[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.''.
____________________