.--
     Subparagraph (D) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears 
     in the heading and text and inserting ``age 65''.
       (4) Multiemployer plans and plans maintained by governments 
     and tax exempt organizations.--Subparagraph (F) of section 
     415(b)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Multiemployer plans and plans maintained by 
     governments and tax exempt organizations.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of a governmental plan 
     (within the meaning of section 414(d)), a plan maintained by 
     an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from 
     tax under this subtitle, a multiemployer plan (as defined in 
     section 414(f)), or a qualified merchant marine plan, 
     subparagraph (C) shall be applied as if the last sentence 
     thereof read as follows: `The reduction under this 
     subparagraph shall not reduce the limitation of paragraph 
     (1)(A) below (i) $130,000 if the benefit begins at or after 
     age 55, or (ii) if the benefit begins before age 55, the 
     equivalent of the $130,000 limitation for age 55.'.
       ``(ii) Definitions.--For purposes of this subparagraph--

       ``(I) Qualified merchant marine plan.--The term `qualified 
     merchant marine plan' means a plan in existence on January 1, 
     1986, the participants in which are merchant marine officers 
     holding licenses issued by the Secretary of Transportation 
     under title 46, United States Code.
       ``(II) Exempt organization plan covering 50 percent of its 
     employees.--A plan shall be treated as a plan maintained by 
     an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from 
     tax under this subtitle if at least 50 percent of the 
     employees benefiting under the plan are employees of an 
     organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from tax 
     under this subtitle. If less than 50 percent of the employees 
     benefiting under a plan are employees of an organization 
     (other than a governmental unit) exempt from tax under this 
     subtitle, the plan shall be treated as a plan maintained by 
     an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from 
     tax under this subtitle only with respect to employees of 
     such an organization.''

       (5) Cost-of-living adjustments.--Subsection (d) of section 
     415 (related to cost-of-living adjustments) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``$90,000'' and 
     inserting ``$180,000'', and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``$90,000'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``$180,000'', and
       (ii) by striking ``October 1, 1986'' and inserting ``July 
     1, 1999''.
       (b) Defined Contribution Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 415(c)(1) 
     (relating to limitation for defined contribution plans) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) the participants' compensation.''
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 415(n)(2)(B) is amended 
     by striking ``percentage''.
       (c) Cost-of-Living Adjustments.--
       (1) Plans maintained by governments and tax exempt 
     organizations.--Paragraph (1) of section 415(d) (as amended 
     by subsection (a)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of subparagraph (B), by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
     subparagraph (D), and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) the $130,000 amount in subsection (b)(2)(F), and''
       (2) Base period.--Paragraph (3) of section 415(d) (as 
     amended by subsection (a)) is amended by redesignating 
     subparagraph (D)

[[Page S6866]]

     as subparagraph (E) and by inserting after subparagraph (C) 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) $130,000 amount.--The base period taken into account 
     for purposes of paragraph (1)(C) is the calendar quarter 
     beginning July 1, 1999.''
       (3) Rounding rule relating to defined benefit plans.--
     Paragraph (4) of section 415(d) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) Rounding.--
       ``(A) $180,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (A) 
     or (D) of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $5,000 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
       ``(B) $130,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (C) 
     of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $1,000 shall be 
     rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.''
       (4) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
     415(d)(3) (as amended by paragraph (2)) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraph (1)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (1)(D)''.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415.

       (a) Compensation Limit.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) 
     (relating to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(11) Special limitation rule for governmental and 
     multiemployer plans.--In the case of a governmental plan (as 
     defined in section 414(d)) or a multiemployer plan (as 
     defined in section 414(f)), subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply.''
       (b) Combining and Aggregation of Plans.--
       (1) Combining of plans.--Subsection (f) of section 415 
     (relating to combining of plans) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Exception for multiemployer plans.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1) and subsection (g), a multiemployer plan (as 
     defined in section 414(f)) shall not be combined or 
     aggregated with any other plan maintained by an employer for 
     purposes of applying the limitations established in this 
     section, except that such plan shall be combined or 
     aggregated with another plan which is not such a 
     multiemployer plan solely for purposes of determining whether 
     such other plan meets the requirements of subsection 
     (b)(1)(A).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment for aggregation of plans.--
     Subsection (g) of section 415 (relating to aggregation of 
     plans) is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in subsection (f)(3), the Secretary''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to years 
     beginning after December 31, 1999.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murkowski in 
introducing a measure that will fix a problem with the pension limits 
in section 415 of the tax code as they relate to multiemployer pension 
plans.
  This is a problem I have been trying to fix for years, and I hope we 
can resolve this issue during this Congress.
  Section 415, as it currently stands, deprives workers of the pensions 
they deserve.
  In 1996, Congress addressed part of the problem by relieving public 
employees from the limits of section 415.
  It is only proper that Congress does the same for private workers 
covered by multiemployer plans.
  Section 415 negatively impacts workers who have various employers.
  Currently, the pension level is set at the employee's highest 
consecutive 3-year average salary.
  With fluctuations in industry, sometimes employees have up and down 
years rather than steady increases in their wages.
  This can skew the 3-year salary average for the employee, resulting 
in a lower pension when the worker retires.
  I would like to offer an example of section 415's impact to 
illustrate how unfairly the current law treats workers in multiemployer 
plans.
  Assume we are talking about a worker employed for 15 years by a local 
union and her highest annual salary was $15,600.
  The worker retires and applies for pension benefits from the two 
plans by which she was covered by virtue of her previous employment.
  The worker had earned a monthly benefit of $1,000 from one plan and a 
monthly benefit of $474 from the second plan for a total monthly income 
of $1,474, or $17,688 per year.
  The worker looked forward to receiving this full amount throughout 
her retirement.
  However, the benefits had to be reduced by $202 per month, or about 
$2,400 per year to match her highest annual salary of $15,600.
  The so-called ``compensation based limit'' of section 415 of the Tax 
Code did not take into account disparate benefits, but intended only to 
address workers with a single employer likely to receive steady 
increases in salary.
  Currently section 415 limits a worker's pension to an equal amount of 
the worker's average salary for the three consecutive years when the 
worker's salary was the highest.
  Instead of receiving the $17,688 per year pension that the worker had 
earned under the pension plans' rules, the worker can receive only 
$15,253 per year.
  If the worker were a public employee covered by a public plan, her 
pension would not be cut.
  This is because public pension plans are not restricted by the 
compensation-based limit language of section 415.
  This robs employees of the money they have earned simply because they 
were not a public employee.
  We are always looking for ways to encourage people to save for 
retirement and we try to educate people of the fact that relying on 
Social Security alone will not be enough.
  Yet we penalize many private sector employees in multiemployer plans 
by arbitrarily limiting the amount of pension benefits they can 
receive.
  It is wrong, and it should be fixed.
  In addition, by changing the law to allow workers to receive the full 
pension benefits they are entitled to, we will see more money flowing 
to the treasury.
  This is because greater pensions to retirees means greater retirement 
income, much of which is subject to taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to support us in fixing this problem once and 
for all and I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this 
issue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE:
  S. 1210. A bill to assist in the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species of fauna and flora found throughout the world; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


          foreign endangered species conservation act of 1999

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today 
that will offer a new tool for the conservation of imperiled species 
throughout the world. This legislation would establish a fund to 
provide financial assistance for conservation projects for these 
species, which often receive little, if any, help.
  The primary Federal law protecting imperiled species is the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Of the 1700 species that are endangered 
or threatened under the ESA, more than 560--approximately one-third--
are foreign species residing outside the United States. However, the 
general protections of the ESA do not apply overseas, nor does the 
Administration prepare recovery plans for foreign species.
  The primary multilateral treaty protecting endangered and threatened 
species is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES identifies more than 30,000 
species to be protected through restrictions on trade in their parts 
and products. It does not address other threats facing these species.
  Consequently, the vast majority of endangered or threatened species 
throughout the world receive little, if any, funding by the United 
States. Presently, three grants programs exist for specific species--
African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinos, and tigers. In FY 1999, 
they received an aggregate of $1.9 million. Other small conservation 
programs exist in India, Mexico, China, and Russia under agreements 
with those countries. However, no program addresses the general need to 
conserve imperiled species in foreign countries.
  This need could not be greater. Recently, much deserved attention has 
been given to the decline of primate populations in both Africa and 
Asia as a result of habitat loss and poaching to supply a trade of 
bushmeat. These species vitally need funding to arrest their serious 
declines.
  Numerous other species in the same rainforests across Africa and 
Asia, as well as the rainforests of the Americas, also face threats 
relating to habitat loss. Habitats as varied as the alpine reaches of 
the Himalayas, the bamboo forests of China, and tropical coral reef 
systems are all home to species facing the threat of extinction, such 
as the snow leopard, the panda and sea turtles. While the charismatic 
mega-fauna receive the most public attention, the vast multitude of 
species continue to

[[Page S6867]]

slip steadily towards extinction without even any public awareness.
  A new grants program would be a powerful tool to begin to address the 
critical needs of these species, and would fill a significant gap in 
existing efforts. Such a program would be similar to the programs for 
elephants, rhinos and tigers, but would apply to any imperiled species. 
The existing programs have proven tremendously successful, particularly 
in creating local, long-term capacity within the foreign country to 
protect these species. The bill that I introduce today would build on 
these successful programs.
  Specifically, the bill establishes a fund to support projects to 
conserve endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. The 
projects must be approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the 
Agency for International Development. Priority is to be given to 
projects that enhance conservation of the most imperiled species, that 
provide the greatest conservation benefit, that receive the greatest 
level of non-Federal funding, and that enhance local capacity for 
conservation efforts. The bill authorizes appropriations of $16 million 
annually for 4 years, 2001 to 2005, with $12 million authorized for the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and $4 million for the National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this worthwhile initiative. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1210

       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 ``Foreign Endangered Species 
     Conservation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) numerous species of fauna and flora in foreign 
     countries have continued to decline to the point that the 
     long-term survival of those species in the wild is in serious 
     jeopardy;
       (2) many of those species are listed as endangered species 
     or threatened species under section 4 of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) or in Appendix I, II, or 
     III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
     Species of Wild Fauna and Flora;
       (3) there are insufficient resources available for 
     addressing the threats facing those species, which will 
     require the joint commitment and effort of foreign countries 
     within the range of those species, the United States and 
     other countries, and the private sector;
       (4) the grant programs established by Congress for tigers, 
     rhinoceroses, Asian elephants, and African elephants have 
     proven to be extremely successful programs that provide 
     Federal funds for conservation projects in an efficient and 
     expeditious manner and that encourage additional support for 
     conservation in the foreign countries where those species 
     exist in the wild; and
       (5) a new grant program modeled on the existing programs 
     for tigers, rhinoceroses, and elephants would provide an 
     effective means to assist in the conservation of foreign 
     endangered species for which there are no existing grant 
     programs.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to conserve 
     endangered and threatened species of fauna and flora in 
     foreign countries, and the ecosystems on which the species 
     depend, by supporting the conservation programs for those 
     species of foreign countries and the CITES Secretariat, 
     promoting partnerships between the public and private 
     sectors, and providing financial resources for those programs 
     and partnerships.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Foreign 
     Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Account 
     established by section 6.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Agency for International Development.
       (3) CITES.--The term ``CITES'' means the Convention on 
     International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
     Flora, done at Washington March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087; TIAS 
     8249), including its appendices and amendments.
       (4) Conservation.--The term ``conservation'' means the use 
     of methods and procedures necessary to bring a species to the 
     point at which there are sufficient populations in the wild 
     to ensure the long-term viability of the species, including--
       (A) protection and management of populations of foreign 
     endangered or threatened species;
       (B) maintenance, management, protection, restoration, and 
     acquisition of habitat;
       (C) research and monitoring;
       (D) law enforcement;
       (E) conflict resolution initiatives; and
       (F) community outreach and education.
       (5) Foreign endangered or threatened species.--The term 
     ``foreign endangered or threatened species'' means a species 
     of fauna or flora--
       (A) that is listed as an endangered or threatened species 
     under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533) or that is listed in Appendix I, II, or III of 
     CITES; and
       (B) whose range is partially or wholly located in a foreign 
     country.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as program 
     responsibilities are vested under Reorganization Plan No. 4 
     of 1970 (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 4. FOREIGN SPECIES CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of funds, the 
     Secretary shall use amounts in the Account to provide 
     financial assistance for projects for the conservation of 
     foreign endangered or threatened species in foreign countries 
     for which project proposals are approved by the Secretary in 
     accordance with this section.
       (b) Project Proposals.--
       (1) Eligible applicants.--A proposal for a project for the 
     conservation of foreign endangered or threatened species may 
     be submitted to the Secretary by--
       (A) any agency of a foreign country that has within its 
     boundaries any part of the range of the foreign endangered or 
     threatened species if the agency has authority over fauna or 
     flora and the activities of the agency directly or indirectly 
     affect the species;
       (B) the CITES Secretariat; or
       (C) any person with demonstrated expertise in the 
     conservation of the foreign endangered or threatened species.
       (2) Required information.--A project proposal shall 
     include--
       (A) the name of the individual responsible for conducting 
     the project, and a description of the qualifications of each 
     individual who will conduct the project;
       (B) the name of the foreign endangered or threatened 
     species to benefit from the project;
       (C) a succinct statement of the purposes of the project and 
     the methodology for implementing the project, including an 
     assessment of the status of the species and how the project 
     will benefit the species;
       (D) an estimate of the funds and time required to complete 
     the project;
       (E) evidence of support for the project by appropriate 
     governmental agencies of the foreign countries in which the 
     project will be conducted, if the Secretary determines that 
     such support is required for the success of the project;
       (F) information regarding the source and amount of non-
     Federal funds available for the project; and
       (G) any other information that the Secretary considers to 
     be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project 
     for funding under this Act.
       (c) Proposal Review and Approval.--
       (1) Request for additional information.--If, after 
     receiving a project proposal, the Secretary determines that 
     the project proposal is not complete, the Secretary may 
     request further information from the person or entity that 
     submitted the proposal before complying with the other 
     provisions of this subsection.
       (2) Request for comments.--The Secretary shall request 
     written comments, and provide an opportunity of not less than 
     30 days for comments, on the proposal from the appropriate 
     governmental agencies of each foreign country in which the 
     project is to be conducted.
       (3) Submission to administrator.--The Secretary shall 
     provide to the Administrator a copy of the proposal and a 
     copy of any comments received under paragraph (2). The 
     Administrator may provide comments to the Secretary within 30 
     days after receipt of the copy of the proposal and any 
     comments.
       (4) Decision by the secretary.--After taking into 
     consideration any comments received in a timely manner from 
     the governmental agencies under paragraph (2) and the 
     Administrator under paragraph (3), the Secretary may approve 
     the proposal if the Secretary determines that the project 
     promotes the conservation of foreign endangered or threatened 
     species in foreign countries.
       (5) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after receiving 
     a completed project proposal, the Secretary shall provide 
     written notification of the Secretary's approval or 
     disapproval under paragraph (4) to the person or entity that 
     submitted the proposal and the Administrator.
       (d) Priority Guidance.--In funding approved project 
     proposals, the Secretary shall give priority to the following 
     types of projects:
       (1) Projects that will enhance programs for the 
     conservation of foreign endangered and threatened species 
     that are most imperiled.
       (2) Projects that will provide the greatest conservation 
     benefit for a foreign endangered or threatened species.
       (3) Projects that receive the greatest level of assistance, 
     in cash or in-kind, from non-Federal sources.
       (4) Projects that will enhance local capacity for the 
     conservation of foreign endangered and threatened species.
       (e) Project Reporting.--Each person or entity that receives 
     assistance under this

[[Page S6868]]

     section for a project shall submit to the Secretary and the 
     Administrator periodic reports (at such intervals as the 
     Secretary considers necessary) that include all information 
     required by the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Administrator, for evaluating the progress and success of the 
     project.
       (f) Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, after providing public notice and 
     opportunity for comment, the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall each develop guidelines to 
     carry out this section.
       (2) Priorities and criteria.--The guidelines shall 
     specify--
       (A) how the priorities for funding approved projects are to 
     be determined; and
       (B) criteria for determining which species are most 
     imperiled and which projects provide the greatest 
     conservation benefit.

     SEC. 5. MULTILATERAL COLLABORATION.

       The Secretary, in collaboration with the Secretary of State 
     and the Administrator, shall--
       (1) coordinate efforts to conserve foreign endangered and 
     threatened species with the relevant agencies of foreign 
     countries; and
       (2) subject to the availability of appropriations, provide 
     technical assistance to those agencies to further the 
     agencies' conservation efforts.

     SEC. 6. FOREIGN ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 
                   CONSERVATION ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the 
     Multinational Species Conservation Fund of the Treasury a 
     separate account to be known as the ``Foreign Endangered and 
     Threatened Species Conservation Account'', consisting of--
       (1) amounts donated to the Account;
       (2) amounts appropriated to the Account under section 7; 
     and
       (3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Account under subsection (c).
       (b) Expenditures From Account.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may expend from the Account, without further Act of 
     appropriation, such amounts as are necessary to carry out 
     section 4.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--An amount not to exceed 6 
     percent of the amounts in the Account--
       (A) shall be available for each fiscal year to pay the 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out this Act; and
       (B) shall be divided between the Secretary of the Interior 
     and the Secretary of Commerce in the same proportion as the 
     amounts made available under section 7 are divided between 
     the Secretaries.
       (c) Investment of Amounts.--The Secretary shall invest such 
     portion of the Account as is not required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       (d) Acceptance and Use of Donations.--The Secretary may 
     accept and use donations to carry out this Act. Amounts 
     received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall be 
     available until expended, without further Act of 
     appropriation.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Account for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005--
       (1) $12,000,000 for use by the Secretary of the Interior; 
     and
       (2) $4,000,000 for use by the Secretary of Commerce.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT:
  S. 1211. A bill to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of 
salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


   COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Reauthorization Act of 1999. 
This legislation will reauthorize the funding of this program to a 
level of $175 million and will permit these important projects to 
continue forward for several years.
  I do this because the Colorado River is the life link for more than 
23 million people. It provides irrigation water for more than 4 million 
acres of land in the United States. Therefore, the quality of the water 
is crucial.
  Salinity is one of the major problems affecting the quality of the 
water. Salinity damages range between $500 million and $750 million and 
could exceed $1.5 billion per year if future increases in salinity are 
not controlled. In an effort to limit future damages, the Basin States 
(Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) 
and the Federal Government enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
Control Act in 1974. Because the lengthy Congressional authorization 
process for Bureau of Reclamation projects was impeding the 
implementation of cost-effective measures, Congress authorized the 
Bureau in 1995 to implement a competitive, basin-wide approach for 
salinity control.
  Under the new approach, termed the Basinwide Program salinity control 
projects were no longer built by the Federal Government. They were, for 
the most part, to be built by the private sector and local and state 
governments. Funds would be awarded to projects on a competitive bid 
basis. Since this was a pilot program, Congress originally limited 
funds to a $75 million ceiling.
  Indeed, the Basinwide Salinity Program has far exceeded original 
expectations by proving to be both cost effective and successful. It 
has an average cost of $27 per ton of salt controlled, as compared to 
original authority program projects that averaged $76 per ton. One of 
the greatest advantages of the new program comes from the integration 
of Reclamation's program with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
program. By integrating the USDA's on-farm irrigation improvements with 
the Bureau's off-farm improvements, very high efficiency rates can be 
obtained.
  Because the cost sharing partners (private organizations and states 
and federal agencies) often have funds available at specific times, the 
new program allows the Bureau of Reclamation to quickly respond to 
opportunities that are time sensitive. Another significant advantage of 
the Basinwide program is that completed projects are ``owned'' by the 
local entity, and not the Bureau. The entity is responsible for 
performing under the proposal negotiated with the Bureau.
  In 1998, Bureau of Reclamation received a record number of proposals. 
While still working through the 1998 proposals, the Bureau also sought 
out 1999 proposals which are just now being received and evaluated. 
Although, not all proposals will be fully funded and constructed, 
funding requirements for even the most favorable projects surpasses the 
original $75 million funding authority. In fact, if all proposals go to 
completion and are fully funded, the Bureau might find itself in the 
position that no future requests for proposals can be considered until 
Congress raises the authorization ceiling. In an effort to prevent that 
from occurring, I am introducing this legislation today. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in this effort and I look forward to working on 
this legislation with them.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1212. A bill to restrict United States assistance for certain 
reconstruction efforts in the Balkans region of Europe to United 
States-produced articles and services; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


              kosovo reconstruction investment act of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Kosovo 
Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999.
  This legislation would require that the United States foreign aid 
funds committed to the reconstruction of Kosovo and other parts of the 
Balkans in the wake of the Kosovo conflict will be used to purchase 
American-made goods and services whenever possible.
  This legislation provides a win-win approach to reconstruction by 
helping the people of Kosovo and others who live in the Balkans who 
have suffered as a result of the Kosovo conflict while also looking out 
for American workers.
  The people of Kosovo and the Balkans will win by having new homes, 
hospitals, factories, bridges, and much more rebuilt. They will have 
roofs over their heads, places to go for health care and to work, and 
the roads and bridges needed to get there.
  The American people will win as a sizable portion of their hard-
earned taxpayer dollars will come back to the United States in the form 
of new orders for American-made goods and services. New jobs will be 
created. With this legislation we can make the best out of a looming, 
costly, and long-term burden on our Nation's budget.
  This will be especially important for some of our key industries, 
such as agriculture and steel, that are facing hard times here at home. 
Other hard-working Americans from industries like manufacturing, 
engineering, construction, and telecommunications will also enjoy new 
opportunities to produce goods and services for the people of 
Southeastern Europe.
  For example, our ranchers and farmers, many of whom are being 
severely harmed by a combination of tough

[[Page S6869]]

competition at home, cheap imports and closed markets overseas will 
benefit. This bill will help provide them with the opportunity to 
strengthen their share in Europe's Southeastern markets.
  Our steel workers, many of whom are also in a tough situation, will 
benefit as U.S. made steel is used to reconstruct homes, hospitals, 
factories, and bridges. American engineers, contractors, and other 
service providers will play a key role in rebuilding telecommunications 
and other necessary infrastructure projects.
  To ensure that the Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act does not 
unduly hinder the reconstruction effort, it allows for American foreign 
aid funds to be used to buy goods and services produced by other 
parties in cases where U.S. made goods and services are deemed to be 
``prohibitively expensive.''
  The American taxpayers are already bearing the lion's share of waging 
the war in Kosovo. To date, our nation's military has spent about $3 
billion Kosovo war effort. Our pilots flew the vast majority of the 
combat sorties. In addition, the Foreign Operations supplemental 
appropriations bill that passed last month provided $819 million for 
humanitarian and refugee aid for Kosovo and surrounding countries. It 
has been estimated that peace keeping operations will cost an 
additional $3 billion in the first year alone. This is just the 
beginning. In the future, American taxpayers will be spending many tens 
of billions of dollars more as we participate in the apparently open-
ended peacekeeping effort.
  Without this legislation, those countries who largely sat on the 
sidelines while we fought will be allowed to sweep in and clean up. The 
American taxpayers' dollars should not be used as a windfall profits 
program to boost Western European conglomerates. The American people 
deserve better. The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act of 1999 would 
remedy this situation.
  Yet another problem this bill would help alleviate is our exploding 
trade deficit which is on track to an all time high of approximately 
$250 billion by the end of this year. In March of this year alone, the 
United States posted a record 1 month trade deficit of $19.7 billion.
  Furthermore, many of the other industrialized countries that 
regularly distribute foreign aid do not distribute it with no strings 
attached. For many years now, countries like Japan have also required 
that the foreign aid funds they distribute be used to buy products 
produced by their domestic companies.
  We also must face the reality that there is much more to rebuilding 
this region than money can buy. The various ethnic groups residing 
throughout the Balkans must realize that they have to change their 
hearts and ways if there is to be any lasting peace and prosperity. We 
cannot do this for them. They have to do it for themselves, as 
communities, families, and individuals.
  If they commit themselves to rule of law, freedom of speech, free and 
open markets, the primacy of the ballot box over bullets and a live and 
let live tolerance of others, they will be well on their way as they 
head into the new millennium.
  Once again, here we are reconstructing a part of Europe. Once again, 
we did not start the war, but we had to finish it and then were called 
on to come in, pick up the pieces, and put them back together again.
  If America's airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers are good enough 
to win a war, then America's hard-working taxpayers, including farmers, 
steel workers, and engineers are good enough to help rebuild shattered 
countries. If we are called on to put the Balkans back together, we 
should do it with a fair share of goods and services made in America.
  The Kosovo Reconstruction Investment Act will help make sure that 
both the victims of the Kosovo conflict and the American people win. I 
urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1212

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

     SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   CERTAIN RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS IN THE BALKANS 
                   REGION.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     part of any United States assistance furnished for 
     reconstruction efforts in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 
     or any contiguous country, on account of the armed conflict 
     or atrocities that have occurred in the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia since March 24, 1999, may consist of, or be used 
     for the procurement of, any article produced outside the 
     United States or any service provided by a foreign person.
       (2) Determinations of foreign produced articles.--In the 
     application of paragraph (1), determinations of whether an 
     article is produced outside the United States or whether a 
     service is provided by a foreign person should be made 
     consistent with the standards utilized by the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce in its United 
     States balance of payments statistical summary with respect 
     to comparable determinations.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if doing so 
     would require the procurement of any article or service that 
     is prohibitively expensive or unavailable.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Article.--The term ``article'' includes any 
     agricultural commodity, steel, construction material, 
     communications equipment, construction machinery, farm 
     machinery, or petrochemical refinery equipment.
       (2) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.--The term ``Federal 
     Republic of Yugoslavia'' means the Federal Republic of 
     Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and includes Kosovo.
       (3) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' means any 
     foreign national, including any foreign corporation, 
     partnership, other legal entity, organization, or association 
     that is beneficially owned by foreign nationals or controlled 
     in fact by foreign nationals.
       (4) Produced.--The term ``produced'', with respect to an 
     item, includes any item mined, manufactured, made, assembled, 
     grown, or extracted.
       (5) Service.--The term ``service'' includes any 
     engineering, construction, telecommunications, or financial 
     service.
       (6) Steel.--The term ``steel'' includes the following 
     categories of steel products: semifinished, plates, sheets 
     and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail type 
     products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and tubes, 
     iron ore, and coke products.
       (7) United states assistance.--The term ``United States 
     assistance'' means any grant, loan, financing, in-kind 
     assistance, or any other assistance of any kind.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1213. A bill to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


              indian child welfare act amendments of 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to ensure stricter 
enforcement of timelines and fairness in Indian adoption proceedings. 
The primary intent of this legislation is to make the process that 
applies to voluntary Indian child custody and adoption proceedings more 
consistent, predictable, and certain. The provisions of this 
legislation would further advance the best interests of Indian children 
without eroding tribal sovereignty and the fundamental principles of 
Federal-Indian law.

  I thank the principal cosponsors, Senators Campbell and Domenici, for 
their continued support of this much-needed legislation. Let me also 
point out that this bill is identical to legislation which passed the 
Senate by unanimous consent in 1996. It is the result of nearly two 
years of discussion and debate among representatives of the adoption 
community, Indian tribal governments, and the Congress that aimed to 
address some of the problems with the implementation of ICWA since its 
enactment in 1978.
  Mr. President, ICWA was originally enacted to provide for procedural 
and substantive protection for Indian children and families and to 
recognize and formalize a substantial role for Indian tribes in cases 
involving involuntary and voluntary child custody proceedings, whether 
on or off the Indian reservation. It was also supposed to reduce 
uncertainties about which court had jurisdiction over an Indian child 
and who had what authority to influence child placement decisions. 
Although implementation of ICWA has been less than perfect, in the vast 
majority of cases ICWA has effectively provided the necessary 
protections. It has encouraged State and private adoption agencies and 
State courts to make extra efforts before removing Indian children from 
their homes and communities. It has required recognition by

[[Page S6870]]

everyone involved that an Indian child has a vital, long-term interest 
in keeping a connection with his or her Indian tribe.
  Nonetheless, particularly in the voluntary adoption context, there 
have been occasional, high-profile cases which have resulted in 
lengthy, protracted litigation causing great anguish for the children, 
their adoptive families, their birth families, and their Indian tribes. 
This bill takes a measured and limited approach, crafted by 
representatives of tribal governments and the adoption community, to 
address these problems.
  This legislation would achieve greater certainty and speed in the 
adoption process for Indian children by providing new guarantees of 
early and effective notice in all cases involving Indian children. The 
bill also establishes new, strict time restrictions on both the right 
of Indian tribes and birth families to intervene and the right of 
Indian birth parents to revoke their consent to an adoptive placement. 
Finally, the bill includes a provision which would encourage early 
identification of the relatively few cases involving controversy and 
promote the settlement of cases by making visitation agreements 
enforceable.
  Mr. President, nothing is more sacred and more important to our 
future than our children. The issues surrounding Indian child welfare 
stir deep emotions. I am thankful that, in formulating the compromise 
that led to the introduction of this bill, the representatives of both 
the adoption community and tribal governments were able to put aside 
their individual desires and focus on the best interests of Indian 
children.
  This bill represents an appropriate and fair-minded compromise 
proposal which would enhance the best interests of Indian children by 
guaranteeing speed, certainty, and stability in the adoption process. 
At the same time, the provisions of this bill preserve fundamental 
principles of Federal-Tribal law by recognizing the appropriate role of 
tribal governments in the lives of Indian children.
  Mr. President, I believe these amendments would have been enacted 
several years ago had we been better able to dispel several 
misconceptions about the bill's purpose. I want to directly address one 
of these misplaced concerns--that the adoptive placement preferences in 
the underlying law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, would somehow 
lead an expectant mother seeking privacy to prefer abortion over 
adoption.
  I want to be very clear when I say that it is my judgment, concurred 
in by Indian tribes, adoption advocates and many others involved with 
implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act, that this bill has 
everything to do with promoting adoption opportunities for Indian 
children and nothing to do with promoting abortion. It is a terrible 
injustice that such a misunderstanding has clouded the efforts of so 
many who wish to simply improve the chances for Indian children to 
enjoy a stable family life.
  Over the years, I have had a consistently pro-life record and have 
actively worked with many pro-life groups to try to reduce and 
eliminate abortions at every possible opportunity. I firmly believe 
that this bill would make adoption, rather than abortion, a more 
compelling choice for an expectant birth mother. What could be more 
pro-life and pro-family than to change the law in ways which both 
Indian tribes and non-Indian adoptive families have asked to improve 
the adoption process? I strongly believe this bill, and the amendments 
it makes to the ICWA law, will work to the advantage of Indian children 
and adoptive families. It will encourage adoptions and discourage 
choices which lead to the tragedy of abortion.
  A recent editorial by George F. Will in the Washington Post (``For 
Right-to-Life Realists'') underscores the importance of promoting 
legislative efforts, such as this bill, as good policy for protecting 
children and promoting families. He wrote:

       Temperate people on both sides of the abortion divide can 
     support a requirement for parental notification, less as 
     abortion policy than as sound family policy.
       . . . Republicans will be the party of adoption, removing 
     all laws and other impediments, sparing no expense, to 
     achieving a goal more noble even than landing on the moon--
     adoptive parents for every unwanted unborn baby.

  Mr. President, this bill has been thoroughly analyzed and debated in 
the Senate, as well as among the adoption community and Indian tribal 
governments. I believe it is time for the Congress to act in the best 
interests of Indian children by enacting these amendments to the 
voluntary adoption procedures in the 1978 ICWA law. I urge my 
colleagues to once again pass these amendments and invite the House to 
do the same this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1213

       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 ``Indian Child Welfare Act 
     Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

       Section 101(a) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1911(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) An Indian tribe shall retain exclusive jurisdiction 
     over any child custody proceeding that involves an Indian 
     child, notwithstanding any subsequent change in the residence 
     or domicile of the Indian child, in any case in which the 
     Indian child--
       ``(A) resides or is domiciled within the reservation of 
     that Indian tribe and is made a ward of a tribal court of 
     that Indian tribe; or
       ``(B) after a transfer of jurisdiction is carried out under 
     subsection (b), becomes a ward of a tribal court of that 
     Indian tribe.''.

     SEC. 3. INTERVENTION IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.

       Section 101(c) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1911(c)) is amended by striking ``In any State court 
     proceeding'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 
     103(e), in any State court proceeding''.

     SEC. 4. VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.

       Section 103(a) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a)(1) Where any parent or Indian custodian voluntarily 
     consents to foster care or preadoptive or adoptive placement 
     or to termination of parental rights, such consent shall not 
     be valid unless--
       ``(A) executed in writing;
       ``(B) recorded before a judge of a court of competent 
     jurisdiction; and
       ``(C) accompanied by the presiding judge's certificate 
     that--
       ``(i) the terms and consequences of the consent were fully 
     explained in detail and were fully understood by the parent 
     or Indian custodian; and
       ``(ii) any attorney or public or private agency that 
     facilitates the voluntary termination of parental rights or 
     preadoptive or adoptive placement has--
       ``(I) informed the natural parents of the placement options 
     with respect to the child involved;
       ``(II) informed those parents of the applicable provisions 
     of this Act; and
       ``(III) certified that the natural parents will be notified 
     within 10 days after any change in the adoptive placement.'';
       (2) by striking ``The court shall also certify'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) The court shall also certify'';
       (3) by striking ``Any consent given prior to,'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Any consent given prior to,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) An Indian custodian who has the legal authority to 
     consent to an adoptive placement shall be treated as a parent 
     for the purposes of the notice and consent to adoption 
     provisions of this Act.''.

     SEC. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT.

       Section 103(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Any''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4), a consent to 
     adoption of an Indian child or voluntary termination of 
     parental rights to an Indian child may be revoked, only if--
       ``(A) no final decree of adoption has been entered; and
       ``(B)(i) the adoptive placement specified by the parent 
     terminates; or
       ``(ii) the revocation occurs before the later of the end 
     of--
       ``(I) the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     tribe of the Indian child receives written notice of the 
     adoptive placement provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d); or
       ``(II) the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     parent who revokes consent receives notice of the 
     commencement of the adoption proceeding that includes an 
     explanation of the revocation period specified in this 
     subclause.
       ``(3 Immediately upon an effective revocation under 
     paragraph (2), the Indian child who is the subject of that 
     revocation shall be returned to the parent who revokes 
     consent.
       ``(4) Subject to paragraph (6), if, by the end of the 
     applicable period determined under subclause (I) or (II) of 
     paragraph (2)(B)(ii), a

[[Page S6871]]

     consent to adoption or voluntary termination of parental 
     rights has not been revoked, a parent may revoke such consent 
     after that date only--
       ``(A) pursuant to applicable State law; or
       ``(B) if the parent of the Indian child involved petitions 
     a court of competent jurisdiction, and the court finds that 
     the consent to adoption or voluntary termination of parental 
     rights was obtained through fraud or duress.
       ``(5) Subject to paragraph (6), if a consent to adoption or 
     voluntary termination of parental rights is revoked under 
     paragraph (4)(B), with respect to the Indian child involved--
       ``(A) in a manner consistent with paragraph (3), the child 
     shall be returned immediately to the parent who revokes 
     consent; and
       ``(B) if a final decree of adoption has been entered, that 
     final decree shall be vacated.
       ``(6) Except as otherwise provided under applicable State 
     law, no adoption that has been in effect for a period longer 
     than or equal to 2 years may be invalidated under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 6. NOTICE TO INDIAN TRIBES

       Section 103(c) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) A party that seeks the voluntary placement of an 
     Indian child or the voluntary termination of the parental 
     rights of a parent of an Indian child shall provide written 
     notice of the placement or proceeding to the tribe of that 
     Indian child. A notice under this subsection shall be sent by 
     registered mail (return receipt requested) to the tribe of 
     the Indian child, not later than the applicable date 
     specified in paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (3), notice shall 
     be provided under paragraph (1) by the applicable date 
     specified in each of the following cases:
       ``(i) Not later than 100 days after any foster care 
     placement of an Indian child occurs.
       ``(ii) Not later than 5 days after any preadoptive or 
     adoptive placement of an Indian child.
       ``(iii) Not later than 10 days after the commencement of 
     any proceeding for a termination of parental rights to an 
     Indian child.
       ``(iv) Not later than 10 days after the commencement of any 
     adoption proceeding concerning an Indian child.
       ``(B) A notice described in subparagraph (A)(ii) may be 
     provided before the birth of an Indian child if a party 
     referred to in paragraph (1) contemplates a specific adoptive 
     or preadoptive placement.
       ``(3) If, after the expiration of the applicable period 
     specified in paragraph (2), a party referred to in paragraph 
     (1) discovers that the child involved may be an Indian 
     child--
       ``(A) the party shall provide notice under paragraph (1) 
     not later than 10 days after the discovery; and
       ``(B) any applicable time limit specified in subsection (e) 
     shall apply to the notice provided under subparagraph (A) 
     only if the party referred to in paragraph (1) has, on or 
     before commencement of the placement, made reasonable inquiry 
     concerning whether the child involved may be an Indian 
     child.''.

     SEC. 7. CONTENT OF NOTICE.

       Section 103(d) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Each written notice provided under subsection (c) 
     shall be based on a good faith investigation and contain the 
     following:
       ``(1) The name of the Indian child involved, and the actual 
     or anticipated date and place of birth of the Indian child.
       ``(2) A list containing the name, address, date of birth, 
     and (if applicable) the maiden name of each Indian parent and 
     grandparent of the Indian child, if--
       ``(A) known after inquiry of--
       ``(i) the birth parent placing the child or relinquishing 
     parental rights; and
       ``(ii) the other birth parent (if available); or
       ``(B) otherwise ascertainable through other reasonable 
     inquiry.
       ``(3) A list containing the name and address of each known 
     extended family member (if any), that has priority in 
     placement under section 105.
       ``(4) A statement of the reasons why the child involved may 
     be an Indian child.
       ``(5) The names and addresses of the parties involved in 
     any applicable proceeding in a State court.
       ``(6)(A) The name and address of the State court in which a 
     proceeding referred to in paragraph (5) is pending, or will 
     be filed; and
       ``(B) the date and time of any related court proceeding 
     that is scheduled as of the date on which the notice is 
     provided under this subsection.
       ``(7) If any, the tribal affiliation of the prospective 
     adoptive parents.
       ``(8) The name and address of any public or private social 
     service agency or adoption agency involved.
       ``(9) An identification of any Indian tribe with respect to 
     which the Indian child or parent may be a member.
       ``(10) A statement that each Indian tribe identified under 
     paragraph (9) may have the right to intervene in the 
     proceeding referred to in paragraph (5).
       ``(11) An inquiry concerning whether the Indian tribe that 
     receives notice under subsection (c) intends to intervene 
     under subsection (e) or waive any such right to intervention.
       ``(12) A statement that, if the Indian tribe that receives 
     notice under subsection (c) fails to respond in accordance 
     with subsection (e) by the applicable date specified in that 
     subsection, the right of that Indian tribe to intervene in 
     the proceeding involved shall be considered to have been 
     waived by that Indian tribe.''.

     SEC. 8. INTERVENTION BY INDIAN TRIBE.

       Section 103 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1913) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) The tribe of the Indian child involved shall have 
     the right to intervene at any time in a voluntary child 
     custody proceeding in a State court only if--
       ``(A) in the case of a voluntary proceeding to terminate 
     parental rights, the Indian tribe sent a notice of intent to 
     intervene or a written objection to the adoptive placement to 
     the court or to the party that is seeking the voluntary 
     placement of the Indian child, not later than 30 days after 
     receiving notice that was provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d); or
       ``(B) in the case of a voluntary adoption proceeding, the 
     Indian tribe sent a notice of intent to intervene or a 
     written objection to the adoptive placement to the court or 
     to the party that is seeking the voluntary placement of the 
     Indian child, not later than the later of--
       ``(i) 90 days after receiving notice of the adoptive 
     placement that was provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d); or
       ``(ii) 30 days after receiving a notice of the voluntary 
     adoption proceeding that was provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the tribe 
     of the Indian child involved shall have the right to 
     intervene at any time in a voluntary child custody proceeding 
     in a State court in any case in which the Indian tribe did 
     not receive written notice provided in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsections (c) and (d).
       ``(B) An Indian tribe may not intervene in any voluntary 
     child custody proceeding in a State court if the Indian tribe 
     gives written notice to the State court or any party involved 
     of--
       ``(i) the intent of the Indian tribe not to intervene in 
     the proceeding; or
       ``(ii) the determination by the Indian tribe that--
       ``(I) the child involved is not a member of, or is not 
     eligible for membership in, the Indian tribe, or
       ``(II) neither parent of the child is a member of the 
     Indian tribe.
       ``(3) If an Indian tribe files a motion for intervention in 
     a State court under this subsection, the Indian tribe shall 
     submit to the court, at the same time as the Indian tribe 
     files that motion, a tribal certification that includes a 
     statement that documents, with respect to the Indian child 
     involved, the membership or eligibility for membership of 
     that Indian child in the Indian tribe under applicable tribal 
     law.
       ``(f) Any act or failure to act of an Indian tribe under 
     subsection (e) shall not--
       ``(1) affect any placement preference or other right of any 
     individual under this Act;
       ``(2) preclude the Indian tribe of the Indian child that is 
     the subject of an action taken by the Indian tribe under 
     subsection (e) from intervening in a proceeding concerning 
     that Indian child if a proposed adoptive placement of that 
     Indian child is changed after that action is taken; or
       ``(3) except as specifically provided in subsection (e), 
     affect the applicability of this Act.
       ``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     proceeding for a voluntary termination of parental rights or 
     adoption of an Indian child may be conducted under applicable 
     State law before the date that is 30 days after the tribe of 
     the Indian child receives notice of that proceeding that was 
     provided in accordance with the requirements of subsections 
     (c) and (d).
       ``(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including 
     any State law)--
       ``(1) a court may approve, if in the best interests of an 
     Indian child, as part of an adoption decree of that Indian 
     child, an agreement that states that a birth parent, an 
     extended family member, or the tribe of the Indian child 
     shall have an enforceable right of visitation or continued 
     contact with the Indian child after the entry of a final 
     decree of adoption; and
       ``(2) the failure to comply with any provision of a court 
     order concerning the continued visitation or contact referred 
     to in paragraph (1) shall not be considered to be grounds for 
     setting aside a final decree of adoption.''.

     SEC. 9. PLACEMENT OF INDIAN CHILDREN.

       Section 105(c) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 
     U.S.C. 1915(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``Indian child or parent'' and inserting 
     ``parent or Indian child''; and
       (B) by striking the colon after ``considered'' and 
     inserting a period;
       (2) by striking ``Provided, That where'' and inserting: 
     ``In any case in which''; and
       (3) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``In any case in which a court determines that it is 
     appropriate to consider the preference of a parent or Indian 
     child, for purposes of subsection (a), that preference may be 
     considered to constitute good cause.''.

     SEC. 10. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION.

       Title I of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 
     1911 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S6872]]

     ``SEC. 114. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION.

       ``(a) In General.--With respect to any proceeding subject 
     to this Act involving an Indian child or a child who may be 
     considered to be an Indian child for purposes of this Act, a 
     person, other than a birth parent of the child, shall, upon 
     conviction, be subject to a criminal sanction under 
     subsection (b) if that person knowingly and willfully--
       ``(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
     scheme, or device, a material fact concerning whether, for 
     purposes of this Act--
       ``(A) a child is an Indian child; or
       ``(B) a parent is an Indian;
       ``(2)(A) makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement, omission, or representation; or
       ``(B) falsifies a written document knowing that the 
     document contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or entry relating to a material fact described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(3) assists any person in physically removing a child 
     from the United States in order to obstruct the application 
     of this Act.
       ``(b) Criminal Sanctions.--The criminal sanctions for a 
     violation referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
       ``(1) For an initial violation, a person shall be fined in 
     accordance with section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, 
     or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
       ``(2) For any subsequent violation, a person shall be fined 
     in accordance with section 3571 of title 18, United States 
     Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Robb, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Roth, and 
        Mr. Bayh):
  S. 1214. A bill to ensure the liberties of the people by promoting 
federalism, to protect the reserved powers of the States, to impose 
accountability for Federal preemption of State and local laws, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee 
has 30 days to report or be discharged.


               THE FEDERALISM ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1999

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the 
``Federalism Accountability Act,'' a bill to promote and preserve 
principles of federalism. Federalism raises two fundamental questions 
that policy makers should answer: What should government be doing? And 
what level of government should do it? Everything else flows from them. 
That's why federalism is at the heart of our Democracy.
  The Founders created a dual system of governance for America, 
dividing power between the Federal Government and the States. The Tenth 
Amendment makes clear that States retain all governmental power not 
granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Founders 
intended that the State and Federal governments would check each 
other's encroachment on individual rights. As Alexander Hamilton stated 
in the Federalist Papers, No. 28:

       Power being almost always the rival of power, the general 
     government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations 
     of the state governments, and these will have the same 
     disposition towards the general government. The people, by 
     throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make 
     it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they 
     can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

  The structure of our constitutional system assumes that the states 
will maintain a sovereign status independent of the national 
government. At the same time, the Supremacy Clause states that Federal 
laws made pursuant to the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the 
land. The ``Federalism Accountability Act'' is intended to require 
careful thought and accountability when we reconcile the competing 
principles embodied in the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. 
Congress and the Executive Branch should not lightly exercise the 
powers conferred by the Supremacy Clause without also shouldering 
responsibility. As the Supreme Court has been signaling in recent 
decisions, where the authority exists, the democratic branches of the 
Federal Government should make the primary decisions whether or not to 
limit state power, and they ought to exercise this power unambiguously.
  We need to face the fact that Congress and the Executive Branch too 
often have acted as if they have a general police power to engage in 
any issue, no matter how local. Both Congress and the Executive Branch 
have neglected to consider prudential and constitutional limits on 
their powers. We should not forget that even where the Federal 
Government has the constitutional authority to act, state governments 
may be better suited to address certain matters. Congress has a habit 
of preempting State and local law on a large scale, with little thought 
to the consequences. Congress and the White House are ever eager to 
pass federal criminal laws to appear responsive to highly publicized 
events. We are now finding that this often is not only unnecessary and 
unwise, but it also has harmful implications for crime control.
  Too often, federalism principles have been ignored. The General 
Accounting Office reported to our Committee that there has been gross 
noncompliance by the agencies with the executive order on federalism 
that has been law since it was issued by President Reagan in 1987. In a 
review of over 11,000 Federal rules recently issued during a 3-year 
period, GAO found that the agencies had prepared only 5 federalism 
assessments under the federalism order. It is time for legislation to 
ensure that the agencies take such requirements more seriously.
  To be sure, we have made some inroads on federalism. The Supreme 
Court has recently revived federalist doctrines. Congress passed the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to help discourage the wholesale passage 
of new legislative unfunded mandates. Congress also gave the States the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, reduced agency micro-management, and provided 
block grants in welfare, transportation, drug prevention, and--just 
recently--education flexibility. Much of the innovation that has 
improved the country began at the State and local level.
  But unless we really understand that federalism is the foundation of 
our governmental system, these bright achievements will fade. As we 
cross into the 21st century, federalism must constantly illuminate our 
path. Our governmental structure is based on an optimistic belief in 
the power of people and their communities. I share that view. It is my 
hope that the Federalism Accountability Act give a greater voice to 
State and local governments and the people they serve and reinvigorate 
the debate on federalism.
  The ``Federalism Accountability Act'' will promote restraint in the 
exercise of federal power. It establishes a rule of construction 
requiring an explicit statement of congressional or agency intent to 
preempt. Congress would be required to make explicit statements on the 
extent to which bills or joint resolutions are intended to preempt 
State or local law, and if so, an explanation of the reasons for such 
preemption.
  Agencies would designate a federalism officer to implement the 
requirements of this legislation and to serve as a liaison to State and 
local officials. Early in the process of developing rules, Federal 
agencies would be required to notify, consult with, and provide an 
opportunity for meaningful participation by public officials of State 
and local governments. The agency would prepare a federalism assessment 
for rules that have federalism impacts. Each federalism assessment 
would include an analysis of: whether, why, and to what degree the 
Federal rule preempts state law; other significant impacts on State and 
local governments; measures taken by the agency, including the 
consideration of regulatory alternatives, to minimize the impact on 
State and local governments; and the extent of the agency's prior 
consultation with public officials, the nature of their concerns, and 
the extent to which those concerns have been met.
  The legislation also will require the Congressional Budget Office, 
with the help of the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Congressional Research Service, to compile a report on preemptions by 
Federal rules, court decisions, and legislation. I hope this report 
will lead to an informed debate on the appropriate use of preemption to 
reach policy goals.
  Finally, the legislation amends two existing laws to promote 
federalism. First, it amends the Government Performance and Results Act 
of 1993 to clarify that performance measures for State-administered 
grant programs are to be determined in cooperation with public 
officials. Second, it amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

[[Page S6873]]

to clarify that major new requirements imposed on States under 
entitlement authority are to be scored by CBO as unfunded mandates. It 
also requires that where Congress has capped the Federal share of an 
entitlement program, then the Committee report and the accompanying CBO 
report must analyze whether the legislation includes new flexibility or 
whether there is existing flexibility to offset additional costs.
  Mr. President, this legislation was developed with representatives of 
the ``Big 7'' organizations representing State and local government, 
including the National Governors' Association, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National 
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management 
Association. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by 
Senators Levin, Voinovich, Robb, Cochran, Lincoln, Enzi, Breaux, Roth, 
and Bayh. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1214

       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 ``Federalism Accountability 
     Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Constitution created a strong Federal system, 
     reserving to the States all powers not delegated to the 
     Federal Government;
       (2) preemptive statutes and regulations have at times been 
     an appropriate exercise of Federal powers, and at other times 
     have been an inappropriate infringement on State and local 
     government authority;
       (3) on numerous occasions, Congress has enacted statutes 
     and the agencies have promulgated rules that explicitly 
     preempt State and local government authority and describe the 
     scope of the preemption;
       (4) in addition to statutes and rules that explicitly 
     preempt State and local government authority, many other 
     statutes and rules that lack an explicit statement by 
     Congress or the agencies of their intent to preempt and a 
     clear description of the scope of the preemption have been 
     construed to preempt State and local government authority;
       (5) in the past, the lack of clear congressional intent 
     regarding preemption has resulted in too much discretion for 
     Federal agencies and uncertainty for State and local 
     governments, leaving the presence or scope of preemption to 
     be litigated and determined by the judiciary and sometimes 
     producing results contrary to or beyond the intent of 
     Congress; and
       (6) State and local governments are full partners in all 
     Federal programs administered by those governments.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) promote and preserve the integrity and effectiveness of 
     our Federal system of government;
       (2) set forth principles governing the interpretation of 
     congressional and agency intent regarding preemption of State 
     and local government authority by Federal laws and rules;
       (3) establish an information collection system designed to 
     monitor the incidence of Federal statutory, regulatory, and 
     judicial preemption; and
       (4) recognize the partnership between the Federal 
     Government and State and local governments in the 
     implementation of certain Federal programs.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act the definitions under section 551 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall apply and the term--
       (1) ``local government'' means a county, city, town, 
     borough, township, village, school district, special 
     district, or other political subdivision of a State;
       (2) ``public officials'' means elected State and local 
     government officials and their representative organizations;
       (3) ``State''--
       (A) means a State of the United States and an agency or 
     instrumentality of a State;
       (B) includes the District of Columbia and any territory of 
     the United States, and an agency or instrumentality of the 
     District of Columbia or such territory;
       (C) includes any tribal government and an agency or 
     instrumentality of such government; and
       (D) does not include a local government of a State; and
       (4) ``tribal government'' means an Indian tribe as that 
     term is defined under section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).

     SEC. 5. COMMITTEE OR CONFERENCE REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The report accompanying any bill or joint 
     resolution of a public character reported from a committee of 
     the Senate or House of Representatives or from a conference 
     between the Senate and the House of Representatives shall 
     contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill 
     or joint resolution preempts State or local government law, 
     ordinance, or regulation and, if so, an explanation of the 
     reasons for such preemption. In the absence of a committee or 
     conference report, the committee or conference shall report 
     to the Senate and the House of Representatives a statement 
     containing the information described in this section before 
     consideration of the bill, joint resolution, or conference 
     report.
       (b) Content.--The statement under subsection (a) shall 
     include an analysis of--
       (1) the extent to which the bill or joint resolution 
     legislates in an area of traditional State authority; and
       (2) the extent to which State or local government authority 
     will be maintained if the bill or joint resolution is enacted 
     by Congress.

     SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO PREEMPTION.

       (a) Statutes.--No statute enacted after the effective date 
     of this Act shall be construed to preempt, in whole or in 
     part, any State or local government law, ordinance, or 
     regulation, unless--
       (1) the statute explicitly states that such preemption is 
     intended; or
       (2) there is a direct conflict between such statute and a 
     State or local law, ordinance, or regulation so that the two 
     cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
       (b) Rules.--No rule promulgated after the effective date of 
     this Act shall be construed to preempt, in whole or in part, 
     any State or local government law, ordinance, or regulation, 
     unless--
       (1)(A) such preemption is authorized by the statute under 
     which the rule is promulgated; and
       (B) the rule, in compliance with section 7, explicitly 
     states that such preemption is intended; or
       (2) there is a direct conflict between such rule and a 
     State or local law, ordinance, or regulation so that the two 
     cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
       (c) Favorable Construction.--Any ambiguities in this Act, 
     or in any other law of the United States, shall be construed 
     in favor of preserving the authority of the States and the 
     people.

     SEC. 7. AGENCY FEDERALISM ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The head of each agency shall--
       (1) be responsible for implementing this Act; and
       (2) designate an officer (to be known as the federalism 
     officer) to--
       (A) manage the implementation of this Act; and
       (B) serve as a liaison to State and local officials and 
     their designated representatives.
       (b) Notice and Consultation With Potentially Affected State 
     and Local Government.--Early in the process of developing a 
     rule and before the publication of a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking, the agency shall notify, consult with, and 
     provide an opportunity for meaningful participation by public 
     officials of governments that may potentially be affected by 
     the rule for the purpose of identifying any preemption of 
     State or local government authority or other significant 
     federalism impacts that may result from issuance of the rule. 
     If no notice of proposed rulemaking is published, 
     consultation shall occur sufficiently in advance of 
     publication of an interim final rule or final rule to provide 
     an opportunity for meaningful participation.
       (c) Federalism Assessments.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to whatever other actions the 
     federalism officer may take to manage the implementation of 
     this Act, such officer shall identify each proposed, interim 
     final, and final rule having a federalism impact, including 
     each rule with a federalism impact identified under 
     subsection (b), that warrants the preparation of a federalism 
     assessment.
       (2) Preparation.--With respect to each such rule identified 
     by the federalism officer, a federalism assessment, as 
     described in subsection (d), shall be prepared and published 
     in the Federal Register at the time the proposed, interim 
     final, and final rule is published.
       (3) Consideration of assessment.--The agency head shall 
     consider any such assessment in all decisions involved in 
     promulgating, implementing, and interpreting the rule.
       (4) Submission to the office of management and budget.--
     Each federalism assessment shall be included in any 
     submission made to the Office of Management and Budget by an 
     agency for review of a rule.
       (d) Contents.--Each federalism assessment shall include--
       (1) a statement on the extent to which the rule preempts 
     State or local government law, ordinance, or regulation and, 
     if so, an explanation of the reasons for such preemption;
       (2) an analysis of--
       (A) the extent to which the rule regulates in an area of 
     traditional State authority; and
       (B) the extent to which State or local authority will be 
     maintained if the rule takes effect;
       (3) a description of the significant impacts of the rule on 
     State and local governments;
       (4) any measures taken by the agency, including the 
     consideration of regulatory alternatives, to minimize the 
     impact on State and local governments; and

[[Page S6874]]

       (5) the extent of the agency's prior consultation with 
     public officials, the nature of their concerns, and the 
     extent to which those concerns have been met.
       (e) Publication.--For any applicable rule, the agency shall 
     include a summary of the federalism assessment prepared under 
     this section in a separately identified part of the statement 
     of basis and purpose for the rule as it is to be published in 
     the Federal Register. The summary shall include a list of the 
     public officials consulted and briefly describe the views of 
     such officials and the agency's response to such views.

     SEC. 8. PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

       Section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The head of an agency may not include in any 
     performance plan under this section any agency activity that 
     is a State-administered Federal grant program, unless the 
     performance measures for the activity are determined in 
     cooperation with public officials as defined under section 4 
     of the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999.''.

     SEC. 9. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PREEMPTION REPORT.

       (a) Office of Management and Budget Information.--Not later 
     than the expiration of the calendar year beginning after the 
     effective date of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit 
     to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     information describing interim final rules and final rules 
     issued during the preceding calendar year that preempt State 
     or local government authority.
       (b) Congressional Research Service Information.--Not later 
     than the expiration of the calendar year beginning after the 
     effective date of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Director of the Congressional Research Service shall submit 
     to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     information describing court decisions issued during the 
     preceding calendar year that preempt State or local 
     government authority.
       (c) Congressional Budget Office Report.--
       (1) In general.--After each session of Congress, the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall prepare a report on the 
     extent of Federal preemption of State or local government 
     authority enacted into law or adopted through judicial or 
     agency interpretation of Federal statutes during the previous 
     session of Congress.
       (2) Content.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     contain--
       (A) a list of Federal statutes preempting, in whole or in 
     part, State or local government authority;
       (B) a summary of legislation reported from committee 
     preempting, in whole or in part, State or local government 
     authority;
       (C) a summary of rules of agencies preempting, in whole or 
     in part, State and local government authority; and
       (D) a summary of Federal court decisions on preemption.
       (3) Availability.--The report under this section shall be 
     made available to--
       (A) each committee of Congress;
       (B) each Governor of a State;
       (C) the presiding officer of each chamber of the 
     legislature of each State; and
       (D) other public officials and the public on the Internet.

     SEC. 10. FLEXIBILITY AND FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES.

       (a) Definition.--Section 421(5)(B) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i)(I) would'' and inserting ``(i) 
     would'';
       (2) by striking ``(II) would'' and inserting ``(ii)(I) 
     would''; and
       (3) by striking ``(ii) the'' and inserting ``(II) the''.
       (b) Committee Reports.--Section 423(d) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658b(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) if the bill or joint resolution would make the 
     reduction specified in section 421(5)(B)(ii)(I), a statement 
     of how the committee specifically intends the States to 
     implement the reduction and to what extent the legislation 
     provides additional flexibility, if any, to offset the 
     reduction.''.
       (c) Congressional Budget Office Estimates.--Section 424(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Additional flexibility information.--The Director 
     shall include in the statement submitted under this 
     subsection, in the case of legislation that makes changes as 
     described in section 421(5)(B)(ii)(I)--
       ``(A) if no additional flexibility is provided in the 
     legislation, a description of whether and how the States can 
     offset the reduction under existing law; or
       ``(B) if additional flexibility is provided in the 
     legislation, whether the resulting savings would offset the 
     reductions in that program assuming the States fully 
     implement that additional flexibility.''.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senators Thompson and 
Voinovich and a bipartisan group of our colleagues in introducing the 
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999. The bill would require an 
explicit statement of Federal preemption in Federal legislation in 
order for such preemption to occur unless there exists a direct 
conflict between the Federal law and a State or local law which cannot 
be reconciled. Enactment of this bill would close the back door of 
implied Federal preemption and put the responsibility for determining 
whether or not State or local governments should be preempted back in 
Congress, where it belongs. The bill would also institute procedures to 
ensure that, in issuing new regulations, federal agencies respect State 
and local authority.
  Mr. President, we want to ensure that the federal government works in 
partnership with our State and local government colleagues. One way of 
making sure this happens is that preemption occurs only when Congress 
makes a conscious decision to preempt and it is amply clear to all 
parties that preemption will occur. In 1991, I sponsored a bill, S. 
2080, to clarify when preemption does and does not occur. I have since 
sponsored two similar bills. When I introduced S. 2080, I noted that 
``state and local officials have become increasingly concerned with the 
number of instances in which State and local laws have been preempted 
by Federal law--not because Congress has done so explicitly, but 
because the courts have implied such preemption. Since 1789, Congress 
has enacted approximately 350 laws specifically preempting State and 
local authority. Half of these laws have been enacted in the last 20 
years. These figures, however, do not touch upon the extensive Federal 
preemption of State and local authority which has occurred as a result 
of judicial interpretation of congressional intent, when Congress' 
intention to preempt has not been explicitly stated in law. When 
Congress is unclear about its intent to preempt, the courts must then 
decide whether or not preemption was intended and, if so, to what 
extent.''
  In the ensuing time, there have been some changes, such as the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which have strengthened the partnership 
between the federal, state and local governments. Unfortunately, in the 
big picture, there has been little or no evidence of a change in the 
trends that I attempted to address when I introduced S. 2080 in 1991. 
Sometimes we enact a law and it is clear as to the scope of the 
intended preemption. Just as often, we are not clear, or a court takes 
language that appeared to be clear and decides that it is not, and 
construes it in favor of preemption. Similarly, agencies take actions 
that are determined to be preemptive whether their language is clear or 
not.
  Article VI of the Constitution, the supremacy clause, states that 
Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution ``shall be the supreme 
law of the land.'' In its most basic sense, this clause means that a 
State law is negated or preempted when it is in conflict with a 
constitutionally enacted Federal law. A significant body of case law 
has been developed to arrive at standards by which to judge whether or 
not Congress intended to preempt State or local authority--standards 
which are subjective and have not resulted in a consistent and 
predictable doctrine in resolving preemption questions.
  If we in Congress want Federal law to prevail, we should be clear 
about that. If we want the States to have discretion to go beyond 
Federal requirements, we should be clear about that. If, for example, 
we set a floor in a Federal statute, but are silent on actions which 
meet but then go beyond the Federal requirement, State and local 
governments should be able to act as they deem appropriate. State and 
local governments should not have to wait to see what they can and 
cannot do. Our bill would allow tougher State and local laws given 
congressional silence.
  In addition, the bill contains a requirement that agencies notify, 
and consult with, state and local governments and their representative 
organizations during the development of rules, and publish proposed and 
final federalism assessments along with proposed and final rules. Mr. 
President, it

[[Page S6875]]

should not be necessary to enact legislation to accomplish these 
things. Federal agencies should never issue rules without having the 
best and most complete information possible. Our State and local 
governments are ready, willing, and able to provide their expertise on 
how Federal rules will impact those governments' ability to get their 
jobs done. Common sense dictates that they be notified and consulted 
before the federal government regulates in a way that weakens or 
eliminates the ability of State and local governments to do their jobs, 
or duplicates their efforts.
  The current Administration and previous ones have recognized the 
value of having federal agencies consult with State and local 
governments. However, as was amply demonstrated by a recent GAO report, 
Executive Order requirements for federalism assessments have been 
ignored. The bill would correct this noncompliance by the Executive 
Branch, and ensure that independent agencies, as well, will engage in 
such consultation and publish assessments along with rules.
  Not only will the compilation and issuance of federalism assessments 
force the agencies to think through what they are doing, they will 
bolster the confidence of the public and regulated entities in the 
regulatory process by assuring them that their governments are acting 
in concert and avoiding conflicting or duplicative requirements.
  Our legislation also requires the Congressional Budget Office, with 
the assistance of the Congressional Research Service, at the end of 
each Congress, to compile a report on the number of statutory and 
judicially interpreted preemptions. This will constitute the first time 
such a complete report has been done, and the information will be 
valuable to the debate regarding the appropriate use of preemption to 
reach Federal goals.
  Mr. President, legislation to clarify when preemption occurs and 
otherwise strengthen the intergovernmental relationship has been 
endorsed by the major state and local government organizations. I would 
like to thank Senators Thompson and Voinovich and their staffs for 
their hard work in this area.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999, along with my colleagues 
Senator Fred Thompson and Senator Carl Levin. Our legislation is the 
culmination of months of bipartisan effort that we believe will restore 
the fundamental principles of federalism.
  In my 33 years of public service, at every level of government, I 
have seen first hand the relationship of the federal government with 
respect to state and local government. The nature of that relationship 
has molded my passion for the issue of federalism and the need to 
spell-out the appropriate role of the federal government with respect 
to our state and local governments. It is why I vowed that when I was 
elected to the Senate, I would work to find ways in which the federal 
government can be a better partner with these levels of government.
  I have long been concerned with the federal government becoming 
involved in matters and issues which I believe are best handled by 
state and local governments. I also have been concerned about the 
tendency of the federal government to preempt our state and local 
governments and mandate new responsibilities without the funding to pay 
for them.
  In a speech before the Volunteers of the National Archives in 1986 
regarding thee relationship of the Constitution with America's cities 
and the evolution of federalism, I brought to the attention of the 
audience my observations since my early days in government regarding 
the course American government had been taking:

       We have seen the expansion of the federal government into 
     new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have 
     experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of 
     Washington both to preempt state and local authority and to 
     mandate actions on state and local governments. The 
     cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the 
     Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some 
     legal scholars to observe that while constitutional 
     federalism is alive in scholarly treatises, it has expired as 
     a practical political reality.

  We have made great progress since I gave that speech more than a 
dozen years go.
  An outstanding article last year written by Carl Tubbesing, the 
deputy executive director of the National Council of State 
Legislatures, in State Legislatures magazine, outlined what he called 
the five ``hallmarks of devolution''--legislation in the 1990's that 
changed the face of the federal-state-local government partnership and 
reversed the decades long trend toward federal centralization.
  These bills are the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Safe Drinking 
Water Reform Act Amendments, Welfare Reform, Medicaid reforms such as 
elimination of the Boren amendment, and the establishment of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Also, just this year, Congress has passed and the President has 
signed into law two important pieces of legislation which enhance the 
state, local and federal partnership. Those initiatives are the 
Education Flexibility Act, which gives our states and school districts 
the freedom to use their federal funds for identified education 
priorities, and the Anti-Tobacco Recoupment provision in the 
Supplemental Appropriations bill that prevents the federal government 
from taking any portion of the $246 billion in tobacco settlement funds 
from the states.
  Although these achievements have helped revive federalism, it is 
clear that state and local governments still need protection from 
federal encroachment in state and local affairs. It is equally clear 
that the federal government needs to do more to be better partners with 
our state and local governments. As Congress is less eager to impose 
unfunded mandates, largely because of the commitments we won through 
the Unfunded Mandates law, there is a growing interest in imposing 
policy preemptions. The proposed federal moratorium on all state and 
local taxes on Internet commerce is just one striking example that 
could have a devastating effect on the ability of States and localities 
to serve their citizens.
  The danger of this growing trend toward federal preemption is the 
reason the Federalism Accountability Act is so important. The 
legislation makes Congress and federal agencies clear and accountable 
when enacting laws and rules that preempt State and local authority. It 
also directs the courts to err on the side of state sovereignty when 
interpreting vague Federal rules and statutes where the intent to 
preempt state authority is unclear.
  I am particularly gratified that this legislation addresses a 
misinterpretation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act as it applies to 
large entitlement programs. The Federalism Accountability Act clarifies 
that major new requirements imposed on States under entitlement 
authority are to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office as 
unfunded mandates. It also requires that where Congress has capped the 
Federal share of an entitlement program, the accompanying committee and 
CBO reports must analyze whether the legislation includes new 
flexibility or whether there is existing flexibility to offset 
additional costs incurred by the States. This important ``fix'' to the 
Unfunded Mandates law is long overdue and I am pleased we are including 
it in our federalism bill.
  The Federalism Accountability Act is a welcome and needed step toward 
protecting our States and communities against interference from 
Washington. It builds upon the gains we have already made in restoring 
the balance between the Federal Government and the States envisioned by 
the Framers of our Constitution. I am proud to have played a role in 
crafting it, and I hope all my colleagues will lend their support to 
this worthy legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1215. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish headstones or markers for 
marked graves of, or to otherwise commemorate, certain individuals; to 
the Committee on Veterans Affairs.


                    veterans headstones and markers

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
entitle each deceased veteran to an official headstone or grave marker 
in recognition of that veteran's contribution to this nation. Currently 
the VA provides a headstone or grave marker upon request only if the 
veteran's grave is unmarked. This provision dates back to

[[Page S6876]]

the Civil War when this nation wanted to ensure that none of its 
soldiers was buried in an unmarked grave. Of course, in this day and 
age, a grave rarely goes unmarked, and the official headstone or marker 
instead serves specifically to recognize a deceased veteran's service.

  Unfortunately, this provision has not changed with the times. When 
families go ahead and purchase a private headstone, as nearly every 
family does these days, they bar themselves from receiving the 
government headstone or marker. On the other hand, some families who 
happen to be aware of this provision request the official headstone or 
marker prior to placing a private marker. As a result, the grave of 
their veteran bears both the private marker and the government marker.
  All deceased veterans deserve to have their service recognized, not 
just those whose families make their requests prior to purchasing a 
private marker. The Department of Veterans Affairs is well aware of 
this anomaly. VA officials receive thousands of complaints each year 
from families who are upset about this law's arbitrary effect.
  A constituent of mine, Thomas Guzzo, first brought this matter to my 
attention last year. His late father, Agostino Guzzo, served in the 
Philippines and was honorably discharged from the Army in 1947. Today, 
Agostino Guzzo is interred in a mausoleum at Cedar Hill Cemetery in 
Hartford, but the mausoleum bears no reference to his service because 
of the current law. Like so many families, the Guzzo family bought its 
own marker and subsequently found that it could not request an official 
VA marker.
  Thomas Guzzo then contacted me, and I attempted to straighten out 
what I thought to be a bureaucratic mix-up. I was surprised to realize 
that Thomas Guzzo's difficulties resulted not from some glitch in the 
system, but rather from the law itself. In the end, I wrote to the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding Thomas Guzzo's very reasonable 
request. The Secretary responded that his hands were tied as a result 
of the obscure law. Furthermore, the Secretary's response indicated 
that, even if a grave marker could be provided for Thomas Guzzo, that 
marker could not be placed on a cemetery bench or tree that would be 
dedicated to the elder Guzzo. The law prevented the Department from 
providing a marker for placement anywhere but the grave site and thus 
prevents families from recognizing their veteran's service as they 
wish.
  This bill is a modest means of solving a massive problem. It has been 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office at less than three million 
dollars per year. That is a small price to pay to recognize our 
deceased veterans and put their families at ease. If a family wishes to 
dedicate a tree or bench to their deceased veteran, this bill allows 
the family to place the marker on those memorials. We should give these 
markers to the families when they request them, and we should allow 
each family to recognize their deceased veteran in their own way.
  This bill allows the Department of Veterans Affairs to better serve 
veterans and their families. I stand with thousands of veterans' 
families and look forward to the day when this bill's changes will be 
written into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1216. A bill to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 
establish a Marine Mammal Rescue Grant Program, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                       MARINE MAMMAL RESCUE FUND

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to establish the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund. This legislation will amend 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 by establishing a grant 
program that Marine Mammal Stranding Centers and Networks can use to 
support the important work they do in responding to marine mammal 
strandings and mortality events.
  Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, 47 
facilities nationally have been authorized to handle the rehabilitation 
of stranded marine mammals and over 400 individuals and facilities 
across the country are part of an authorized National Stranding Network 
that responds to strandings and deaths.
  Mr. President, these facilities and individuals provide our country 
with a variety of critical services, including rescue, housing, care, 
rehabilitation, transport, and tracking of marine mammals and sea 
turtles, as well as assistance in investigating mortality events, 
tissue sampling, and removal of carcasses. They also work very closely 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, a variety of environmental 
groups, and with state and local officials in rescuing, tracking and 
protecting marine mammals and sea turtles on the Endangered Species 
List. Yet they rely primarily on private donations, fundraisers, and 
foundation grants for their operating budgets. They receive no federal 
assistance, and a very few of them get some financial assistance from 
their states.
  As an example, Mr. President, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center 
located in Brigantine in my home state of New Jersey was formed in 
1978. To date, it has responded to over 1,500 calls for stranded 
whales, dolphins, seals and sea turtles that have washed ashore on New 
Jersey's beaches. It has also been called on to assist in strandings as 
far away as Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Yet, their operating 
budget for the past year was just under $300,000, with less than 6 
percent ($17,000) coming from the state. Although the Stranding Center 
in Brigantine has never turned down a request for assistance with a 
stranding, trying to maintain that level of responsiveness and service 
becomes increasingly more difficult each year.
  Virtually all the money raised by the Center, Mr. President, goes to 
pay for the feeding, care, and transportation of rescued marine 
mammals, rehabilitation (including medical care), insurance, day-to-day 
operation of the Center, and staff payroll. Too many times the staff 
are called upon to pay out-of-pocket expenses in travel, subsistence, 
and quarters while responding to strandings or mortality events.
  Mr. President, this should not happen. These people are performing a 
great service to Americans across the country, and they are being asked 
to pay their own way as well. And when responding to mortality events, 
Mr. President, they are performing work that protects public health and 
helps assess the potential danger to human life and to other marine 
mammals.
  I feel very strongly that we should be providing some support to the 
people who are doing this work. To that end, Mr. President, the 
legislation I am introducing would create the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund 
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It would authorize funding at 
$5,000,000.00, annually, over the next five years, for grants to Marine 
Mammal Stranding Centers and Stranding Network Members authorized by 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Grants would not exceed 
$100,000.00 per year, and would require a 25 percent non-federal 
funding matching requirement.
  I am proud to offer this legislation on behalf of the Stranding 
Centers across the country, and look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure its passage. 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. 1216

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

     SECTION 1. MARINE MAMMAL RESCUE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Marine Mammal Protection 
     Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1421a et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 408 and 409 as sections 409 
     and 410, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 407 the following:

     ``SEC. 408. MARINE MAMMAL RESCUE GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       ``(2) Chief.--The term `Chief' means the Chief of the 
     Office.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       ``(4) Stranding center.--The term `stranding center' means 
     a center with respect to which the Secretary has entered into 
     an agreement referred to in section 403 to take marine 
     mammals under section 109(h)(1) in response to a stranding.
       ``(b) Grants.--

[[Page S6877]]

       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary, acting through the Chief, 
     shall conduct a grant program to be known as the Marine 
     Mammal Rescue Grant Program, to provide grants to eligible 
     stranding centers and eligible stranding network participants 
     for the recovery or treatment of marine mammals and the 
     collection of health information relating to marine mammals.
       ``(2) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section, a stranding center or stranding network participant 
     shall submit an application in such form and manner as the 
     Secretary, acting through the Chief, may prescribe.
       ``(3) Eligibility criteria.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Chief and in consultation with stranding network 
     participants, shall establish criteria for eligibility for 
     participation in the grant program under this section.
       ``(4) Limitation.--The amount of a grant awarded under this 
     section shall not exceed $100,000.
       ``(5) Matching requirement.--The non-Federal share for an 
     activity conducted by a grant recipient under the grant 
     program under this section shall be 25 percent of the cost of 
     that activity.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Commerce 
     to carry out the grant program under this section, $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 
     1027) is amended by striking the items relating to sections 
     408 and 409 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 408. Marine Mammal Rescue Grant Program.
``Sec. 409. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 410. Definitions.''.

                          ____________________