[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 91 (Thursday, June 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7591-S7606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1273. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act, to facilitate the 
transition to more competitive and efficient electric power markets, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                FEDERAL POWER ACT OF AMENDMENTS OF 1999

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the electricity 
restructuring bill I introduced in the last Congress. I offer the bill 
today because the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be 
holding two legislative hearings next week on the pending electricity 
restructuring bills, and I want this bill to be included in the 
discussions. With the exception of two typographical corrections, the 
text of the bill is identical to S. 1276, which I introduced in the 
last Congress.
  The bill has three principal legislative objectives: (1) clarifying 
the line between state and federal jurisdiction, (2) strengthening the 
reliability of the transmission system, and (3) ensuring fair access to 
the interstate transmission grid. When I introduced the bill in the 
last Congress it received wide support as the nucleus of the most 
critical issues that Congress must address in any restructuring 
legislation.
  As many Senators are aware, I am working with the chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my good friend Senator 
Murkowski, on developing a consensus electricity bill that can be 
marked up and reported to the full Senate. Although I had expected that 
we would be further along in the process by now, I remain fully 
committed to following this bi-partisan course. My introduction of this 
bill should not impeded that process.
  Much has happened in the electric utility industry since this bill 
was first drafted nearly two years ago. There are now six approved 
regional transmission operators, and several more are on the drawing 
boards. Twenty-two states, including New Mexico, have implemented some 
form of electric competition and two more may pass legislation this 
year. And there is now industry-wide consensus on the importance of 
federal legislation to assure the continued security and reliability of 
the nation's high-tension transmission grid.
  Mr. President, I continue to see a strong need for federal 
electricity legislation so that states that have elected retail 
competition can fully enjoy all of the benefits that completion brings. 
In addition, improvements in federal regulation will streamline 
wholesale markets in every state. At the same time, I believe Congress 
should not enact federal legislation that disrupts existing state laws 
or that forces unwilling states to restructure.
  I also have increasing concern about the mounting cloud of litigation 
pending in the federal courts that could frustrate the development of 
healthy wholesale and retail markets. Only Congress can clear up 
jurisdictional issues and let competitive markets fully develop. 
Interstate transmission must be a federal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I believe we now have a consensus on the core issues 
that Congress must address. The Energy Committee held an oversight 
hearing last month on the status of restructuring in the states. There 
was nearly universal agreement among the witnesses on the need for 
federal legislation addressing interstate transmission and federal-
state jurisdiction
  I look forward to the legislative hearings next week on this and 
other bills and to reporting bi-partisan electricity legislation that 
can pass the Senate this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1273

       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 ``Federal Power Act Amendments 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF JURISDICTION.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--Section 201(a) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(a)) is amended by--
       (1) inserting after ``transmission of electric energy in 
     interstate commerce'' the following: ``, including the 
     unbundled transmission of electric energy sold at retail,''; 
     and
       (2) striking ``such Federal regulation, however, to extend 
     only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by 
     the States.'' and inserting the following: ``such Federal 
     regulation shall not extend, however, to the bundled retail 
     sale of electric energy or to unbundled local distribution 
     service, which are subject to regulation by the States.''.
       (b) Application of Part.--Section 201(b) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1)) is amended by--
       (1) inserting after ``the transmission of electric energy 
     in interstate commerce'' the following: ``, including the 
     unbundled transmission of electric energy sold at retail,''; 
     and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Commission, after consulting with the appropriate 
     State regulatory authorities, shall determine, by rule or 
     order, which facilities used for the transmission and 
     delivery of electric energy are used for transmission in 
     interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this Part, and which are used for local 
     distribution subject to State jurisdiction.''.
       (c) Definition of Interstate Commerce.--Section 201(c) of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(c)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``outside thereof '' the following: 
     ``(including consumption in a foreign country)''.
       (d) Definitions of Types of Sales.--Section 201(d) of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(d)) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(1) after the subsection designation;
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The term `bundled retail sale of electric energy' 
     means the sale of electric energy to an ultimate consumer in 
     which the generation and transmission service are not sold 
     separately.
       ``(3) The term `unbundled local distribution service' means 
     the delivery of electric energy to an ultimate consumer if--
       ``(A) the electric energy and the service of delivering it 
     are sold separately, and
       ``(B) the delivery uses facilities for local distribution 
     as determined by the Commission under subsection (b)(3).
       ``(4) The term `unbundled transmission of electric energy 
     sold at retail' means the transmission of electric energy to 
     an ultimate consumer if--
       ``(A) the electric energy and the service of transmitting 
     it are sold separately, and
       ``(B) the transmission uses facilities for transmission in 
     interstate commerce as determined by the Commission under 
     subsection (b)(3).''.
       (e) Definitions of Public Utility.--Section 201 of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824) is amended by striking 
     subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) The term `public utility' when used in this Part or 
     in the Part next following means--
       ``(1) any person who owns or operates facilities subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the Commission under this Part (other 
     than facilities subject to such jurisdiction solely by reason 
     of section 210, 211, or 212); or
       ``(2) any electric utility or Federal power marketing 
     agency not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this Part, including--
       ``(A) the Tennessee Valley Authority,
       ``(B) a Federal power marketing agency,
       ``(C) a State or any political subdivision of a State, or 
     any agency, authority, or instrumentality of a State or 
     political subdivision,
       ``(D) a corporation or association that has ever received a 
     loan for the purpose of providing electric service from the 
     Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration or 
     the Rural Utilities Service under the Rural Electrification 
     Act of 1936; or
       ``(E) any corporation or association which is wholly owned, 
     directly or indirectly, by any one or more of the foregoing,

     but only with respect to determining, fixing, and otherwise 
     regulating the rates, terms, and conditions for the 
     transmission of electric energy under this Part (including 
     sections 217, 218, and 219).''.
       (f) Application of Part to Government Utilities.--Section 
     201(f) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(f)) is amended 
     by striking ``No provision'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (e)(2) and section 3(23), no 
     provision''.
       (g) Definition of Transmitting Utility.--Section 3 of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (23) and inserting the following:
       ``(23) Transmitting utility.--The term `transmitting 
     utility' means any electric utility, qualifying cogeneration 
     facility, qualifying small power production facility, Federal 
     power marketing agency, or any public utility, as defined in 
     section 201(e)(2), that owns or operates electric power 
     transmission facilities which are used for the sale of 
     electric energy.''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL WHEELING AUTHORITY.

       (a) Commission Authority To Order Retail Wheeling.--
       (1) Section 211(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824j(a)) is amended by striking ``for resale''.
       (2) Section 212(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824k(a)) is amended by striking

[[Page S7592]]

     ``wholesale transmission services'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``transmission services''.
       (3) Section 212(g) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824k(g)) is repealed.
       (b) Limitation on Commission Authority To Order Retail 
     Wheeling.--Section 212 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     824k) is further amended by striking subsection (h) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(h) Limitation on Commission Authority To Order Retail 
     Wheeling.--No rule or order issued under this Act shall 
     require or be conditioned upon the transmission of electric 
     energy:
       ``(1) directly to an ultimate consumer in connection with a 
     sale of electric energy to the consumer unless the seller of 
     such energy is permitted or required under applicable State 
     law to make such sale to such consumer, or
       ``(2) to, or for the benefit of, an electric utility if 
     such electric energy would be sold by such utility directly 
     to an ultimate consumer, unless the utility is permitted or 
     required under applicable State law to sell electric energy 
     to such ultimate consumer.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 796) is amended by striking paragraph (24) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(24) Transmission services.--The term `transmission 
     services' means the transmission of electric energy in 
     interstate commerce.''.

     SEC. 4. STATE AUTHORITY TO ORDER RETAIL ACCESS.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 215. STATE AUTHORITY TO ORDER RETAIL ACCESS.

       ``(a) State Authority.--Neither silence on the part of 
     Congress nor any Act of Congress shall be construed to 
     preclude a State or State commission, acting under authority 
     of state law, from requiring an electric utility subject to 
     its jurisdiction to provide unbundled local distribution 
     service to any electric consumer within such State.
       ``(b) Nondiscriminatory Service.--If a State or State 
     commission permits or requires an electric utility subject to 
     its jurisdiction to provide unbundled local distribution 
     service to any electric consumer within such State, the 
     electric utility shall provide such service on a not unduly 
     discriminatory basis. Any law, regulation, or order of a 
     State or State commission that results in unbundled local 
     distribution service that is unjust, unreasonable, unduly 
     discriminatory, or preferential is hereby preempted.
       ``(c) Reciprocity.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), a State 
     or state commission may bar an electric utility from selling 
     electric energy to an ultimate consumer using local 
     distribution facilities in such State if such utility or any 
     of its affiliates owns or controls local distribution 
     facilities and is not itself providing unbundled local 
     distribution service.
       ``(d) State Charges.--Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a 
     State or State regulatory authority from assessing a 
     nondiscriminatory charge on unbundled local distribution 
     service within the State, the retail sale of electric energy 
     within the State, or the generation of electric energy for 
     consumption by the generator within the State.''.

     SEC. 5. UNIVERSAL AND AFFORDABLE SERVICE.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 216. UNIVERSAL AND AFFORDABLE SERVICE.

       ``(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that--
       ``(1) every consumer of electric energy should have access 
     to electric energy at reasonable and affordable rates, and
       ``(2) the Commission and the States should ensure that 
     competition in the electric energy business does not result 
     in the loss of service to rural, residential, or low-income 
     consumers.
       ``(b) Consideration and Reports.--Any State or State 
     commission that requires an electric utility subject to its 
     jurisdiction to provide unbundled local distribution service 
     shall--
       ``(1) consider adopting measures to--
       ``(A) ensure that every consumer of electric energy within 
     such State shall have access to electric energy at reasonable 
     and affordable rates, and
       ``(B) prevent the loss of service to rural, residential, or 
     low-income consumers; and
       ``(2) report to the Commission on any measures adopted 
     under paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 6. NATIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STANDARDS.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 217. NATIONAL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STANDARDS.

       ``(a) Reliability Standards.--The Commission shall 
     establish and enforce national electric reliability standards 
     to ensure the reliability of the electric transmission 
     system.
       ``(b) Designation of National and Regional Councils.--
       ``(1) For purposes of establishing and enforcing national 
     electric reliability standards under subsection (a), the 
     Commission may designate an appropriate number of regional 
     electric reliability councils composed of electric utilities 
     or transmitting utilities, and one national electric 
     reliability council composed of designated regional electric 
     reliability councils, whose mission is to promote the 
     reliability of electric transmission system.
       ``(2) The Commission shall not designate a regional 
     electric reliability council unless the Commission determines 
     that the council--
       ``(A) permits open access to membership from all entities 
     engaged in the business of selling, generating, transmitting, 
     or delivering electric energy within its region;
       ``(B) provides fair representation of its members in the 
     selection of its directors and the management of its affairs; 
     and
       ``(C) adopts and enforces appropriate standards of 
     operation designed to promote the reliability of the electric 
     transmission system.
       ``(c) Incorporation of Council Standards.--The Commission 
     may incorporate, in whole or in part, the standards of 
     operation adopted by the regional and national electric 
     reliability councils in the national electric reliability 
     standards adopted by the Commission under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Enforcement.--The Commission may, by rule or order, 
     require any public utility or transmitting utility to comply 
     with any standard adopted by the Commission under this 
     section.

     SEC. 7. SITING NEW INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 218. SITING NEW INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Commission Authority.--Whenever the Commission, after 
     notice and opportunity for hearing, finds such action 
     necessary or desirable in the public interest, it may order a 
     transmitting utility to enlarge, extend, or improve its 
     facilities for the interstate transmission of electric 
     energy.
       ``(b) Procedure.--The Commission may commence a proceeding 
     for the issuance of an order under subsection (a) upon the 
     application of an electric utility, transmitting utility, or 
     state regulatory authority, or upon its own motion.
       ``(c) Compliance With Other Laws.--Commission action under 
     this section shall be subject to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and all other 
     applicable state and federal laws.
       ``(d) Use of Joint Boards.--Before issuing an order under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall refer the matter to a 
     joint board appointed under section 209(a) for advice and 
     recommendations on the need for, design of, and location of 
     the proposed enlargement, extension, or improvement. The 
     Commission shall consider the advice and recommendations of 
     the Board before ordering such enlargement, extension, or 
     improvement.
       ``(e) Limitation on Authority.--The Commission shall have 
     no authority to compel a transmitting utility to extend or 
     improve its transmission facilities if such enlargement, 
     extension, or improvement would unreasonably impair the 
     ability of the transmitting utility to render adequate 
     service to its customers.''.

     SEC. 8. REGIONAL INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATORS.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 219. REGIONAL INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATORS.

       ``(a) Regional Transmission Systems.--Whenever the 
     Commission finds such action necessary or desirable in the 
     public interest to ensure the fair and non-discriminatory 
     access to transmission services within a region, the 
     Commission may order the formation of a regional transmission 
     system and may order any transmitting utility operating 
     within such region to participate in the regional 
     transmission system.
       ``(b) Oversight Board.--The Commission shall appoint a 
     regional oversight board to oversee the operation of the 
     regional transmission system. Such oversight board shall be 
     composed of a fair representation of all of the transmitting 
     utilities participating in the regional transmission system, 
     electric utilities and consumers served by the system, and 
     State regulatory authorities within the region. The regional 
     oversight board shall ensure that the independent system 
     operator formulates policies, operates the system, and 
     resolves disputes in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
       ``(c) Independent System Operator.--The regional oversight 
     board shall appoint an independent system operator to operate 
     the regional transmission system. No independent system 
     operator shall--
       ``(1) own generating facilities or sell electric energy, or
       ``(2) be subject to the control of, or have a financial 
     interest in, any electric utility or transmitting utility 
     within the region served by the independent system operator.
       ``(d) Commission Rules.--The Commission shall establish 
     rules necessary to implement this section.''.

     SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) General Penalties.--Section 316(c) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section''; and
       (2) striking ``or 214'' and inserting: ``214, 217, 218, or 
     219''.
       ``(b) Civil Penalties.--Section 316A of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 825o-1) is amended by striking ``or 214'' each 
     place it appears and inserting: ``214, 217, 218, or 219''.

     SEC. 10. AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES 
                   ACT.

       Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 
     of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(m) Protection of Existing Wholesale Power Purchase 
     Contracts.--No State or

[[Page S7593]]

     State regulatory authority may bar a State regulated electric 
     utility from recovering the cost of electric energy the 
     utility is required to purchase from a qualifying 
     cogeneration facility or qualifying small power production 
     facility under this section.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft, 
        Mr. Burns, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gorton, Mrs. Hutchison, 
        Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Mack, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
        Coverdell, and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 1274. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the accessibility to and affordability of health care, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               health care access and equity act of 1999

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Chairman 
Roth and Senator Abraham, to introduce legislation which will provide 
access to affordable health insurance for 43 million uninsured 
Americans, correct the inequities in the tax treatment of certain types 
of health insurance, and allow for the full deductibility of long term 
care insurance.
  The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act of 1999 presents us with 
the opportunity to create the most comprehensive tax-deductible 
coverage system in our nation's history.
  One of the most discriminatory portions of the tax code is the 
disparate treatment between an employer purchasing a health plan as 
opposed to an individual purchasing health insurance on their own.
  Mr. President, when employers purchase a health plan for their 
employees, he or she can fully deduct the costs of providing that 
insurance, effectively lowering the actual costs of providing that 
coverage.
  However, when an employee purchases an individual policy on their 
own, they must do so with after tax-dollars. They don't have the 
ability or the advantage offered to employers to reduce the actual 
costs of the policy by deducting premiums from their taxes every year.
  Therefore, they usually wind up without health coverage. The Health 
Care Accessibility and Equity Act will end this discrimination within 
the tax code and make health care available for many Americans today.
  Further, the legislation offered today by Senator Roth, Senator 
Abraham, and myself would immediately allow the self-employed to fully 
deduct health insurance costs. Twenty-five million Americans are in 
families headed by a self-employed individiual--20 percent of those are 
uninsured.
  We always talk about trying to have more Americans covered by health 
care insurance. Yet, we have a tax code which discriminates against 
some, while favoring others. This results in fewer people being 
covered.
  Let's make the same tax incentives for purchasing health insurance 
available to employers apply to everyone--level the playing field and 
we will have taken the next logical step in the evolution of our health 
care system,
  Mr. President, I believe Congress should be doing all we can to lower 
the costs of health insurance.
  However, it seems most proposals before the Senate do just the 
opposite by forcing some federal definition of a quality health plan on 
consumers and sticking them with the bill.
  It's not good policy it does nothing for those who are uninsured and 
it certainly won't help those who will be forced to drop health 
insurance because they can no longer afford the premiums,.
  Mr. President, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about patient 
protections and why the Federal Government needs to step in and help 
consumers. Indeed, a better role for the Government is to help 
consumers by removing restrictions on Medical Savings Accounts as we do 
in this legislation as well.
  MSAs allow the consumers to control their costs when it comes to 
providing their families with health care. It would allow them to 
decide which provider they want to see and which services they want and 
will pay for. Certainly, empowering patients is a much more productive 
solution to a problem than simply forcing consumers to buy the 
government's definition of quality health insurance.
  When Congress created the medical savings accounts in the Kassebaum-
Kennedy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, there were 
so many restrictions placed upon the program then that it was 
essentially set up to fail. Yet MSAs have managed to become 
tremendously successful.
  According to the General Accounting Office, 37 percent of all MSA 
policyholders were previously uninsured. When you gave them the option 
and the opportunity, they were then able financially to buy insurance. 
Clearly, MSAs are providing an option for those who before couldn't 
afford to buy health insurance.
  The bill we are introducing today does not force Americans into a 
government-centered health care plan, a system that they spoke so 
loudly against back in 1993, if we remember. Senator Kennedy's 
Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, I think, is another example of a 
government-centered approach which actually threatens the accessibility 
and the affordability of health care.
  Again, this morning, our legislation fosters a consumer-centered 
health care system without raising the costs, which so many of our 
constituents have favored.
  Glenn Howatt of the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently did an article 
on MSAs and spoke with several policyholders. I will read a portion of 
his article which I believe demonstrates exactly why Congress needs to 
lift the restrictions on MSAs so that everyone has the opportunity to 
purchase an affordable health insurance plan. Mr. Howatt gives an 
account of Suzanne Eisenreich Roberts.

       Last year, Roberts thought it would be a good idea to dump 
     her individual health insurance policy, which cost $330 every 
     month, because she rarely got sick.
       She switched to an MSA last year. Her premiums dropped to 
     $100 per month, but her deductible shot up to $2,250 a year.
       Two days after the new policy became effective, Roberts 
     developed a gallstone problem that required surgery. Although 
     the insurance covered the $14,000 surgery, Roberts had to pay 
     $2,250 to satisfy the deductible requirement.
       ``Financially, I can afford the deductible,'' said Roberts. 
     And, she noted, ``I was really out nothing because I would 
     have spent it in premiums anyway.''
       If Roberts had kept her old policy, her annual premiums 
     would have been $3,960.
       But her new policy's premiums are just $1,200 a year--a 
     $2,760 saving that more than makes up for the deductible 
     cost.

  Even though she went with the MSA, even though she had to have 
surgery the first year, she was far ahead by having a medical savings 
account compared to her own insurance policy.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed the entire text of Mr. 
Howatt's article and another pertinent article in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Star Tribune, Feb. 28, 1999]

  Medical Savings Accounts Offer Relief From High Health Care Premiums

                           (By Glenn Howatt)

       At time when health care premiums in Minnesota are up 15 to 
     20 percent over last year's rates, a growing number of small 
     businesses are turning to medical savings accounts as a way 
     to seek relief.
       Commonly known as MSAs, medical savings accounts combine a 
     high-deductible insurance policy with a tax-advantaged 
     account the consumer can use to pay the deductible. MSAs 
     represent a departure from the norm in a state serviced 
     primarily by health maintenance organizations and other forms 
     of managed care.
       Most health insurance policies in Minnesota provide 
     coverage for a wide range of medical needs--everything from 
     complex surgery to routine clinic visits.
       But under MSAs, insurance coverage doesn't kick in until 
     the individual policyholder has paid for thousands of dollars 
     worth of health care out of pocket.
       This high-deductible insurance policy is paired with the 
     medical savings account, a tax-advantaged fund that helps the 
     policyholder cope financially with the demands of the 
     deductible.
       To its advocates, the MSA is more than a one-time fix to 
     cut costs, instead representing a long-term approach to 
     buying health care.


                             The advantages

       The catastrophic insurance policy results in much lower 
     premiums, the high deductible controls costs by cutting down 
     on unnecessary visits to the doctor, and the attractive 
     savings account gives users an incentive to stay healthy so 
     they can use the money for other things, such as retirement, 
     advocates content.
       But MSAs also have critics, who say the high deductible is 
     a burden for those with chronic medical conditions. Some also 
     fear public health consequences if individuals

[[Page S7594]]

     avoid spending money to receive the kind of preventive health 
     care that is fully covered by managed care policies.
       Congress asked the General Accounting Office (GAO), the 
     investigative and research arm of the government, to gauge 
     the impact of MSAs on the health insurance market when it 
     authorized the marketing of MSAs under a four-year experiment 
     that began in 1997.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       While the policy implications of MSAs are still unclear, in 
     practical terms, MSAs are becoming an option for small 
     businesses and the self-employed, the only groups that are 
     eligible to set up MSAs.
       Under the current law, the definition of self-employed is 
     the same as the Internal Revenue Service's: a person who pays 
     self-employment tax or pays Social Security tax as a self-
     employed person. The plans are not available to people who 
     are unemployed or who have retired early and are not yet 
     covered by Medicare, but a bill proposed in the U.S. House 
     would expand the definition to include those groups.


                          small business buyer

       Eldon Kimball, owner of Edina-based Creative Systems 
     Software, happened upon the MSA option after he received a 
     general mailing from an insurance broker.
       Kimball, who provides health benefits for himself and his 
     four employees, was looking for some way to deal with 
     spiraling health care premiums.
       ``Premiums were going up and up and up and up and for a 
     small company like ours, that was becoming a terrible 
     burden,'' Kimball said.
       Small businesses such as Kimball's have few options--cut 
     benefits, ask employees to shoulder more cost, drop health 
     insurance altogether, or let health care take a bigger bite 
     out of the bottom line.
       While Kimball noted that switching to an MSA would lower 
     his total premium bill by nearly $200 a month, he was more 
     impressed with the benefits that the MSA could provide to his 
     employees.
       Kimball uses the money he saves on premiums to partially 
     fund the medical savings accounts for his employees, a move 
     that gives him a break on his taxes.
       The employees can use the money in their MSAs to pay for 
     medical costs--the annual deductibles for the insurance 
     policy are $2,250 for individuals and $4,450 for families.
       Anything that employees don't spend they keep, making the 
     MSA another way of saving for retirement. At that point, the 
     money becomes available for any purpose without penalty. 
     Withdrawals from MSAs can be made before retirement for non-
     medical purposes, but those are subject to penalties and 
     taxes.


                            retirement fund

       ``It has a long-term advantage,'' said Kimball. The MSA 
     ``becomes another benefit in the form of a retirement fund if 
     they don't use it.''
       Under the MSA regulations, employers are not required to 
     put money into employees' accounts.
       Edwrd M. Ryan, an Eden Prairie-based certified public 
     accountant who employs 10 workers, said his employees still 
     come out ahead even though he doesn't fund their MSAs.
       Before his office switched to MSAs last year, he split the 
     cost of the monthly insurance premium with his workers. Now 
     he pays the entire cost of the premium, freeing up workers' 
     money to fund their MSAs.
       But MSAs also come with high deductibles, as Suzanne 
     Eisenreich Roberts, who owns Accountant Profile Inc., a 
     Roseville-based placement agency for accountants, knows well.
       Last year, Roberts thought it would be a good idea to dump 
     her individual health insurance policy, which cost $330 every 
     month, because she rarely got sick.
       She switched to an MSA last year. Her premiums dropped to 
     $100 per month, but her deductible shot up to $2,250 a year.
       Two days after the new policy became effective, Roberts 
     developed a gallstone problem that required surgery. Although 
     the insurance covered the $14,000 surgery. Roberts had to pay 
     $2,250 to satisfy the deductible requirement.
       ``Financially I can afford the deductible,'' said Roberts. 
     And, she noted, ``I was really out nothing because I would 
     have spent it in premiums anyway.''
       If Roberts had kept her old policy, her annual premiums 
     would have been $3,960. But her new policy's premiums are 
     just $1,200 a year--a $2,760 saving that more than makes up 
     for the deductible cost.


                          targeting uninsured

       Companies that sell MSAs obviously are targeting people 
     such as Roberts who have little downside risk. But they also 
     hope to sign up people who could not afford health insurance 
     before.
       The GAO reported that of the nearly 42,000 MSA accounts 
     established in 1997, 37 percent were started by individuals 
     who previously did not have health insurance.
       ``MSAs were intended for having a lower cost mechanism to 
     attract more people without insurance,'' said Scott Krienke, 
     vice president of marketing for Fortis Insurance in 
     Milwaukee.
       The GAO report issued in December said about 40 companies 
     nationally were selling high-deductible insurance policies 
     paired with MSAs. Some insurance companies act as trustee for 
     the account, but sometimes a bank or investment company 
     serves as the trustee.
       Insurance companies responding to the GAO survey said they 
     were disappointed with sales, but hoped that growing 
     familiarity with MSAs on the part of consumers and brokers 
     would lead to greater acceptance of the product.
       Fortis, which sells MSAs nationwide, is believed to be the 
     largest seller of MSA policies in Minnesota, according to 
     state officials.
       Krienke said Fortis sold 260 individual policies in 
     Minnesota in 1997 and nearly doubled that number to 516 in 
     1998. He hopes sales will reach 700 this year.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                             new customers

       MSAs could gain a larger market presence this year through 
     Community Coordinated Health Care, a new health plan being 
     formed by a consortium of clinics and hospitals.
       The plan will offer MSAs to small and medium-sized 
     businesses that are part of the Employers Association, a 
     coalition of more than 1,700 companies.
       ``We are going to appeal to everybody,'' said Bernie 
     Mackell, of Eden Prairie-based Medical Savings Accounts Inc., 
     who is coordinating MSAs for the new health plan.
       Mackell said education will be a large component of the MSA 
     programs being offered to Employers Association companies.
       ``Having employees involved in their health care is 
     important,'' Mackell said. Health education would encourage 
     employees to seek preventive care as one way that they can 
     preserve capital in the MSA funds.
       The new health plan is expected to be operational by this 
     summer.
       And at least two large health insurers are watching the MSA 
     market closely.
       Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota said it is 
     monitoring the market, although right now it has not plans to 
     offer an MSA.
       However, HealthPartners said it is actively considering 
     offering an MSA product.
       ``We already have in our product line a $1,000 deductible 
     plan for individuals that moves in the direction that MSAs 
     go,'' said George Halvorson, HealthPartners chief executive, 
     adding that there is a ``good likelihood'' that 
     HealthPartners may add an MSA into the mix at some point.
                                  ____



                         a national experiment

       Insurance companies began selling medical savings accounts 
     (MSAs) in 1997 under a four-year trial period established by 
     Congress. Self-employed workers and small businesses with 50 
     or fewer employees are eligible for MSAs. Sales of MSAs have 
     not met expectations, and only 42,000 MSAs were opened in 
     1997, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). MSA 
     advocates say the rules laid down by Congress are too 
     restrictive and want the accounts to be available to a wider 
     market. But critics fear that MSAs could siphon healthier 
     individuals from the traditional insurance market. A GAO 
     study on the effect of MSAs was canceled because not enough 
     MSAs have been sold.


                             how msas work

       Medical savings accounts are paired with high-deductible, 
     low-premium health insurance policies.


                      the health insurance policy

       Premiums on high-deductible policies are typically lower 
     than most other forms of insurance. Employers offering MSAs 
     can require workers to pay part of the premium.
       For individual coverage, deductibles must be at least 
     $1,500 but no more than $2,250. For family coverage, 
     deductibles range between $3,000 and $4,500.
       The policy might (but is not required to) have additional 
     out-of-pocket costs, such as copayments for office visits. 
     Maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses, including the 
     deductible, are $3,000 for individuals and $5,500 for 
     families.


                      the medical savings account

                                deposits

       Money deposited into the MSA, which is separate from the 
     premiums paid on the health policy, can come from the 
     individual or the employer, but not from both in the same 
     year.
       There's a limit to how much money can be put into an MSA 
     each year. For individual coverage, up to 65 percent of the 
     deductible amount can be contributed. For family coverage, 
     the maximum goes up to 75 percent of the deductible.
       Contributions made by individuals are tax-deductible. 
     Contributions made by employers do not count toward gross 
     income and are not subject to taxes.
       Most MSA accounts earn interest similar to passbook savings 
     accounts, but some MSA administrators offer the option to 
     transfer money into money market accounts or mutual funds 
     under certain conditions.


                              withdrawals

       MSA contributions accrue and are not ``use it or lose it'' 
     accounts. Individuals are not required to use MSA funds when 
     paying deductible amounts under the insurance policy.
       MSA dollars can be used to pay for qualified medical 
     expenses, including doctor visits, prescription drugs, vision 
     and dental care.
       Withdrawals from MSAs for non-medical expenses are subject 
     to a 15 percent tax penalty and are counted as gross income.
       After the MSA account holder turns age 65, MSA funds can be 
     used for any purpose and are not assessed the 15 percent 
     penalty.


[[Page S7595]]


  Mr. GRAMS. Clearly, Mr. President, MSAs offer many benefits for the 
uninsured. Let's lift the restrictions placed on MSAs and allow 
everyone to open a Medical Savings Account.
  The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act begins the process of 
dealing with our nation's long term care needs.
  Mr. President, it is estimated that, in the history of the world, 
half of the people who have ever reached age 65 are alive today.
  And as the babyboom generation ages, the population of those over age 
65 will increase quicker than at any time in history.
  The increase in the aged population brings with it a number of 
complex and vexing issues, one of which is long term care.
  The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act tinkered 
slightly with the issue of long term care insurance, but we need to 
meet the issue head on.
  The legislation Chairman Roth, Senator Abraham, and I are introducing 
today would eliminate the questions surrounding what constitutes a 
qualified versus non-qualified long term care plan and their tax 
treatment.
  I have always believed we should encourage individuals to save for 
their retirement needs and, for a number of reasons, usually cost, long 
term care insurance is often overlooked during retirement planning.
  Unfortunately, this often leads to individuals spending themselves 
down to poverty and relying on Medicaid. By allowing individuals to 
deduct the costs of long-term care insurance, we can prevent many of 
our elderly from impoverishing themselves in order to receive long-term 
care.
  The Health Care Accessibility and Equity Act of 1999 is good policy 
and will begin to address the crisis of 43 million Americans without 
access to affordable health care insurance today. Most important, it 
levels the playing field for those who are purchasing health insurance 
individually.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to help us get 
closer to the goal of health care access for all Americans.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there is a serious inadequacy in the 
treatment of Americans who must pay for their health care on their own 
and those who receive it on a tax subsidized basis from their 
employers. In addition, our tax code restricts people from making 
health care decisions in a tax advantaged way. I am happy to join with 
my colleagues, Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator Abraham of 
Michigan in sponsoring the Health Care Access and Equity Act of 1999. 
Our bill would rectify this situation and provide a level playing field 
for all Americans who purchase their own health insurance and those who 
receive employer subsidized insurance. It will also give people more 
tax-advantaged options in how they use their health care dollars.
  Let me explain the current unfairness of our tax code as it relates 
to health care insurance. Current law provides that any employer 
subsidy of health benefits is not included in the income of the 
employee. This means that if an employer pays the entire cost of health 
care insurance, that entire subsidy is not included in the employee's 
taxable income.
  However, if the employer does not provide health care insurance for 
its employees or if the employee has to pay the full cost of the 
insurance, they do not get the same tax benefit as those who have all 
or a portion of their health care insurance paid for by their employer. 
Those premiums that are not paid for by the employer can be deducted by 
the employee--but only to the extent that the total premium amount and 
other health care costs exceed 7.5% of the employee's adjusted gross 
income. What this effectively means is that these individuals are 
denied a tax effective way of paying for health insurance.
  Self-employed individuals don't have an employer to cover their 
health insurance needs; they must pay for their health insurance on 
their own. Self-employed individuals can only deduct 60% of the amount 
of their health care premiums. This percentage will increase over time 
until the year 2003, when health care premiums will be fully 
deductible.
  Our current tax code does not treat all taxpayers the same. Our bill 
changes this situation.
  This bill provides that all taxpayers can fully deduct the amount 
paid for health insurance--as long as the taxpayer is not eligible to 
participate in an employer subsidized medical plan. This equalizes the 
tax treatment of paying for health insurance so that all individuals 
get a tax incentive when they have health care insurance, regardless of 
whether their employer pays for the coverage.

  This amendment underscores the need to make health care more 
affordable for more Americans and to begin providing greater equity in 
the tax treatment of health insurance whether people obtain their 
coverage at their place of employment or purchase coverage in the 
individual health insurance market.
  It is a sobering fact that there are over 41 million Americans 
without health insurance.
  Largely as a result of the tax incentives I explained before, the 
number of people covered by employer-provided health insurance has 
grown from less than 12 million in 1940 to approximately 150 million 
today.
  However, those who do not have tax-subsidized health care benefits do 
not fare as well. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 
individuals who must pay for health coverage with after-tax dollars are 
24 times more likely to be uninsured as those with employer-provided 
coverage.
  With this change, all individuals who do not receive the employer-
provided subsidies for health care insurance will not have the 
opportunity to have their taxes reduced because they purchased 
insurance.
  This amendment will benefit approximately 12 million taxpayers who do 
not have health insurance that is subsidized by an employer.
  Our bill also provides that more individuals will be able to have 
long term care insurance in a tax effective manner, by giving them a 
tax deduction for the payment of premiums for a long term care policy. 
Current law only allows a deduction for long term care premiums if 
those premiums, along with other medical expenses exceed 7.5% of 
adjusted gross income. With this bill, the entire amount of the long 
term care premium will be deductible. This will benefit at least 3.8 
million taxpayers. Clearly more people will be able to prepare for 
their future needs by buying long term care insurance.
  Another important provision of our bill is the expansion of the 
availability of medical Savings Accounts. MSAs gives individuals more 
choice in how they spend their health care dollars.
  Current law restricts who can participate in an MSA and clearly 
these restrictions have limited who participate in this program. Our 
bill would lift these caps on this program and give people more reason 
to choose to be in an MSA.

  Another important point to remember with MSAs is that they encourage 
those individuals who are not insured to become insured. When the 
General Accounting Office reviewed what has happened in the MSA market, 
they reported that approximately one third of those who participated in 
the MSA program had been previously uninsured. The MSA participated in 
the MSA program had been previously uninsured. The MSA program has been 
proven to increase those covered under a health plan; with this bill we 
expand the program so that more people will be insured.
  Finally, our bill provides incentives for employees to contribute to 
flexible spending accounts. With a flexible spending account, an 
employee can contribute a portion of his salary--thereby reducing his 
taxable income--to a flexible spending account and then use the money 
in that account to pay for health care benefits, whether or not they 
are covered by his medical insurance. Increasing the availability of 
these FSAs, will give employees more freedom on how to spend their 
money when purchasing health care.
  The policy behind our bill is clear--increased equity in the tax 
system for health care insurance and more choice for individuals in how 
they spend their health care dollars. I am happy to join my two 
distinguished colleagues--Senator Grams and Abraham and the other 
Senators co-sponsoring this important health care legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL:

[[Page S7596]]

  S. 1275. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to produce 
and sell products and to sell publications relating to the Hoover Dam, 
and to deposit revenues generated from the sales into the Colorado 
River Dam fund; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   HOOVER DAM MISCELLANEOUS SALES ACT

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize 
the Bureau of Reclamation to produce commemorative items for sale at 
the Hoover Dam Visitor Center.
  Mr. President, the Hoover Dam receives more than one million visitors 
a year. Many of those visitors have expressed an interest in purchasing 
books, maps, photos, and other memorabilia relating to the Colorado 
River and the design, construction, and operation of the Dam. This bill 
would authorize the production and sale of such items, including the 
minting of commemorative coins from scrap copper that came from 
electrical cabinets and boxes which were used when the Dam was manually 
operated. Four to five tons of copper are available for this purpose.
  Mr. President, this bill not only responds to the public's demand for 
Hoover Dam-related items, it also creates a revenue source to help 
repay the cost of constructing the visitor center and of providing 
guided tours of the Dam and its power plant. Currently, purchasers of 
Hoover Dam power in Arizona, California, and Nevada are paying for the 
construction of the visitor center, which ended up costing 
approximately $125 million, nearly four times as much as the original 
estimate. This bill further authorizes the Bureau to select a private 
concessionaire to manage the gift shop selling these items, thereby 
creating a new business opportunity for a private or a non-profit 
entity. Thus, this bill would enhance the visitor experience at Hoover 
Dam in a taxpayer-friendly way.
  Mr. President, 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. 1275

       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 ``Hoover Dam Miscellaneous 
     Sales Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the sale and distribution of general public information 
     about the use of public land and water areas for recreation, 
     fish, wildlife, and other purposes serve significant public 
     benefits;
       (2) publications and other materials educate the public and 
     provide general information about Bureau of Reclamation 
     programs and projects;
       (3) in 1997, more than 1,000,000 visitors, including 
     300,000 from foreign countries, toured the Hoover Dam;
       (4) hundreds of thousands of additional visitors stopped to 
     view the dam;
       (5) visitors often ask to purchase maps, publications, and 
     other items to enhance their experience or serve educational 
     purposes;
       (6) in many cases the Bureau of Reclamation is the sole 
     source of those items;
       (7) the Bureau is in a unique position to fulfill public 
     requests for those items; and
       (8) as a public agency, the Bureau should be responsive to 
     the public by having appropriate items available for sale.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to offer for 
     sale to members of the public that visit the Hoover Dam 
     Visitor Center educational materials and memorabilia; and
       (2) to use revenue from those sales to repay the costs 
     relating to construction of the Hoover Dam Visitor Center.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT SALES.

       With respect to the Hoover Dam, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, 
     may--
       (1) conduct sales of--
       (A) materials generated by the Bureau of Reclamation such 
     as posters, maps, brochures, photographs, and similar 
     publications, videotapes, and computer information discs that 
     are related to programs or projects of the Bureau; and
       (B) memorabilia and other commemorative items that depict 
     programs or projects of the Bureau;
       (2) convert unneeded property or scrap material into Bureau 
     memorabilia for sale purposes; and
       (3) enter into agreements with nonprofit organizations, 
     other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 
     commercial entities for--
       (A) the production or sale of items described in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2); and
       (B) the sale of publications described in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 5. COSTS AND REVENUES.

       (a) Costs.--All costs incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation 
     under this Act shall be paid from the Colorado River Dam fund 
     established by section 2 of the Act of December 21, 1928 (43 
     U.S.C. 617a).
       (b) Revenues.--
       (1) Use for repayment of sales costs.--All revenues 
     collected by the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act shall 
     be credited to the Colorado River Dam fund to remain 
     available, without further Act of appropriation, to pay costs 
     associated with the production and sale of items in 
     accordance with section 4.
       (2) Use for repayment of construction costs.--All revenues 
     collected by the Bureau of Reclamation under this Act that 
     are not needed to pay costs described in paragraph (1) shall 
     be transferred annually to the general fund of the Treasury 
     in repayment of costs relating to construction of the Hoover 
     Dam Visitor Center.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Specter, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, 
        Mr. Leahy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Robb, Mr. Cleland, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Torricelli, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Levin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bryan, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 1276. A bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


               employment non-discrimination act of 1999

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here today to 
introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999 (ENDA). I am 
here today because I believe that the principles of equality and 
opportunity should be applied to all Americans and that success at work 
should be based on performance, not prejudice.

  Unfortunately, qualified, hard-working Americans continue to be 
denied job opportunities based instead on sexual orientation. The 
Employment Non-Discrimination Act will help put an end to this 
insidious discrimination. By extending to sexual orientation the same 
federal employment discrimination protections established for race, 
religion, gender, national origin, age and disability, the Employment 
Non-Discrimination Act will further ensure that principals of equality 
and opportunity apply to all Americans.
  This bill is about fairness, this bill is about equality, this bill 
is about basic civil rights. This bill must pass this Congress.
  ENDA will achieve equal rights -- not ``special rights'' -- for gays 
and lesbians. This legislation prohibits preferential treatment based 
on sexual orientation. To remove any doubt, we have added language to 
expressly prohibit affirmative action on the basis of sexual 
orientation.
  ENDA does not require an employer to justify a neutral practice that 
may have a statistically disparate impact based on sexual orientation, 
nor provide benefits for the same-sex partner of an employee. Rather, 
it simply protects a right that should belong to every American, the 
right to be free from discrimination at work because of personal 
characteristics unrelated to successful performance on the job.
  We took a fresh look at ENDA and we have made a number of 
constructive changes this year. We have re-written the discrimination 
section to more closely track Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964. This new language has the benefit of 35 years of legal 
interpretation. Employers and courts alike understand this language and 
what is expected under it.
  One concern that we have heard repeatedly during past debates is that 
this language will create a tidal wave of litigation. In Vermont, one 
of 11 states to have enacted a sexual-orientation anti-discrimination 
law, the legal waters have been more like the Tidal Basin. In the 9 
years since the enactment of Vermont's law, Vermont's Attorney General 
has initiated only 25 investigations of alleged sexual orientation 
discrimination.
  Vermont is not unique. According to the GAO, none of the states with

[[Page S7597]]

ENDA-type laws have experienced a wave of litigation. Instead, these 
states have ensured that employees working within their borders cannot 
be discriminated against for being gay.
  As I have stated before, success at work should be directly related 
to one's ability to do the job, period. We first introduced ENDA in 
1994. Over the past six years, we have held hearings, listened to the 
concerns raised and revised this legislation to respond to those 
concerns. I am pleased to report that it was worth the effort because 
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999 is the best bill we have 
ever introduced. The time has come to make the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act the law of the land.
  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. 1276

       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 ``Employment Non-
     Discrimination Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to provide a comprehensive Federal prohibition of 
     employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;
       (2) to provide meaningful and effective remedies for 
     employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; 
     and
       (3) to invoke congressional powers, including the powers to 
     enforce the 14th amendment to the Constitution and to 
     regulate interstate commerce, in order to prohibit employment 
     discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission.
       (2) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means an 
     employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint 
     labor-management committee.
       (3) Employer.--The term ``employer'' means--
       (A) a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce (as 
     defined in section 701(h) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e(h))) who has 15 or more employees (as defined in 
     section 701(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e(f)) for each 
     working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the 
     current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a 
     person, but does not include a bona fide private membership 
     club (other than a labor organization) that is exempt from 
     taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986;
       (B) an employing authority to which section 302(a)(1) of 
     the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 
     1202(a)(1)) applies;
       (C) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301) or 
     section 401 of title 3, United States Code; or
       (D) an entity to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights 
     of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a)) applies.
       (4) Employment agency.--The term ``employment agency'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 701(c) of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(c)).
       (5) Employment or an employment opportunity.--Except as 
     provided in section 10(a)(1), the term ``employment or an 
     employment opportunity'' includes job application procedures, 
     referral for employment, hiring, advancement, discharge, 
     compensation, job training, a term, condition, or privilege 
     of union membership, or any other term, condition, or 
     privilege of employment, but does not include the service of 
     a volunteer for which the volunteer receives no compensation.
       (6) Labor organization.--The term ``labor organization'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 701(d) of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(d)).
       (7) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 701(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e(a)).
       (8) Religious organization.--The term ``religious 
     organization'' means--
       (A) a religious corporation, association, or society; or
       (B) a school, college, university, or other educational 
     institution or institution of learning, if--
       (i) the institution is in whole or substantial part 
     controlled, managed, owned, or supported by a religion, 
     religious corporation, association, or society; or
       (ii) the curriculum of the institution is directed toward 
     the propagation of a religion.
       (9) Sexual orientation.--The term ``sexual orientation'' 
     means homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality, whether 
     the orientation is real or perceived.
       (10) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 701(i) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e(i)).

     SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.

       (a) Employer Practices.--It shall be an unlawful employment 
     practice for an employer--
       (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any 
     individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any 
     individual with respect to the compensation, terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, 
     because of such individual's sexual orientation; or
       (2) to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or 
     applicants for employment of the employer in any way that 
     would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment 
     opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the 
     individual as an employee, because of such individual's 
     sexual orientation.
       (b) Employment Agency Practices.--It shall be an unlawful 
     employment practice for an employment agency to fail or 
     refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate 
     against, any individual because of the sexual orientation of 
     the individual or to classify or refer for employment any 
     individual on the basis of the sexual orientation of the 
     individual.
       (c) Labor Organization Practices.--It shall be an unlawful 
     employment practice for a labor organization--
       (1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or 
     otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of 
     the sexual orientation of the individual;
       (2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or 
     applicants for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse 
     to refer for employment any individual, in any way that would 
     deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment 
     opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities 
     or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as 
     an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of 
     such individual's sexual orientation; or
       (3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to 
     discriminate against an individual in violation of this 
     section.
       (d) Training Programs.--It shall be an unlawful employment 
     practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint 
     labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or 
     other training or retraining, including on-the-job training 
     programs, to discriminate against any individual because of 
     the sexual orientation of the individual in admission to, or 
     employment in, any program established to provide 
     apprenticeship or other training.
       (e) Association.--An unlawful employment practice described 
     in any of subsections (a) through (d) shall be considered to 
     include an action described in that subsection, taken against 
     an individual based on the sexual orientation of a person 
     with whom the individual associates or has associated.
       (f) Disparate Impact.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, the fact that an employment practice has a 
     disparate impact, as the term ``disparate impact'' is used in 
     section 703(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-2(k)), on the basis of sexual orientation does not 
     establish a prima facie violation of this Act.

     SEC. 5. RETALIATION AND COERCION PROHIBITED.

       (a) Retaliation.--A covered entity shall not discriminate 
     against an individual because such individual opposed any act 
     or practice prohibited by this Act or because such individual 
     made a charge, assisted, testified, or participated in any 
     manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this 
     Act.
       (b) Coercion.--A person shall not coerce, intimidate, 
     threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or 
     enjoyment of, or on account of such individual's having 
     exercised, enjoyed, or assisted in or encouraged the exercise 
     or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this Act.

     SEC. 6. BENEFITS.

       This Act does not apply to the provision of employee 
     benefits to an individual for the benefit of the domestic 
     partner of such individual.

     SEC. 7. COLLECTION OF STATISTICS PROHIBITED.

       The Commission shall not collect statistics on sexual 
     orientation from covered entities, or compel the collection 
     of such statistics by covered entities.

     SEC. 8. QUOTAS AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROHIBITED.

       (a) Quotas.--A covered entity shall not adopt or implement 
     a quota on the basis of sexual orientation.
       (b) Preferential Treatment.--A covered entity shall not 
     give preferential treatment to an individual on the basis of 
     sexual orientation.
       (c) Orders and Consent Decrees.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, an order or consent decree entered for 
     a violation of this Act may not include a quota, or 
     preferential treatment to an individual, based on sexual 
     orientation.

     SEC. 9. RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     Act shall not apply to a religious organization.
       (b) Unrelated Business Taxable Income.--This Act shall 
     apply to employment or an employment opportunity for an 
     employment position of a covered entity that is a religious 
     organization if the duties of the position pertain solely to 
     activities of the organization that generate unrelated 
     business taxable income subject to taxation under section 
     511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[[Page S7598]]

     SEC. 10. NONAPPLICATION TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES; 
                   VETERANS' PREFERENCES.

       (a) Armed Forces.--
       (1) Employment or an employment opportunity.--In this Act, 
     the term ``employment or an employment opportunity'' does not 
     apply to the relationship between the United States and 
     members of the Armed Forces.
       (2) Armed forces.--In paragraph (1), the term ``Armed 
     Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and 
     Coast Guard.
       (b) Veterans' Preferences.--This Act does not repeal or 
     modify any Federal, State, territorial, or local law creating 
     a special right or preference concerning employment or an 
     employment opportunity for a veteran.

     SEC. 11. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit a 
     covered entity from enforcing rules regarding nonprivate 
     sexual conduct, if the rules of conduct are designed for, and 
     uniformly applied to, all individuals regardless of sexual 
     orientation.

     SEC. 12. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Enforcement Powers.--With respect to the administration 
     and enforcement of this Act in the case of a claim alleged by 
     an individual for a violation of this Act--
       (1) the Commission shall have the same powers as the 
     Commission has to administer and enforce--
       (A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e et seq.); or
       (B) sections 302 and 304 of the Government Employee Rights 
     Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202 and 1220);

     in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a 
     violation of such title, or of section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202(a)(1)), 
     respectively;
       (2) the Librarian of Congress shall have the same powers as 
     the Librarian of Congress has to administer and enforce title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) 
     in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a 
     violation of such title;
       (3) the Board (as defined in section 101 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301)) 
     shall have the same powers as the Board has to administer and 
     enforce the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such 
     individual for a violation of section 201(a)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1));
       (4) the Attorney General shall have the same powers as the 
     Attorney General has to administer and enforce--
       (A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e et seq.); or
       (B) sections 302 and 304 of the Government Employee Rights 
     Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202 and 1220);

     in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a 
     violation of such title, or of section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202(a)(1)), 
     respectively;
       (5) the President, the Commission, and the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board shall have the same powers as the President, 
     the Commission, and the Board, respectively, have to 
     administer and enforce chapter 5 of title 3, United States 
     Code, in the case of a claim alleged by such individual for a 
     violation of section 411 of such title;
       (6) a court of the United States shall have the same 
     jurisdiction and powers as the court has to enforce--
       (A) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such 
     individual for a violation of such title;
       (B) sections 302 and 304 of the Government Employee Rights 
     Act of 1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202 and 1220) in the case of a claim 
     alleged by such individual for a violation of section 
     302(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1202(a)(1));
       (C) the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 
     1301 et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such 
     individual for a violation of section 201(a)(1) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)); and
       (D) chapter 5 of title 3, United States Code, in the case 
     of a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of 
     section 411 of such title.
       (b) Procedures and Remedies.--The procedures and remedies 
     applicable to a claim alleged by an individual for a 
     violation of this Act are--
       (1) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation 
     of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 
     et seq.) in the case of a claim alleged by such individual 
     for a violation of such title;
       (2) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation 
     of section 302(a)(1) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 
     1991 (2 U.S.C. 1202(a)(1)) in the case of a claim alleged by 
     such individual for a violation of such section;
       (3) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation 
     of section 201(a)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act 
     of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)) in the case of a claim alleged 
     by such individual for a violation of such section; and
       (4) the procedures and remedies applicable for a violation 
     of section 411 of title 3, United States Code, in the case of 
     a claim alleged by such individual for a violation of such 
     section.
       (c) Other Applicable Provisions.--With respect to a claim 
     alleged by a covered employee (as defined in section 101 of 
     the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301)) 
     for a violation of this Act, title III of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) shall 
     apply in the same manner as such title applies with respect 
     to a claim alleged by such a covered employee for a violation 
     of section 201(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)).
       (d) Prohibition of Affirmative Action--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, affirmative action for a 
     violation of this Act may not be imposed. Nothing in this 
     section shall prevent the granting of relief to any 
     individual who suffers a violation of such individual's 
     rights provided in this Act.

     SEC. 13. STATE AND FEDERAL IMMUNITY.

       (a) State Immunity.--A State shall not be immune under the 
     11th amendment to the Constitution from an action in a 
     Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of 
     this Act.
       (b) Remedies Against the United States and the States.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an action 
     or administrative proceeding against the United States or a 
     State for a violation of this Act, remedies (including 
     remedies at law and in equity, and interest) are available 
     for the violation to the same extent as the remedies are 
     available for a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) by a private entity, 
     except that--
       (1) punitive damages are not available; and
       (2) compensatory damages are available to the extent 
     specified in section 1977A(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 
     U.S.C. 1981a(b)).

     SEC. 14. ATTORNEYS' FEES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in an 
     action or administrative proceeding for a violation of this 
     Act, an entity described in section 12(a) (other than 
     paragraph (4) of such section), in the discretion of the 
     entity, may allow the prevailing party, other than the 
     Commission or the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee 
     (including expert fees) as part of the costs. The Commission 
     and the United States shall be liable for the costs to the 
     same extent as a private person.

     SEC. 15. POSTING NOTICES.

       A covered entity who is required to post notices described 
     in section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-10) shall post notices for employees, applicants for 
     employment, and members, to whom the provisions specified in 
     section 12(b) apply, that describe the applicable provisions 
     of this Act in the manner prescribed by, and subject to the 
     penalty provided under, section 711 of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964.

     SEC. 16. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b), 
     (c), and (d), the Commission shall have authority to issue 
     regulations to carry out this Act.
       (b) Librarian of Congress.--The Librarian of Congress shall 
     have authority to issue regulations to carry out this Act 
     with respect to employees of the Library of Congress.
       (c) Board.--The Board referred to in section 12(a)(3) shall 
     have authority to issue regulations to carry out this Act, in 
     accordance with section 304 of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384), with respect to 
     covered employees, as defined in section 101 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 1301).
       (d) President.--The President shall have authority to issue 
     regulations to carry out this Act with respect to covered 
     employees, as defined in section 401 of title 3, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 17. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       This Act shall not invalidate or limit the rights, 
     remedies, or procedures available to an individual claiming 
     discrimination prohibited under any other Federal law or any 
     law of a State or political subdivision of a State.

     SEC. 18. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of the 
     provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be 
     invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of the 
     provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be 
     affected by the invalidity.

     SEC. 19. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and shall not apply to conduct 
     occurring before the effective date.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, Congressman Frank, and Congressman Shays 
to announce the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act 
of 1999, which has over 30 co-sponsors in the Senate and over 150 co-
sponsors in the House of Representatives. Once this bill becomes law, 
it will ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to work without 
fear of reprisal because of their sexual orientation. It is the next 
important step for civil rights in America.
  This country has made great progress toward fairness and an end to 
bigotry in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
ensures that Americans--without regard to their race, ethnic 
background, gender, or religion--have the opportunity to obtain and 
keep a job. The Minimum Wage guarantees a basic standard of living. The 
Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees that working men and

[[Page S7599]]

women can balance important family and employment responsibilities 
without fear of reprisal by their employer. The Americans with 
Disabilities Act establishes important protections for workers with 
disabilities.
  Now, Congress must take steps to achieve the same kind of fairness 
for gay men and lesbians who encounter blatant discrimination in the 
workplace. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will accomplish that 
goal by prohibiting employers from using sexual orientation as a basis 
for hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation.
  The bill is important for what it does, as well as what it doesn't 
do. It does not require domestic partnership benefits. It does not 
authorize ``disparate impact'' claims. It does not apply to the Armed 
Services. It contains a broad exemption of religious organizations. It 
prohibits quotas and preferential treatment, and bars the EEOC from 
requiring the collection of statistical information on sexual 
orientation.
  A broad coalition of churches, businesses, and civil rights liberties 
organizations support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 68 percent 
of Americans from all regions of the country support its passage.
  The American people agree that workplace discrimination is wrong, and 
that clear protections are needed to prevent it. Some states already 
have such laws, and many businesses have policies similar to our 
proposal. But this patchwork of protection is inadequate. A national 
standard is essential for the protection of this basic right.
  The discrimination that exists today is a stain on our democracy.
  David Horowitz encountered this bigotry when he applied to be an 
Assistant City Attorney in Mesa, Arizona. He had graduated near the top 
of his law school class at the University of Arizona. While employed by 
a private law firm, he applied for a position with the City Attorney. 
He was not offered a position, but he was told he was the second 
choice. Six months later, he was called and interviewed for another job 
opening. The City Attorney asked David for references and told him 
that, ``I only ask for references when I'm ready to make someone an 
offer.'' In the interview, David told the City Attorney that he was 
openly gay, and the tone of the interview suddenly changed. David was 
told that his sexual orientation posed a problem, and three weeks later 
he received a rejection letter.
  What happened to David Horowitz was wrong, but he had no recourse 
under State or Federal law against this blatant discrimination. No 
American should be denied a chance to work because of prejudices. It is 
long past time to close this loophole in our civil rights law, and I 
urge the Congress to act this year to close it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators 
Jeffords, Kennedy and over 30 of our colleagues as an original 
cosponsor of this important legislation, the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act of 1999. By guaranteeing that American workers 
cannot lose their jobs simply because of their sexual orientation, this 
bill would extend the bedrock American values of fairness and equality 
to a group of our fellow citizens who too often have been denied the 
benefit of those most basic values.
  Our nation's foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, 
expressed a vision of our country as one premised upon the essential 
equality of all people and upon the recognition that our Creator 
endowed all of us with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness. Two hundred and twenty-three years ago, when that 
document was drafted, our laws fell far short of implementing the 
Declaration's ideal. But since that time, we have come ever closer, 
extending by law to more and more of our citizens--to African 
Americans, to women, to disabled Americans, to religious minorities and 
to others--a legally enforceable guarantee that, with respect to their 
ability to earn a living at least, they will be treated on their merits 
and not on characteristics unrelated to their ability to do their jobs.
  It is time to extend that guarantee to gay men and lesbians, who too 
often have been subject to incidents of discrimination and denied the 
most basic of rights: the right to obtain and maintain a job. A 
collection of one national survey and twenty city and state surveys 
found that as many as 44 percent of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers 
faced job discrimination in the workplace at some time in their 
careers. Other studies have reported even greater discrimination--as 
much as 68 percent of gay men and lesbians reporting employment 
discrimination. The fear in which these workers live was clear from a 
survey of gay men and lesbians in Philadelphia. Over three-quarters 
told those conducting the survey that they sometimes or always hide 
their orientation at work out of fear of discrimination.
  The toll this discrimination takes extends far beyond its effect on 
those individuals who must live in fear and without full employment 
opportunities. It also takes an unacceptable toll on America's 
definition of itself as a land of equality and opportunity, as a place 
where we judge each other on our merits, and as a country that teaches 
its children that anyone can succeed here as long as they are willing 
to do their job and work hard.
  This bill provides for equality and fairness--that and no more. It 
says only what we already have said for women, for people of color and 
for others: that you are entitled to have your ability to earn a living 
depend only on your ability to do the job and nothing else. In fact, 
the bill would even do somewhat less than it does for women and people 
of color, because it would not give gay men and women all of the 
protections we currently provide to other groups protected under our 
civil rights laws.
  Mr. President, this bill would bring our nation one large step closer 
to realizing the vision that Thomas Jefferson so eloquently expressed 
223 years ago when he wrote that all of us have a right to life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this important legislation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator 
Jeffords as he reintroduces the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. As 
before, I speak as a strong supporter of this legislation, because I 
have always believed that every single American deserves fair treatment 
under the law no matter his or her gender, race, religion or sexual 
orientation.
  As one of only a few women to ever serve in the United States Senate, 
and the first ever from Washington state, I understand what it means to 
be part of a group that seeks fairness and equal opportunity. I have 
never advocated for any special class, just equal treatment and 
protection under the law.
  Not long ago, many thought it would be impossible for women to serve 
in the Senate or an elected office of any kind. It was felt this was 
not a suitable occupation for a woman and that simply being a woman 
meant a person was incapable of meeting the demands of the job. These 
people alleged that women would somehow jeopardize the work done in the 
U.S. Congress. While these statements may seem impossible to believe 
today, they do illustrate what many women faced. However, to our 
country's benefit, these stereotypes were overcome. I am confident that 
none of my colleagues today would deny the tremendous contributions 
women have made here, in the House, in state and local government, and 
at every level of public service.
  People suffer when stereotypes based on fear or ignorance are used to 
justify discrimination. I do not believe elected leaders serve our 
country well if they deny any citizen equal opportunities and equal 
treatment under the law. A person's success or failure must depend on 
his or her qualifications, skills, efforts, and even luck. But, no one, 
I repeat, no one, should be denied opportunities because of race, 
gender, religion, age or sexual orientation. No one should endure 
discrimination such as many people have endured in the workplace 
because of sexual orientation.
  I am always disappointed to hear about cases of economic 
discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. It defies logic that 
in today's society any employer could refuse to hire an individual, 
deny them equal pay, or professional advancement and subject them to 
harassment simply because of their sexual orientation. Our country is 
based on the ideal of allowing equal opportunity and basic civil rights 
for all Americans, but we have not fully

[[Page S7600]]

achieved this goal. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will correct 
that wrong.
  As we would all agree, discrimination based on race, gender, ethnic 
origin, or religion is not just unfair, but illegal as well. ENDA would 
simply add sexual orientation to this list. It is written even more 
narrowly than current law for other areas of non-discrimination, 
because it does not allow positive corrective actions such as quotas or 
other preferential treatment. It simply says that a person cannot be 
unfairly treated in employment, based on his or her sexuality, whether 
that person is heterosexual or homosexual. Mr. President, this is a 
reasonable expectation. In fact, it has become a reality in nine 
states, including California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, and in many 
local jurisdictions across the country. Also, many Fortune 500 
companies, such as Microsoft and IBM, have adopted their own non-
discrimination policies. Companies such as these recognize that it 
makes good business sense to value each and every one of their 
employees equally. It is time that our laws reflect these values as 
well.
  Not only do these companies and governments support a non-
discrimination policy in the workplace, but the public also supports 
ENDA by a wide margin, according to a bipartisan 1998 poll conducted 
for the Human Rights Campaign. This poll found that 58 percent of 
Americans support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This is 
compelling evidence that Americans are behind ENDA, support expanding 
these basic civil rights to all, and believe that everyone deserves 
these rights. They understand that our country will be a better place 
when discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace is put 
to an end.
  Mr. President, this is not about one group's protection at another's 
expense. This issue is still not about allowing a greater window for 
litigation, as opponents have previously argued. It is about common 
sense, common decency and our fundamental values as Americans.
  In the last Congress, we came within one vote of adopting this 
important, bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues now to support 
this measure so that we can continue our proud tradition of protecting 
basic civil rights and opportunity for all Americans. Let us join 
together to pass this bill so that our brothers and sisters, sons and 
daughters, friends and relatives will have protection against unjust 
discrimination. We have the opportunity to provide them with these 
basic civil rights now. I hope my colleagues will seize this 
opportunity to make our country the just, equal, and fair place it 
should be.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 1277. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
establish a new prospective payment system for Federally-qualified 
health centers and rural health clinics; to the Committee on Finance.


                  safety net preservation act of 1999

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
co-sponsored by Senator Baucus to preserve hundreds of community health 
centers and rural health clinics across the country. Our bill, The 
Safety Net Preservation Act of 1999, would remedy a phase-out of the 
payment system that covers the clinics' cost of caring for Medicaid 
patients. Congress approved the phase-out of cost-based reimbursement 
during the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
  The phase-out was meant to save Medicaid money and respond to those 
who felt cost-based reimbursement imposed an expensive mandate on 
states. Scheduled to begin on October 1, the phase-out will force the 
clinics to use scarce federal grants intended to provide care for the 
uninsured to prop up Medicaid under-payments. The change could force 
health centers to lose as much as $1.1 billion over the next five 
years.
  Our bill would establish a prospective payment system to ensure that 
health centers and clinics receive sufficient Medicaid funding. The 
bill would protect the federal investment in health centers while 
giving states the flexibility to design their own payment systems for 
health centers and clinics.
  There's no doubt that community health centers and rural health 
clinics serve a unique and essential role in getting high-quality 
health care services to those in need. They are the backbone of 
America's health care infrastructure for millions of medically under-
served rural and urban communities, where access to health care is 
often limited. I've seen first hand the valuable services provided by 
these centers and the obstacles the providers overcome to do so. Last 
year, I visited a center in Des Moines. They serve patients who speak 
nine different languages. In many cases, these clinics are often the 
difference between seeing a doctor and forgoing treatment. We can't 
allow money shortfalls to force them to shut down. We have to preserve 
this safety net for millions of Americans.
  I am pleased for the support of Senators Murkowski, Rockefeller, 
Conrad, Robb and Harkin as original co-sponsors of The Safety Net 
Preservation Act of 1999. I look forward to passage of this important 
legislation in the 106th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1279. A bill to improve the environmental quality and public use 
and appreciation of the Missouri River and to provide additional 
authority to the Army Corps of Enginees to protect, enhance, and 
restore fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri River; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


             missouri river valley improvement act of 1999

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, 
along with my colleagues Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson, the 
Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation is 
important for the 10,000 people who live along the 2,321-mile Missouri 
River, and marks also the upcoming bicentennial anniversary of the 
Lewis and Clark expeditions along this great River. The intent of the 
Act is to improve the environmental qualtiy and public use and 
appreciation of the Missouri River, and to provide additional 
authorities to the Army Corps of Engineers to protect, enhance, and 
restore fish and wildlife habitat as part of their ongoing operations 
on the River.
  The Missouri River is a resource of incalculable value to the 10 
states which it traverses, but it is a river that has changed 
dramatically since the pioneering days of Lewis and Clark. The 
construction of dams and levees over the past 50 years has aided 
navigation, flood control, and water supply along the Missouri River, 
but has also reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife, and 
resulted in lost opportunities for recreation on the river.
  The legislation will help to restore a series of nature areas along 
the river in time to celebrate the 2004 anniversary of the Lewis and 
Clark, when we are anticipating greatly increased visitation along the 
river and to the surrounding areas, due in large part to the records 
and descriptions as detailed by these explorers on their 1804 trip.
  The bill will also aid native river fish and wildlife, help to 
restore cottonwoods along the river, reduce flood losses, and enhance 
recreation and tourism, all vital to the economies and quality of life 
to our communities along the river. It additional provides authorities 
for the revitalization of historic riverfronts, similar to the ongoing 
`Back to the River' revitalization project currently underway in my 
home state of Nebraska. The Back of the River Project in Nebraska is 
bringing our families and our businesses back to the Missouri River, 
for recreational enjoyment as well as for the commercial and business-
related opportunities that follow. It is our hope that this will aid 
other communities to participate in similar efforts in their 
riverfronts.

  Another major provision of this bill is the creation of a long-term, 
science-based monitoring program on the Missouri River. This program, 
to be developed and operated through the U.S. Geological Survey-
Biological Resources Division in Columbia, Missouri, will monitor the 
physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the Missouri 
River. The program will help us to monitor and assess the quality of 
biota, habitats, and the water itself in this great river, and to 
provide information that will enhance our understanding of the 
Missouri, how it is operated, and how future operation decisions may 
affect the river.

[[Page S7601]]

  We currently do not understand a lot about the river, beyond the 
physical and some of the habitat-based impacts that have been caused by 
channelization. This program will create a publicly-accessible database 
of all the information we do have on the river, and all that is 
collected through the project, and will help to guide our management of 
the river in the future. The database will also provide additional 
opportunities for the people who live along the river to interact with 
the river in another way, and to learn more about the river that they 
live near.
  I have seen how successful educational opportunities related to the 
River can be, and how excited and involved children and adults get when 
they learn about and become more involved with their natural resources. 
The Fontenelle Forest Association in Nebraska, which contains forests 
and wetlands, and is along the Missouri River, has hands-on exhibits, 
live animal displays, teaching spaces, and even meeting spaces for 
Nebraskans. Ken Finch, the Executive Director of the Fontenelle Forest 
Association, has been instrumental in providing educational programs 
and opportunities, including a program called H2Omaha, a multi-faceted 
science education program which uses the Missouri River and its 
watershed as a living laboratory. I envision that the Missouri River 
database created by this Improvement Act will greatly expand 
information and data available to Ken and the participants at 
Fontenelle Forest, and I know that other communities will find this 
resource valuable, as well.
  I have also seen successful restoration efforts on the river--efforts 
like Boyer Chute and Hamburg Bend in Nebraska--both side channels 
created with the aid of the Corps of Engineers. These side channels 
have been enormously successful in restoring lost habitat for river 
species by creating slower-moving, more shallow waterways parallel to 
the river. These restoration areas have attracted not just wildlife, 
such as the native fish and birds and even river otter that 
historically lived in large numbers on the Missouri, but have also 
attracted canoeists and hikers who enjoy the scenic beauty and the 
recreational opportunities that these sites offer. This bill will help 
communities to create additional restoration projects like this along 
the river, projects that will not impact existing uses of the river, 
but that will add immensely to recreational and wildlife opportunities, 
and that will also add additional flood protection to surrounding 
communities.
  In anticipation of the greatly increased visitation along the river 
that will occur with the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration, the 
bill additionally will establish Lewis and Clark Interpretive Centers 
to educate the public about the Missouri River, and will allow the 
Corps of Engineers to provide enhancements to recreational facilities 
and visitors centers.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who represent the states and 
communities along the Missouri River to look closely at this bill, and 
to join me and the other cosponsors of the bill in supporting this 
important legislation. The Missouri River Valley Improvement Act of 
1999 will help to restore and improve our access and enjoyment of the 
river, and will provide vital economic, recreational, and educational 
opportunities for everyone who lives along and visits this great river, 
the Crown Jewel of the midwest.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Cleland):
  S. 1281. A bill to consolidate in a single independent agency in the 
executive branch the responsibilities regarding food safety, labeling, 
and inspection currently divided among several Federal agencies.


                           the safe food act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would replace the current fragmented federal food safety system with a 
single, independent agency responsible for all federal food safety 
activities--the Safe Food Act of 1999 (S. 1281). I am pleased to be 
joined by Senators Torricelli, Mikulski, and Cleland in this important 
effort.
  Make no mistake, our country has been blessed with one of the safest 
and most abundant food supplies in the world. However, we can do 
better. Foodborne illness is a significant problem.
  The safety of our nation's food supply is facing tremendous pressures 
with regard to emerging pathogens, an aging population with a growing 
number of people at high risk for foodborne illnesses, broader food 
distribution patterns, an increasing volume of food imports, and 
changing consumption patterns.
  The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that as many as 81 
million people will suffer food poisoning this year and more than 9,000 
will die. Children and the elderly are especially vulnerable. In terms 
of medical costs and productivity losses, foodborne illness costs the 
nation up to $37 billion annually. The situation is not likely to 
improve without decisive action. The Department of Health and Human 
Services predicts that foodborne illnesses and deaths will increase 10-
15 percent over the next decade.
  In 1997, a Princeton Research survey found that 44 percent of 
Americans believe the food supply in this country is less safe than it 
was 10 years ago. American consumers spend more than $617 billion 
annually on food, of which about $511 billion is spent on foods grown 
on U.S. farms. Our ability to assure that the safety of our food and to 
react rapidly to potential threats to food safety is critical not only 
for public health, but also to the vitality of both domestic and rural 
economies and international trade.
  Many of you are probably following the dioxin crisis in Belgium. Days 
before the national elections poultry, eggs, pork, beef, and dairy 
products were withdrawn from supermarket shelves. Butcher shops closed 
and livestock farms were quarantined. Since then countries, worldwide, 
have restricted imports of eggs, chickens, and pork from the European 
Union. Public outrage in Belgium over the dioxin scandal led to a 
disastrous showing by the ruling party in the national and European 
elections on June 14, and the government was forced to resign. Food 
safety concerns and fears are global.
  Today, food moves through a global marketplace. This was not the case 
in the early 1900's when the first federal food safety agencies were 
created. Throughout this century, Congress responded by adding layer 
upon layer--agency upon agency--to answer the pressing food safety 
needs of the day. That's how the federal food safety system got to the 
point where it is today. And again as we face increasing pressures on 
food safety, the federal government must respond. But we must respond 
not only to these pressures but also to the very fragmented nature of 
the federal food safety structure.
  Fragmentation of our food safety system is a burden that must be 
changed to protect the public health from these increasing pressures. 
Currently, there are at least 12 different federal agencies, 35 
different laws governing food safety, and 28 House and Senate 
subcommittees with food safety oversight. With overlapping 
jurisdictions, federal agencies often lack accountability on food 
safety-related issues.
  Last August, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report 
recommending the establishment of a ``unified and central framework'' 
for managing federal food safety programs, ``one that is headed by a 
single official and which has the responsibility and control of 
resources for all federal food safety activities.'' I agree with this 
conclusion.
  The Administration has stepped forward on the issue of food safety--
the President's Food Safety Initiatives and the President's Council on 
Food Safety have focused efforts to track and prevent microbial 
foodborne illnesses. I commend President Clinton and Secretaries 
Glickman and Shalala for their commitment to improving our nation's 
food safety and inspection systems. Earlier this year in response to 
the NAS report, the President's Council on Food Safety stated its 
support for the NAS recommendation calling for a new statute that 
establishes a unified framework for food safety programs with a single 
official with control over all federal food safety resources.
  An independent single food safety agency is needed to replace the 
current, fragmented system. My proposed legislation would combine the 
functions of USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, FDA's Center 
for

[[Page S7602]]

Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Center for Veterinary 
Medicine, the Department of Commerce's Seafood Inspection Program, and 
the food safety functions of other federal agencies. This new, 
independent agency would be funded with the combined budgets from these 
consolidated agencies.
  With overlapping jurisdictions, federal agencies many times lack 
accountability on food safety-related issues. There are simply too many 
cooks in the kitchen. A single, independent agency would help focus our 
policy and improve enforcement of food safety and inspection laws.
  The General Accounting Office has been unequivocal in its 
recommendation for consolidation of federal food safety programs. GAO's 
April 1998 report states that ``since 1992, we have frequently reported 
on the fragmented and inconsistent organization of food safety 
responsibilities in the federal government.'' In a May 25, 1994 report, 
GAO cites that its ``testimony is based on over 60 reports and studies 
issued over the last 25 years by GAO, agency Inspectors General, and 
others.'' The Appendix to the 1994 GAO report lists: 49 reports since 
1977, 9 USDA Office of Inspector General reports since 1986, 1 HHS 
Office of Inspector General report in 1991, and 15 reports and studies 
by Congress, scientific organizations, and others since 1981.

  Again, earlier this year, GAO in its 21-volume report on government 
waste, pointed to the lack of coordination of the federal food safety 
efforts as an example. ``So many cooks are spoiling the broth,'' says 
the GAO while highlighting the absurdity of having one federal agency 
inspecting frozen meat pizza and another inspecting frozen cheese 
pizza.
  Over 20 years ago, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 
advised that consolidation is essential to avoid conflicts of interest 
and overlapping jurisdictions. In a 1977 report the committee stated, 
``While we support the recent efforts of FDA and USDA to improve 
coordination between the agencies, periodic meetings will not be enough 
to overcome [these] problems.'' This statement is just as true today as 
it was then.
  It's time to move forward. Let us stop using multiple federal 
agencies to inspect pizza. Instead let us ``deliver'' what makes 
sense--a single, independent food safety agency.
  A single, independent agency with uniform food safety standards and 
regulations based on food hazards would provide an easier framework for 
implementing U.S. standards in an international context. When our own 
agencies don't have uniform safety and inspection standards for all 
potentially hazardous foods, the establishment of uniform international 
standards will be next to impossible.
  Research could be better coordinated within a single agency than 
among multiple programs. Currently, federal funding for food safety 
research is spread over at least 20 federal agencies, and coordination 
among those agencies is ad hoc at best.
  New technologies to improve food safety could be approved more 
rapidly with one food safety agency. Currently, food safety 
technologies must go through multiple agencies for approval, often 
adding years of delay.
  In this era of limited budgets, it is our responsibility to modernize 
and streamline the food safety system. The U.S. simply cannot afford to 
continue operating multiple systems. This is not about more regulation, 
a super agency, or increased bureaucracy, it's about common sense and 
more effective marshaling of our existing federal resources.
  With the incidence of food recalls on the rise, it is important to 
move beyond short-term solutions to major food safety problems. A 
single, independent food safety and inspection agency could more easily 
work toward long-term solutions to the frustrating and potentially 
life-threatening issue of food safety.
  Mr. President, together, we can bring the various agencies together 
to eliminate the overlap and confusion that have, unfortunately, at 
times characterized our food safety efforts. We need action, not simply 
reaction. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to 
consolidate the food safety and inspection functions of numerous 
agencies and offices into a single, independent food safety agency.
  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. 1281

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Food 
     Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Establishment of independent Food Safety Administration.
Sec. 5. Consolidation of separate food safety and inspection services 
              and agencies.
Sec. 6. Additional authorities of the Administration.
Sec. 7. Limitation on authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 8. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The safety and security of the food supply of the 
     United States requires efficient and effective management of 
     food safety regulations.
       (2) The safety of the food supply of the United States is 
     facing tremendous pressures with regard to the following 
     issues:
       (A) Emerging pathogens and the ability to detect them.
       (B) An aging population with a growing number of people at 
     high risk for foodborne illnesses.
       (C) An increasing volume of imported foods, without 
     adequate monitoring and inspection.
       (D) Maintenance of adequate inspection of the domestic food 
     processing and food service industry.
       (3) Federal food safety inspection, enforcement, and 
     research efforts should be based on scientifically 
     supportable assessments of risks to public health.
       (4) The Federal food safety system is fragmented, with at 
     least 12 primary Federal agencies governing food safety.
       (b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to establish a single agency, the Food Safety 
     Administration, that will be responsible for the regulation 
     of food safety and labeling and for conducting food safety 
     inspections to ensure, with reasonable certainty, that no 
     harm will result from the consumption of food, by preventing 
     food-borne illnesses due to microbial, natural, or chemical 
     hazards in food; and
       (2) to transfer to the Food Safety Administration the food 
     safety, labeling, and inspection functions currently 
     performed by other Federal agencies, to achieve more 
     efficient management and effective application of Federal 
     food safety laws for the protection and improvement of public 
     health.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     Food Safety Administration established under section 4.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of Food Safety appointed under section 4.
       (3) Food safety laws.--The term ``food safety laws'' means 
     the following:
       (A) The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.).
       (B) The Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et 
     seq.).
       (C) The Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et 
     seq.).
       (D) The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.), with regard to food safety, labeling, and 
     inspection under that Act.
       (E) Such other laws and portions of laws regarding food 
     safety, labeling, and inspection as the President may 
     designate by Executive order as appropriate to consolidate 
     under the administration of the Administration.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT FOOD SAFETY 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Establishment of Administration; Administrator.--There 
     is established in the executive branch an agency to be known 
     as the ``Food Safety Administration''. The Administration 
     shall be an independent establishment, as defined in section 
     104 of title 5, United States Code. The Administration shall 
     be headed by the Administrator of Food Safety, who shall be 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (b) Responsibilities.--The Administrator shall administer 
     and enforce the food safety laws for the protection of the 
     public health and shall oversee the following functions of 
     the Administration:
       (1) Implementation of Federal food safety inspection, 
     enforcement, and research efforts, based on scientifically 
     supportable assessments of risks to public health.
       (2) Development of consistent and science-based standards 
     for safe food.
       (3) Coordination and prioritization of food safety research 
     and education programs with other Federal agencies.
       (4) Coordination of the Federal response to foodborne 
     illness outbreaks with other Federal agencies and State 
     agencies.

[[Page S7603]]

       (5) Integration of Federal food safety activities with 
     State and local agencies.

     SEC. 5. CONSOLIDATION OF SEPARATE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION 
                   SERVICES AND AGENCIES.

       (a) Transfer of Functions.--For each Federal agency 
     specified in subsection (b), there are transferred to the 
     Administration all functions that the head of the Federal 
     agency exercised on the day before the effective date 
     specified in section 8 (including all related functions of 
     any officer or employee of the Federal agency) that relate to 
     administration or enforcement of the food safety laws, as 
     determined by the President.
       (b) Covered Agencies.--The Federal agencies referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (2) The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the 
     Food and Drug Administration.
       (3) The Center for Veterinary Medicine of the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
       (4) The National Marine Fisheries Service of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of 
     Commerce as it relates to the Seafood Inspection Program.
       (5) Such other offices, services, or agencies as the 
     President may designate by Executive order to further the 
     purposes of this Act.
       (c) Transfer of Assets and Funds.--Consistent with section 
     1531 of title 31, United States Code, the personnel, assets, 
     liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended 
     balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and 
     other funds that relate to the functions transferred under 
     subsection (a) from a Federal agency shall be transferred to 
     the Administration. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be used by the Administration only for 
     the purposes for which the funds were originally authorized 
     and appropriated.
       (d) References.--After the transfer of functions from a 
     Federal agency under subsection (a), any reference in any 
     other Federal law, Executive order, rule, regulation, 
     document, or other material to that Federal agency or the 
     head of that agency in connection with the administration or 
     enforcement of the food safety laws shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Administration or the Administrator, 
     respectively.
       (e) Savings Provisions.--The transfer of functions from a 
     Federal agency under subsection (a) shall not affect--
       (1) an order, determination, rule, regulation, permit, 
     agreement, grant, contract, certificate, license, 
     registration, privilege, or other administrative action 
     issued, made, granted, or otherwise in effect or final with 
     respect to that agency on the day before the transfer date 
     with respect to the transferred functions; or
       (2) any suit commenced with regard to that agency, and any 
     other proceeding (including a notice of proposed rulemaking), 
     or any application for any license, permit, certificate, or 
     financial assistance pending before that agency on the day 
     before the transfer date with respect to the transferred 
     functions.

     SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Officers and Employees.--The Administrator may appoint 
     officers and employees for the Administration in accordance 
     with the provisions of title 5, United States Code, relating 
     to appointment in the competitive service, and fix the 
     compensation of the officers and employees in accordance with 
     chapter 51 and with subchapter III of chapter 53 of such 
     title, relating to classification and General Schedule pay 
     rates.
       (b) Experts and Consultants.--The Administrator may procure 
     the services of experts and consultants as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, and pay in 
     connection with the services travel expenses of individuals, 
     including transportation and per diem in lieu of subsistence 
     while away from the homes or regular places of business of 
     the individuals, as authorized by section 5703 of such title.
       (c) Bureaus, Offices, and Divisions.--The Administrator may 
     establish within the Administration such bureaus, offices, 
     and divisions as the Administrator may determine to be 
     necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the 
     Administration.
       (d) Rules.--The Administrator may prescribe, in accordance 
     with chapters 5 and 6 of title 5, United States Code, such 
     rules as the Administrator determines to be necessary or 
     appropriate to administer and manage the functions of the 
     Administrator.

     SEC. 7. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       For the fiscal year that includes the effective date of 
     this Act, the amount authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this Act shall not exceed--
       (1) the amount appropriated for that fiscal year for the 
     Federal agencies described in section 5(b) for the purpose of 
     administering or enforcing the food safety laws; or
       (2) the amount appropriated for these agencies for such 
     purpose for the preceding fiscal year, if, as of the 
     effective date of this Act, appropriations for these agencies 
     for the fiscal year that includes the effective date have not 
     yet been made.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the earlier of--
       (1) the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) such date during that 180-day period as the President 
     may direct in an Executive order.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 1284. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to ensure that no 
State may establish, maintain, or enforce on behalf of any electric 
utility an exclusive right to sell electric energy or otherwise unduly 
discriminate against any consumer who seeks to purchase electric energy 
in interstate commerce from any supplier; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric 
Consumer Choice Act. For the last three years hearings and workshops 
have been held in both the House and Senate examining the issue of 
restructuring the electric industry. Many bills have been introduced on 
this issue by both Congressmen and Senators, some comprehensive and 
some dealing with more discreet issues such as repeal of the Public 
Utility Holding Company (PUHCA) or repeal of the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The bill that I am introducing 
today cuts to the heart of the issue: do we or don't we support 
allowing consumers to choose their electric supplier? Do we or don't we 
support a national competitive market in electricity? I believe the 
answer to these questions is a resounding ``yes''! I believe 
competition is good, that free markets work and that every American 
will benefit from a competitive electric industry.
  The Electric Consumer Choice Act is intended to begin the process of 
achieving a national, competitive electricity market. It achieves this 
in a simple, straight-forward method. Primarily, it eliminates electric 
monopolies by prohibiting the granting of exclusive rights to sell to 
electric utilities. It prohibits undue discrimination against consumers 
purchasing electricity in interstate commerce. It provides for access 
to local distribution facilities and it allows a state to impose 
reciprocity requirements on out-of-state utilities. The bill before you 
today also includes a straight repeal of PUHCA and the prospective 
repeal of the mandatory purchase provisions of PURPA. The bill also 
makes it clear that nothing in this act expands the authority of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or limits the authority of 
a state to continue to regulate retail sales and distribution of 
electric energy in a manner consistent with the Commerce Clause of the 
United States Constitution.
  The premise of this bill is that all attributes of today's electric 
energy market--generation, transmission, distribution and both 
wholesale and retail sales--are either in or affect interstate 
commerce. Therefore, any State regulation of these attributes that 
unduly discriminates against the interstate market for electric power 
violates the Commerce Clause unless such State action is protected by 
an act of Congress.
  The Supreme Court has interpreted Part II of the Federal Power Act 
(FPA) as protecting State regulation of generation, local distribution, 
intrastate transmission and retail sales that unduly discriminates 
against the interstate market for electric power. The Court has 
reasoned that Congress, in the FPA, determined that the federal 
government needed only to regulate wholesale sales and interstate 
transmission in order to adequately protect interstate commerce in 
electric energy. Thus, all other aspects of the electric energy market 
were reserved to the States and protected from challenges under the 
Commerce Clause. The Electric Consumer Choice Act amends the FPA to 
eliminate the protection provided for State regulation that 
establishes, maintains, or enforces an exclusive right to sell electric 
energy or that unduly discriminates against any consumer who seeks to 
purchase electric energy in interstate commerce.
  This bill provides consumers and electric energy suppliers with the 
means to achieve retail choice in all States by January 1, 2002. It 
does not impose a federal statutory mandate on the States. It does not 
preempt the States' traditional jurisdiction to regulate the aspects of 
the electric power market in the reserved realm--generation, local 
distribution, intrastate transmission, or retail sales--it merely 
limits the scope of what the States can do in that realm. It does not 
expand or extend FERC jurisdiction into the aspects of traditional 
State authority.
  As I stated earlier, this bill is intended to provide every consumer 
a

[[Page S7604]]

choice when it comes to electricity suppliers. It is intended to be the 
beginning, not the end of the process. There are many other issues that 
need to be addressed at the federal level to facilitate a national 
market for electricity. Some of these issues include taxation 
differences between various electric providers, clarification of 
jurisdiction over transmission, ensuring reliability, providing for 
inclusion of the Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee 
Valley Authority in a national market, and other issues that can only 
be addressed at the Federal level. These issues need to be addressed 
and should be addressed. But while these issues are being debated we 
should ensure that progress towards customer choice proceeds.
  I am proud to say that my state of Oklahoma has been in the forefront 
of opening up it's electricity markets to competition. Nineteen other 
states have also moved to open their markets. It is my hope that the 
Electric Consumer Choice Act will facilitate this process nationally. 
To that end, I am introducing this bill today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Electric Consumer 
Choice Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1284

       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 ``Electric Consumer Choice 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (a) the opportunity for all consumers to purchase electric 
     energy in interstate commerce from the supplier of choice is 
     essential to a dynamic, fully integrated and competitive 
     national market for electric energy;
       (b) the establishment, maintenance or enforcement of 
     exclusive rights to sell electric energy and other State 
     action which unduly discriminates against any consumer who 
     seeks to purchase electric energy in interstate commerce from 
     the supplier of its choice constitutes an unwarranted and 
     unacceptable discrimination against and burden on interstate 
     commerce;
       (c) in today's technologically driven marketplace there is 
     no justification for the discrimination against and burden 
     imposed on interstate commerce by exclusive rights to sell 
     electric energy or other State action which unduly 
     discriminates against any consumer who seeks to purchase 
     electric energy in interstate commerce from the supplier of 
     its choice; and,
       (d) the electric energy transmission and local distribution 
     facilities of all of the nation's utilities are essential 
     facilities for the conduct of a competitive interstate retail 
     market in electric energy in which all consumers have the 
     opportunity to purchase electric energy in interstate 
     commerce from the supplier of their choice.

     SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this act is to ensure that nothing in the 
     Federal Power Act or any other federal law exempts or 
     protects from Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the 
     Constitution of the United States exclusive rights to sell 
     electric energy or any other State actions which unduly 
     discriminate against any consumer who seeks to purchase 
     electric energy in interstate commerce from the supplier of 
     its choice.

     SEC. 4. SCOPE OF STATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       Section 201 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 824) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following--
       ``(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     nothing in this Part or any other federal law shall be 
     construed to authorize a State to--
       ``(1) establish, maintain, or enforce on behalf of any 
     electric utility an exclusive right to sell electric energy; 
     or,
       ``(2) otherwise unduly discriminate against any consumer 
     who seeks to purchase electric energy in interstate commerce 
     from any supplier.''.

     SEC. 5. ACCESS TO TRANSMISSION AND LOCAL DISTRIBUTION 
                   FACILITIES.

       No supplier of electric energy, who would otherwise have a 
     right of access to a transmission or local distribution 
     facility because such facility is an essential facility for 
     the conduct of interstate commerce in electric energy, shall 
     be denied access to such facility or precluded from engaging 
     in the retail sale of electric energy on the grounds that 
     such denial or preclusion is authorized or required by State 
     action establishing, maintaining, or enforcing an exclusive 
     right to sell, transmit, or locally distribute electric 
     energy.

     SEC. 6. STATE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENTS.

       Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 824) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 215. STATE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE RECIPROCITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       ``A State or state commission may prohibit an electric 
     utility from selling electric energy to an ultimate consumer 
     in such State if such electric utility or any of its 
     affiliates owns or controls transmission or local 
     distribution facilities and is not itself providing unbundled 
     local distribution service in a State in which such electric 
     utility owns or operates a facility used for the generation 
     of electric energy.''.

     SEC. 7. REPEAL OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 
                   1935

       The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C. 
     79a et seq.) is repealed, effective on and after the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 8 PROSPECTIVE REPEAL OF SECTION 210 OF THE PUBLIC 
                   UTILITY REGULATORY POLICIES ACT OF 1978.

       (a) New Contracts.--No electric utility shall be required 
     to enter into a new contract or obligation to purchase or to 
     sell electricity or capacity under section 210 of the Public 
     Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 824a-3).
       (b) Existing Rights and Remedies.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the rights or remedies of any party with respect to 
     the purchase or sale of electricity or capacity from or to a 
     facility determined to be a qualifying small power production 
     facility or a qualifying cogeneration facility under section 
     210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 
     U.S.C. 824a-3) under any contract or obligation to purchase 
     or to sell electricity or capacity in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, including the right to recover the 
     costs of purchasing the electricity or capacity.

     SEC. 9. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to--
       (a) authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
     regulate retail sales or local distribution of electric 
     energy or otherwise expand the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission, or,
       (b) limit the authority of a State to regulate retail sales 
     and local distribution of electric energy in a manner 
     consistent with Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       Section 5 and the amendment made by Section 4 of this act 
     take effect on January 1, 2002. The amendment made by section 
     6 of this act takes effect on the date of enactment of this 
     act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1285. A bill to amend section 40102(37) of title 49, United States 
Code, to modify the definition of the term ``public aircraft'' to 
provide for certain law enforcement and emergency response activities; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


           law enforcement public aviation reform act of 1999

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to join with 
my distinguished colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold, in 
introducing the Law Enforcement Public Aviation Reform Act of 1999. 
This legislation will help law enforcement officers in their efforts to 
protect our citizens. In 1994, the Congress made a terrible mistake 
when it passed Public Law 103-411. Under this law, aircraft belonging 
to law enforcement agencies are considered ``commercial'' if costs 
incurred from flying missions to support neighboring jurisdictions are 
reimbursed.
  In the last Congress, we were able to include an amendment on the 
Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill that would have made 
the necessary changes. Unfortunately, this measure was stripped from 
the final conference committee report.
  This law has placed unnecessary restrictions and costly burdens on 
government agencies who operate public aircraft, particularly law 
enforcement agencies. At a time when law enforcement faces growing 
sophistication and organization of criminals, the federal government 
should not be placing additional mandates on our law enforcement 
officials. This law is so restrictive that it even prevents assistance 
from neighboring jurisdictions under mutual aid compacts.
  Current law requires that the agency in need of assistance exhaust 
all commercially available options before requesting assistance from 
another jurisdiction. Even in the event of ``significant and imminent 
threat to life or property,'' the requesting agency must first 
establish that ``no service by a private operator was reasonably 
available to meet the threat.'' Law officers, pledged to protect public 
safety and fight crime, need the flexibility to determine the 
appropriate aircraft for any particular mission. They should not be 
required to offer private companies the right of first refusal on 
sensitive law enforcement missions. In

[[Page S7605]]

many cases, it is simply not appropriate to have private companies 
performing law enforcement or other governmental functions.
  Under this bill, public agencies would be permitted to recover costs 
incurred by operating aircraft to assist other jurisdictions for the 
purpose of law enforcement, search and rescue, or imminent threat to 
life, property or natural resources.
  Mr. President, law enforcement organizations strongly support this 
bill. This legislation has the endorsement of the National Sheriff's 
Association, Airborne Law Enforcement Association, International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, Florida Sheriff's Association, and the 
California State Sheriff's Associations. From my home state in Florida, 
I have heard from Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. of Lake County. Sheriff 
Knupp stated, ``Current law restricts our ability to use this aircraft 
in the best possible manner and frankly, the law questions the 
authority of a popularly elected official to exercise the duties and 
responsibilities of the office.''
  Our bipartisan proposed is simple, sound, and will serve the 
interests of law enforcement officials across this country. I urge all 
my colleagues to support the passage of this much needed legislation. 
Further delay in this matter will only serve to cost the American 
people unnecessary tax dollars and hamper the efforts of our law 
enforcement officials.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my 
distinguished colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a 
bill that will assist our local law enforcement agencies to respond in 
a timely fashion to life or death situations.
  Sheriffs in my state and around this country have found that their 
hands are tied when it comes to sharing helicopters or other public 
aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's 
Department recently became the first sheriff's department in Wisconsin 
to acquire a helicopter. Neighboring counties would like to borrow that 
helicopter and reimburse the Milwaukee County Sheriff for the cost of 
their use of that helicopter. The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department 
is perfectly willing to share its helicopter but it can't easily do so. 
Under current law, in order for the assisting agency to receive a cost 
reimbursement from the neighboring jurisdiction for use of a 
helicopter, the neighboring sheriff must first exhaust the possibility 
that a private commercial helicopter is available. Even when the 
neighboring sheriff is faced with a serious imminent threat to life or 
property, the law requires the neighboring sheriff to first determine 
whether a privately operated helicopter is available. This law is 
absurd and puts everyone's safety at risk.
  Law enforcement agencies use helicopters for a variety of reasons--to 
chase a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime, in search and rescue 
missions, to control crowds in public gatherings, to transport 
prisoners and to detect and eradicate marijuana. Saving lives and 
maintaining law and order is delayed if we require sheriffs to 
determine first whether they can find a private helicopter. Public 
safety is also jeopardized because private commercial pilots are likely 
not trained law enforcement personnel with experience in sensitive and 
sometimes dangerous situations. But if we allow sheriffs to share their 
aircraft with neighboring jurisdictions without first exhausting 
private avenues, law enforcement response is far more likely to be 
swift and sure.
  This bill modifies the definition of ``public aircraft'' so that law 
enforcement agencies no longer need to make an attempt to find a 
private helicopter operator before using a neighboring jurisdiction's 
helicopter.
  Mr. President, we demand that law enforcement act quickly and 
professionally to life or death situations. But we're not giving them 
the tools they need to do their job. We must do our part. I urge my 
colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to change the law and give 
the sheriffs in Wisconsin and across this country the tools they need 
to keep our communities safe and secure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1286. A bill to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to 
local educational agencies to carry out school violence prevention and 
school safety activities in secondary schools; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                         School Safety Fund Act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has been two months since the tragic 
shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. That incident heightened 
awareness around the country--and I saw it first hand when I traveled 
throughout California--of the need to take steps to make our schools 
safer.
  It seems to me that being safe in school is a fundamental right. It 
ought to be a top priority of every school district in America--and I 
know that a lot of schools are committed to making improvements. But 
some are having a hard time finding the money to do what needs to be 
done. I believe it ought to be a top priority of the federal government 
to help localities do what they need to do to ensure the safety of our 
children when they are in school.
  So, today, I am introducing, along with my colleague, Senator Durbin, 
the School Safety Fund Act. This bill would allow the Attorney General 
to provide grants to school districts to undertake a variety of 
activities to prevent school violence and to make our schools safer. 
The key is we want local schools to make the decision about what they 
need to do, but we want the federal government to provide some 
financial help.
  Now, what are some of the things that schools want to--and should--
do?
  Schools could establish hotlines and tiplines, so that students could 
anonymously report potentially dangerous situations. We could put more 
community police officers in the public schools. Some schools need 
metal detectors and other security equipment. I think almost all 
schools could use more counselors, psychologists, and school social 
workers. Many teachers and administrators need training on the 
identification of the early warning signs of troubled youth. And, many 
of our students need conflict resolution programs and mentoring.
  The point is, each school needs to decide the extent of its problem 
and what the best solution will be in that community. We are not 
dictating here. We are saying that we want to--we need to--help our 
local schools.
  Let me talk about how these grants will be funded, because I think it 
is an interesting approach. Rather than set up a specific authorization 
level--rather than pulling a number out of a hat and saying, this is 
the need--my bill would give discretion to the Attorney General. The 
bill says that the Attorney General can make these grants out of the 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to meet the need that is out there.
  For example, if there is a particular crisis in a particular 
community, the Attorney General has the flexibility to make grants. She 
does not have to wait for Congress to act--or watch as Congress fails 
to act. If the problem improves, the Attorney General can spend less 
or, perhaps someday, no money at all for school safety. Again, the 
number of grants would be based on an assessment of the needs.
  Finally, let me say a word about my cosponsor, Senator Durbin. I am 
very pleased to have him join me in this effort because several weeks 
ago, he fought this fight hard. He was a member of the conference 
committee on the supplemental appropriations bill, and he tried to get 
additional emergency funding--and it was and still is, in many 
respects, an emergency--for many of the activities we are talking about 
in this bill. Some on the other side of the aisle resisted his efforts, 
and eventually they voted him down. But, with his previous work on the 
subject, I am so pleased that he has joined me on this bill.
  Mr. President, it is now mid-June, and many schools are closed for 
the summer or will close shortly. We must reject the notion that 
because our children are no longer in school, there is no longer a 
problem. There is a problem, and unless we begin to find ways to solve 
it--and unless the federal government helps fund the solutions our 
local communities come up with--I fear that when the school house doors 
open again in the Fall, the problem might again hit the front pages of 
the newspapers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy be printed in the Record.

[[Page S7606]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1286

       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 ``School Safety Fund Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the terms ``local educational agency'' and 
     ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to assist local educational 
     agencies in preventing and responding to the threat of 
     juvenile violence in secondary schools through the 
     implementation of effective school violence prevention and 
     school safety programs.

     SEC. 4. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       The Attorney General is authorized to carry out a program 
     under which the Attorney General awards grants to local 
     educational agencies to assist the local educational agencies 
     in establishing and operating school violence prevention and 
     school safety activities in secondary schools.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.

       Each local educational agency desiring a grant under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Attorney General may require. Each 
     application shall--
       (1) include a detailed explanation of--
       (A) the intended uses of funds provided under the grant; 
     and
       (B) how the activities funded under the grant will meet the 
     purpose of this Act; and
       (2) a written assurance that the funds provided under the 
     grant will be used to supplement and not supplant other State 
     and local public funds available for school violence 
     prevention and school safety activities in secondary schools.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.

       A local educational agency may use grant funds provided 
     under this Act--
       (1) to establish hotlines or tiplines for the reporting of 
     potentially dangerous students and situations;
       (2) to hire community police officers;
       (3) to purchase metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and 
     other school security equipment;
       (4) to provide training to teachers, administrators, and 
     other school personnel in the identification and detection 
     of, and responses to, early warning signs of troubled and 
     potentially violent youth;
       (5) to establish conflict resolution, counseling, 
     mentoring, and other violence prevention and intervention 
     programs for students;
       (6) to hire counselors, psychologists, mental health 
     professionals, and school social workers; and
       (7) for any other purpose that the Attorney General 
     determines to be appropriate and consistent with the purpose 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 7. FUNDING.

       From amounts appropriated to the Department of Justice from 
     the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund established under 
     section 310001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14211), the Attorney 
     General may make available such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this Act for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004.

     SEC. 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than November 30th of each year, the Attorney 
     General shall report to Congress regarding the number of 
     grants funded under this Act for the preceding fiscal year, 
     the amount of funds provided under the grants for the 
     preceding fiscal year, and the activities for which grant 
     funds were used for the preceding fiscal year.

                          ____________________