[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7932-S7942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Akada, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1304. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to 
allow employees to take school involvement leave to participate in the 
academic school activities of their children or to participate in 
literacy training, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                      time for schools act of 1999

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in 1993, thanks to the hard work of 
Senator Dodd and others, we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act 
(FMLA). It was one of the first pieces of legislation that I was 
intimately involved in passing. During the last six years we've come to 
realize that it has been a huge success. In fact, as we come to the 
close of the decade we can honestly say that FMLA has been one of the 
more useful laws we've passed in the last ten years.
  Now I want to expand upon that success and allow parents a little bit 
of time under the current time constraints of FMLA to participate in 
school activities. The ``Time for Schools Act of 1999'' will allow a 
parent 24 hours per year to participate in the academic activities of 
his or her child. This 24 hour period comes from the already available 
12 weeks under FMLA.
  This is something our country needs. Parents overwhelmingly want more 
time to support their children in school. Businesses thrive when our 
schools produce well-trained graduates--and parental involvement helps 
kids succeed.
  As a parent, I know how difficult and how important it is to 
participate in the education of children. I have been lucky to have had 
the opportunity to be involved in the school lives of my children. But 
many parents don't have the time it takes to do those little things 
that will assure their child's success in school, because they can't 
get away from their jobs.
  By adding academic school activities to one of our most successful 
laws, we will give parents something they need: time off to become 
directly involved with their children's learning.
  These days we have many dual-income families and single parents 
struggling to work to make ends meet. All of these families know how 
important it is to be involved in their children's learning. However, 
the single largest barrier to parental involvement at schools seems to 
be lack of time.
  Studies have shown that family involvement is more important to 
student success than family income or family education levels. In fact, 
things parents can control, such as limiting excess television watching 
and providing a variety of reading materials, account for almost all 
the differences in average student achievement across states.
  All sectors of our communities want more time for young people. 
Students, teachers, parents and businesses feel something must be done 
to improve family involvement. In fact, 89 percent of company 
executives identified the biggest obstacle to school reform as the lack 
of parental involvement.
  And, a 1996 post-election poll commissioned by the national PTA found 
that 86 percent of people favor legislation that would allow workers 
unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences, or to take other 
actions to improve learning for their children.
  A commitment to our children is a commitment to our nation's future. 
I want to make sure all young people receive the attention they need to 
succeed.
  My legislation will allow parents time to: (1) attend a parent/
teacher conference; (2) participate in classroom educational 
activities; or (3) research new schools.
  I look at the Family and Medical Leave Act--which has helped one in 
six American employees take time to deal with serious family health 
problems, and which 90 percent of businesses had little or no cost 
implementing--and I see success. People in my state have been able to 
deal with urgent family needs, without losing their jobs.
  A 1998 study by the Families and Work Institute found that 84% of 
employers felt that the benefits of providing family or medical leave 
offset or outweigh the costs. Taking time out for children not only 
helps parents and children, but is also beneficial to business.
  My bill extends the uses of family leave to another urgent need 
families face--the need to help their children learn. The time is right 
for the ``Time for Schools Act.''
  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. 1304

       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 ``Time for Schools Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE.

       (a) Entitlement to Leave.--Section 102(a) of the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Entitlement to school involvement leave.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to section 103(f), an eligible 
     employee shall be entitled to a total of 24 hours of leave 
     during any 12-month period to participate in an academic 
     activity of a school of a son or daughter of the employee, 
     such as a parent-teacher conference or an interview for a 
     school, or to participate in literacy training under a family 
     literacy program.
       ``(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Family literacy program.--The term `family literacy 
     program' means a program of services that are of sufficient 
     intensity in terms of hours, and of sufficient duration, to 
     make sustainable changes in a family and that integrate all 
     of the following activities:

       ``(I) Interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their sons and daughters.
       ``(II) Training for parents on how to be the primary 
     teacher for their sons and daughters and full partners in the 
     education of their sons and daughters.
       ``(III) Parent literacy training.
       ``(IV) An age-appropriate education program for sons and 
     daughters.

       ``(ii) Literacy.--The term `literacy', used with respect to 
     an individual, means the ability of the individual to speak, 
     read, and write English, and compute and solve problems, at 
     levels of proficiency necessary--

       ``(I) to function on the job, in the family of the 
     individual, and in society;
       ``(II) to achieve the goals of the individual; and
       ``(III) to develop the knowledge potential of the 
     individual.

       ``(iii) School.--The term `school' means an elementary 
     school or secondary school (as such terms are defined in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)), a Head Start program assisted 
     under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and a 
     child care facility operated by a provider who meets the 
     applicable State or local government licensing, 
     certification, approval, or registration requirements, if 
     any.
       ``(4) Limitation.--No employee may take more than a total 
     of 12 workweeks of leave under paragraphs (1) and (3) during 
     any 12-month period.''.
       (b) Schedule.--Section 102(b)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2612(b)(1)) is amended by inserting after the second sentence 
     the following: ``Leave under subsection (a)(3) may be taken 
     intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule.''.
       (c) Substitution of Paid Leave.--Section 102(d)(2)(A) of 
     such Act (29 U.S.C.

[[Page S7933]]

     2612(d)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, or for leave provided under subsection (a)(3) 
     for any part of the 24-hour period of such leave under such 
     subsection''.
       (d) Notice.--Section 102(e) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2612(e)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Notice for school involvement leave.--In any case in 
     which the necessity for leave under subsection (a)(3) is 
     foreseeable, the employee shall provide the employer with not 
     less than 7 days' notice, before the date the leave is to 
     begin, of the employee's intention to take leave under such 
     subsection. If the necessity for the leave is not 
     foreseeable, the employee shall provide such notice as is 
     practicable.''.
       (e) Certification.--Section 103 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     2613) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Certification for School Involvement Leave.--An 
     employer may require that a request for leave under section 
     102(a)(3) be supported by a certification issued at such time 
     and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulation 
     prescribe.''.

     SEC. 3. SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT LEAVE FOR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Entitlement to Leave.--Section 6382(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3)(A) Subject to section 6383(f), an employee shall be 
     entitled to a total of 24 hours of leave during any 12-month 
     period to participate in an academic activity of a school of 
     a son or daughter of the employee, such as a parent-teacher 
     conference or an interview for a school, or to participate in 
     literacy training under a family literacy program.
       ``(B) In this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `family literacy program' means a program of 
     services that are of sufficient intensity in terms of hours, 
     and of sufficient duration, to make sustainable changes in a 
     family and that integrate all of the following activities:
       ``(I) Interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their sons and daughters.
       ``(II) Training for parents on how to be the primary 
     teacher for their sons and daughters and full partners in the 
     education of their sons and daughters.
       ``(III) Parent literacy training.
       ``(IV) An age-appropriate education program for sons and 
     daughters.
       ``(ii) The term `literacy', used with respect to an 
     individual, means the ability of the individual to speak, 
     read, and write English, and compute and solve problems, at 
     levels of proficiency necessary--
       ``(I) to function on the job, in the family of the 
     individual, and in society;
       ``(II) to achieve the goals of the individual; and
       ``(III) to develop the knowledge potential of the 
     individual.
       ``(iii) The term `school' means an elementary school or 
     secondary school (as such terms are defined in section 14101 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 8801)), a Head Start program assisted under the Head 
     Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.), and a child care facility 
     operated by a provider who meets the applicable State or 
     local government licensing, certification, approval, or 
     registration requirements, if any.
       ``(4) No employee may take more than a total of 12 
     workweeks of leave under paragraphs (1) and (3) during any 
     12-month period.''.
       (b) Schedule.--Section 6382(b)(1) of such title is amended 
     by inserting after the second sentence the following: ``Leave 
     under subsection (a)(3) may be taken intermittently or on a 
     reduced leave schedule.''.
       (c) Substitution of Paid Leave.--Section 6382(d) of such 
     title is amended by inserting before ``, except'' the 
     following: ``, or for leave provided under subsection (a)(3) 
     any of the employee's accrued or accumulated annual leave 
     under subchapter I for any part of the 24-hour period of such 
     leave under such subsection''.
       (d) Notice.--Section 6382(e) of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In any case in which the necessity for leave under 
     subsection (a)(3) is foreseeable, the employee shall provide 
     the employing agency with not less than 7 days' notice, 
     before the date the leave is to begin, of the employee's 
     intention to take leave under such subsection. If the 
     necessity for the leave is not foreseeable, the employee 
     shall provide such notice as is practicable.''.
       (e) Certification.--Section 6383 of such title is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) An employing agency may require that a request for 
     leave under section 6382(a)(3) be supported by a 
     certification issued at such time and in such manner as the 
     Office of Personnel Management may by regulation 
     prescribe.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act takes effect 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join in sponsoring 
The Time for Schools Act of 1999, and I commend Senator Murray for her 
impressive leadership. This legislation will provide parents with much-
needed assistance as they struggle to balance the needs of their 
children and the demands of their jobs.
  Six years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act became the first bill 
signed into law by President Clinton. Workers covered by the law can 
take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year in order to care for a 
newborn or adopted child, or a seriously ill family member, and know 
that their jobs will be there when they get back.
  By any measure, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been a 
resounding success. Over 89 million Americans--70% of the workforce--
are covered by the law, and millions of workers have been able to take 
the time they need to care for their families. The vast majority of 
covered employers--over 90%--have found the law relatively easy to 
administer, according to the bipartisan Commission on Family and 
Medical Leave.
  Now it is time to take another step, and extend that success to 
enable parents to take up to 24 hours of unpaid family leave a year to 
be involved in their children's academic activities at school. I am 
proud that, under state law, parents in Massachusetts know they can 
take care of their children's school needs without losing their jobs. 
We should give all parents across the nation that right under federal 
law, too.
  Parents play a crucial role in their children's lives. But too often, 
society offers them only barriers and blame as they try to raise their 
children. While we hear a lot of talk about family values, the test is 
whether we genuinely value families. If we do, then we must adopt 
better policies to help working parents balance the competing demands 
of the workplace and their responsibility to care for their children.
  We know that working parents want to be more involved in their 
children's lives. In a study by the PTA, two-thirds of employed parents 
with children under 18 felt they did not have enough time to spend with 
their children. Forty percent felt they weren't devoting enough time to 
their children's education. Almost a quarter reported that attending 
teacher-parent conferences created problems at work.
  We know that involved parents increase the likelihood of a child's 
success at school. According to some studies, it may be the single most 
important factor in student learning. One study showed that the 
involvement of both parents in their child's school was significantly 
associated with the child's academic achievement.
  The Time for Schools Act will give working parents up to 24 hours of 
leave a year to participate in their children's school activities, such 
as attending parent-teacher conferences, taking part in classroom 
educational activities, or selecting the right school for their 
children.
  Responsible employers know that flexible family workplace policies 
mean better, more productive workers. These policies are good for 
families, and good for business. In 1998, survey by the Families and 
Work Institute reported that the overwhelming majority of employers--
84%--agree that the benefits of family or medical leave offset the 
costs.
  The advantage of this legislation to employers are clear. A mother or 
father worried about how a child is doing at school is a less effective 
employee. The 24 hours of leave granted under this Act will be counted 
towards the 12 weeks of leave already provided under the Family and 
Medical Leave Act. In addition, workers must give employers a week's 
notice, except in emergencies. As a result, the legislation will have 
only a minimal impact on employers.
  The tragedies we have witnessed at schools in recent years 
demonstrate how important it is for parents to pay attention to how 
children are doing at school. When this bill becomes law, workers will 
know they don't have to stop being parents when they go to work. They 
can be good parents at school, as well as after school.
  Again, I commend Senator Murray for her leadership on this important 
measure, and I look forward to working with her to enact it as soon as 
possible this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1305. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
improve the process for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                LISTING AND DELISTING REFORM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and 
Delisting Reform Act of 1999, cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming,

[[Page S7934]]

Senator Enzi. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best 
examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one 
small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a 
regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more 
effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and 
state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to 
conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery 
planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, 
is easier to achieve.
  In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing 
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should 
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible 
data that has been peer-reviewed. Recently, the Prebles Meadow Jumping 
Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this 
mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good 
science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule 
relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as 
opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and 
current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid 
plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical 
habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to 
uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the 
State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and 
landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not 
foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful 
species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately 
needed to the Endangered Species Act.
  Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, is the black tailed prairie dog. 
Petitions to list the prairie dog have been filed and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service has said the petition is not only warranted but 
deserves further study. I have lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I 
have logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over 
the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of 
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that 
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the 
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on 
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the 
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for 
economic survival.
  My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use 
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right now, it is basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any 
person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with 
little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd 
practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition 
that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, 
population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. 
In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient 
biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery 
plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the 
process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.
  This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with 
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. 
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question 
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the 
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship 
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only 
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should 
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our 
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
  In my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the 
Secretary of the Interior is unable to tell me what measures will be 
required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary cannot tell me what 
acts or omissions we can expect to face as a consequence of listing. 
How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of 
the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how 
to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve 
recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?
  This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of 
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching 
practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private 
citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a 
listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have 
to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough 
information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why 
list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-
zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve 
the goal of recovering the species?
  This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of 
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to 
list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required 
for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is 
all that this provision would require.
  Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise 
the end of the process--the delisting procedure. Recovery and delisting 
are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is 
virtually impossible to currently delist a species. There is no 
certainty in the process and the States--the folks who have all the 
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list--are 
not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the 
species should be delisted.
  Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly Bear pinpoints some of the 
problems with the current delisting process. The Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone 
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been 
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for years over this one to noavail, despite tremendous effort 
and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded 
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
  The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, 
are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of 
countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some 
real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big 
impacts. The changes I have suggested will have a significant effect on 
the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed 
in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly 
need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real 
goal--recovery and delisting.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER:
  S. 1306. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
relating to the regulation of firearms dealers, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              Targeted Gun dealer enforcement Act of 1999

  Mr. SCHUMER Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Targeted Gun 
Dealer Enforcement Act of 1999.'' This legislation would enable law 
enforcement to crack down on certain gun dealers and ``straw 
purchasers'' responsible for funneling firearms into the hands of those 
who use guns in crime.
  A licensed gun dealer in West Milwaukee, Wisconsin was the retail 
source of 1,195 guns linked to crime between 1996 and 1998 Similarly, 
1,176 crime guns recovered by law enforcement authorities over those 
three years were traced to a single gun dealer in Riverdale, Illinois 
In fact, 137 gun stores account for more than 13,000 crime guns seized 
in 1998 Year after year, many of these 137 dealers emerge as major 
sources of crime guns, even though most are not located in high-crime 
areas.
  The path a gun takes to a crime scene is often a path of rapid 
diversion from first retail sale at federally licensed gun dealers to 
an illegal market supplying juveniles and felons According to a 
February 1999 ATF crime gun trace analysis report, ``New guns in 
juvenile or criminal hands signal direct

[[Page S7935]]

diversion, by illegal firearms trafficking--for instance through straw 
purchases or off the book sales by corrupt FFLs.''
  An extremely small percentage of gun dealers are disproportionately 
responsible for this problem of rapid diversion of guns from first 
retail sale to crime scenes Indeed, almost half of the guns recovered 
in crime and traced through ATF in 1998 are traceable to a mere 1.1 
percent of the nation's licensed gun dealers Yet law enforcement's 
ability to prevent certain gun dealers and straw purchasers from 
supplying young people and felons with new guns for use in crime is 
constrained by current federal firearms law--which limits the records 
and sanctions to which law enforcement has ready access.
  My legislation would give law enforcement the tools it needs to crack 
down on certain gun dealers and ``straw purchasers'' responsible for 
funneling firearms into the hands of those who use guns in crime The 
bill would, among other things, impose strict new reporting 
requirements and automatic sanctions for illegal activity upon the 0.4 
percent of licensed gun dealers responsible for 25 or more crime gun 
traces in given year; authorize ATF to suspend the licenses of and 
impose civil monetary penalties upon licensed gun dealers who willfully 
violate federal firearms law; clearly outlaw and increase penalties for 
``straw purchasing''; and enable law enforcement more readily to trace 
the purchase-and-sale histories of firearms used in crime.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1306

       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 ``Targeted Gun Dealer 
     Enforcement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF LICENSED DEALERS.

       (a) Prohibition on Straw Purchases.--
       (1) In general.--Section 922(a)(6) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or with respect to 
     the identity of the person in fact purchasing or attempting 
     to purchase such firearm or ammunition,'' before ``under 
     the''.
       (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a violation in 
     relation to section 922(a)(6) or 922(d) by a licensed dealer, 
     licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed 
     collector shall be subject to the penalties under paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection.''.
       (b) Notification of State Law Regarding Carrying Concealed 
     Firearms.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z) Notification of State Requirements.--It shall be 
     unlawful for a licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any 
     person, unless the dealer notifies that person whether 
     applicable State law requires persons to be licensed to carry 
     concealed firearms in the State, or prohibits the carrying of 
     concealed firearms in the State.''.
       (c) Revocation or Suspension of License; Civil Penalties.--
     Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Revocation or Suspension of License; Civil 
     Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(A) suspend or revoke any license issued under this 
     section, if the holder of such license--
       ``(i) willfully violates any provision of this chapter or 
     any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary under this 
     chapter; or
       ``(ii) fails to have secure gun storage or safety devices 
     available at any place in which firearms are sold under the 
     license to persons who are not licensees (except that in any 
     case in which a secure gun storage or safety device is 
     temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss, 
     consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any other 
     similar reason beyond the control of the licensee, the 
     licensed dealer shall not be considered to be in violation of 
     the requirement to make available such a device);
       ``(B) suspend or revoke the license issued under this 
     section to a dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing 
     ammunition; and
       ``(C) assess and collect a civil penalty of not more than 
     $10,000 per violation against any holder of a license, if the 
     Secretary is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of 
     that holder under subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(2) Liability.--The Secretary may at any time compromise, 
     mitigate, or remit the liability with respect to any willful 
     violation of this subsection or any rule or regulation 
     prescribed by the Secretary under this subsection.
       ``(3) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     subsection may be reviewed only as provided in subsection 
     (f).
       ``(4) Notification requirement.--Not less than once every 6 
     months, the Secretary shall notify each licensed manufacturer 
     and each licensed dealer of the name, address, and license 
     number of each dealer whose license was suspended or revoked 
     under this section during the preceding 6-month period.
       ``(f) Rights of Applicants and Licensees.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary denies an application 
     for, or revokes or suspends a license, or assesses a civil 
     penalty under this section, the Secretary shall provide 
     written notice of such denial, revocation, suspension, or 
     assessment to the affected party, stating specifically the 
     grounds upon which the application was denied, the license 
     was suspended or revoked, or the civil penalty was assessed. 
     Any notice of a revocation or suspension of a license under 
     this paragraph shall be given to the holder of such license 
     before the effective date of the revocation or suspension, as 
     applicable.
       ``(2) Appeal Process.--
       ``(A) Hearing.--If the Secretary denies an application for, 
     or revokes or suspends a license, or assesses a civil penalty 
     under this section, the Secretary shall, upon request of the 
     aggrieved party, promptly hold a hearing to review the 
     denial, revocation, suspension, or assessment. A hearing 
     under this subparagraph shall be held at a location 
     convenient to the aggrieved party.
       ``(B) Notice of decision; appeal.--If, after a hearing held 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary decides not to reverse 
     the decision of the Secretary to deny the application, revoke 
     or suspend the license, or assess the civil penalty, as 
     applicable--
       ``(i) the Secretary shall provide notice of the decision of 
     the Secretary to the aggrieved party;
       ``(ii) during the 60-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the aggrieved party receives a notice under clause (i), 
     the aggrieved party may file a petition with the district 
     court of the United States for the judicial district in which 
     the aggrieved party resides or has a principal place of 
     business for a de novo judicial review of such denial, 
     revocation, suspension, or assessment;
       ``(iii) in any judicial proceeding pursuant to a petition 
     under clause (ii)--

       ``(I) the court may consider any evidence submitted by the 
     parties to the proceeding, regardless of whether or not such 
     evidence was considered at the hearing held under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(II) if the court decides that the Secretary was not 
     authorized to make such denial, revocation, suspension, or 
     assessment, the court shall order the Secretary to take such 
     actions as may be necessary to comply with the judgment of 
     the court.

       ``(3) Stay pending appeal.--If the Secretary suspends or 
     revokes a license under this section, upon the request of the 
     holder of the license, the Secretary shall stay the effective 
     date of the revocation, suspension, or assessment.''.
       (d) Effect of Conviction.--Section 925(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``until any 
     conviction pursuant to the indictment becomes final'' and 
     inserting ``until the date of any conviction pursuant to the 
     indictment''.
       (e) Regulation of High-Volume Crime Gun Dealers.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(8) High-volume crime gun dealers.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `high-volume 
     crime gun dealer' means any licensed dealer with respect to 
     which a designation under subparagraph (B)(i) is in effect, 
     as provided in subparagraph (B)(ii).
       ``(B) Designation of high-volume crime gun dealers.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall designate a licensed 
     dealer as a high-volume crime gun dealer--
       ``(I) as soon as practicable, if the Secretary determines 
     that the licensed dealer sold, delivered, or otherwise 
     transferred to 1 or more persons not licensed under this 
     chapter not less than 25 firearms that, during the preceding 
     calendar year, were used during the commission or attempted 
     commission of a criminal offense under Federal, State, or 
     local law, or were possessed in violation of Federal, State, 
     or local law; or
       ``(II) immediately upon the expiration date of a suspension 
     of the license of that dealer for a willful violation of this 
     chapter, if such violation involved 1 or more firearms that 
     were subsequently used during the commission or attempted 
     commission of a criminal offense under Federal, State, or 
     local law.
       ``(ii) Effective period of designation.--A designation 
     under clause (i) shall remain in effect during the period 
     beginning on the date on which the designation is made and 
     ending on the later of--
       ``(I) the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on 
     that date; or
       ``(II) the date on which the license issued to that dealer 
     under this section expires.
       ``(C) Notification requirement.--Upon the designation of a 
     licensed dealer as a high-volume crime gun dealer under 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall notify the appropriate 
     United States attorney's office, the appropriate State and 
     local law enforcement agencies (including the district 
     attorney's

[[Page S7936]]

     offices and the police or sheriff's departments), and each 
     State and local agency responsible for the issuance of 
     business licenses in the jurisdiction in which the high-
     volume crime gun dealer is located of such designation.
       ``(D) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph--
       ``(i) not later than 10 days after the date on which a 
     handgun is sold, delivered, or otherwise transferred by a 
     high-volume crime gun dealer to a person not licensed under 
     this chapter, the high-volume crime gun dealer shall submit 
     to the Secretary and to the department of State police or 
     State law enforcement agency of the State or local 
     jurisdiction in which the sale, delivery, or transfer took 
     place, on a form prescribed by the Secretary, a report of the 
     sale, delivery, or transfer, which report shall include--
       ``(I) the manufacturer or importer of the handgun;
       ``(II) the model, type, caliber, gauge, and serial number 
     of the handgun; and
       ``(III) the name, address, date of birth, and height and 
     weight of the purchaser or transferee, as applicable;
       ``(ii) each high-volume crime gun dealer shall submit to 
     the Secretary, on a form prescribed by the Secretary, a 
     monthly report of each firearm received and each firearm 
     disposed of by the dealer during that month, which report 
     shall include only the name of the manufacturer or importer 
     and the model, type, caliber, gauge, serial number, date of 
     receipt, and date of disposition of each such firearm, except 
     that the initial report submitted by a dealer under this 
     clause shall include such information with respect to the 
     entire inventory of the high-volume crime gun dealer; and
       ``(iii) a high-volume crime gun dealer may not destroy any 
     record required to be maintained under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(E) Inspection.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may inspect or examine the inventory and records of 
     a high-volume crime gun dealer at any time without a showing 
     of reasonable cause or a warrant for purposes of determining 
     compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
       ``(F) Recordkeeping by local police departments.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (3)(B), a State or local law 
     enforcement agency that receives a report under subparagraph 
     (D)(i) may retain a copy of that record for not more than 5 
     years.
       ``(G) License renewal.--Notwithstanding subsection (d)(2), 
     the Secretary shall approve or deny an application for a 
     license submitted by a high-volume crime gun dealer before 
     the expiration of the 120-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the application is received.
       ``(H) Effect of failure to comply.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (e), the 
     Secretary shall, after notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing--
       ``(I) suspend for not less than 90 days any license issued 
     under this section to a high-volume crime gun dealer who 
     willfully violates any provision of this section (including 
     any requirement of this paragraph);
       ``(II) revoke any license issued under this section to a 
     high-volume crime gun dealer who willfully violates any 
     provision of this section (including any requirement of this 
     paragraph) and who has committed a prior willful violation of 
     any provision of this section (including any requirement of 
     this paragraph); and
       ``(III) revoke any license issued under this section to a 
     high-volume crime gun dealer who willfully violates any 
     provision of section 922 or 924.
       ``(ii) Stay pending appeal.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (f)(3), the Secretary may not stay the effective date of a 
     suspension or revocation under this subparagraph pending an 
     appeal.''.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED ABILITY TO TRACE FIREARMS.

       (a) Voluntary Submission of Dealer's Records.--Section 
     923(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(4) Voluntary submission of dealer's records.--
       ``(A) Business discontinued.--
       ``(i) Successor.--When a firearms or ammunition business is 
     discontinued and succeeded by a new licensee, the records 
     required to be kept by this chapter shall appropriately 
     reflect that fact and shall be delivered to the successor. 
     Upon receipt of those records, the successor licensee may 
     retain the records of the discontinued business or submit the 
     discontinued business records to the Secretary.
       ``(ii) No successor.--When a firearms or ammunition 
     business is discontinued without a successor, records 
     required to be kept by this chapter shall be delivered to the 
     Secretary within 30 days after the business is discontinued.
       ``(B) Old records.--A licensee maintaining a firearms 
     business may voluntarily submit the records required to be 
     kept by this chapter to the Secretary if such records are at 
     least 20 years old.
       ``(C) State or local requirements.--If State law or local 
     ordinance requires the delivery of records regulated by this 
     paragraph to another responsible authority, the Secretary may 
     arrange for the delivery of records to such other responsible 
     authority.''
       (b) Centralization and Maintenance of Records.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(9) Centralization and maintenance of records by 
     secretary.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) may receive and centralize any information or records 
     submitted to the Secretary under this chapter and maintain 
     such information or records in whatever manner will enable 
     their most efficient use in law enforcement investigations; 
     and
       ``(B) shall retain a record of each firearms trace 
     conducted by the Secretary, unless the Secretary determines 
     that there is a valid law enforcement reason not to retain 
     the record.''.
       (c) Licensee Reports of Secondhand Firearms.--Section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(10) Licensee reports of secondhand firearms.--A licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall 
     submit to the Secretary, on a form prescribed by the 
     Secretary, a monthly report of each firearm received from a 
     person not licensed under this chapter during that month, 
     which report shall not include any identifying information 
     relating to the transferor or any subsequent purchaser.''.

     SEC. 4. GENERAL REGULATION OF FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

       (a) Transfers of Crime Guns.--Section 924(h) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or having 
     reasonable cause to believe'' after ``knowing''.
       (b) Increased Penalties for Trafficking in Firearms With 
     Obliterated Serial Numbers.--Section 924(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(k),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(k),'' after ``(j),''.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the 
     Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made 
     by this Act.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague Senator 
Schumer in introducing the ``Targeted Gun Dealer Enforcement Act of 
1999.'' This bill will give law enforcement the tools they need to 
prevent suspect gun dealers from supplying firearms to criminals and 
plaguing our communities with gun violence.
  Guns kill 34,000 Americans every year--thirteen children every day. 
They kill more teen-agers than any natural cause.
  This bill allows the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to 
closely monitor those gun dealers who they should be monitoring--the 
dealers who have had more than 25 crime guns traced to them in the last 
year.
  The facts in Illinois are particularly compelling on this issue. In 
Illinois, 26 gun dealers account for more crime guns than the remaining 
3,700 Illinois federally licensed gun dealers combined.
  These figures show that while most gun dealers are law abiding and 
responsible, some shops have become ``convenience stores'' for 
criminals. Twenty-six dealers were the source of more than 1,600 crime 
guns with each dealer responsible for selling at least 25 guns used in 
crimes in 1998.
  This bill will help law enforcement find out why these dealers are 
the source of guns later used to commit crimes. The bill will require 
high volume crime dealers to report handgun sales to ATF and local 
police. Law enforcement can then use these records to more effectively 
trace crime guns.
  The bill will also encourage gun dealers to sell guns more 
responsively. In the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, ATF found 
that many guns used by youths to commit crimes are purchased from 
licensed dealers by individuals acting as ``straw'' purchasers. A 
``straw purchaser'' is a person who illegally purchases a firearm for 
another person, such as a juvenile or a felon.
  This bill seeks to address that problem by prohibiting the sale of a 
firearm when a seller has ``reason to know'' that such firearm will be 
used to commit a crime of violence or a drug crime. Current law 
requires actual knowledge on the part of the dealer that the buyer will 
use the firearm to commit a crime of violence. This change will make it 
easier for law enforcement to target dealers who they believe are 
turning a blind eye in supplying guns to buyers under questionable 
circumstances.
  In 1998, Chicago police officers conducted ``Operation Gunsmoke,'' an 
investigation to target gun-sellers just outside the city limits. Seven 
undercover officers purchased 171 guns from 12 suburban gun stores in a 
three month period. Not one dealer refused to sell the agents weapons 
even as the agents openly violated laws needed to purchase firearms. 
This investigation was key to the City of Chicago's

[[Page S7937]]

groundbreaking lawsuit against the gun industry on the theory of public 
nuisance.
  We must act now to keep guns from getting into the hands of 
criminals. I applaud Senator Schumer's leadership on this issue and 
hope my colleagues will join us in this important effort to make our 
communities safer. The statistics show most gun dealers are 
responsible, but a few unscrupulous dealers are supplying criminals 
with guns that plague our communities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. McConnell):
  S. 1307. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to permit 
participating households to use food stamp benefits to purchase 
nutritional supplements providing vitamins or minerals, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


         food stamp vitamin and mineral improvement act of 1999

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Hatch and Senator McConnell in introducing the Food Stamp Vitamin and 
Mineral Improvement Act of 1999.
  Mr. President, this bipartisan legislation is very simple and I 
believe makes just plain common sense. It would give those Americans 
using food stamps the ability to purchase vitamin and mineral 
supplements for themselves and their families.
  The change called for in this legislation has been supported by a 
broad coalition of groups and nutrition experts. For example, it is 
backed by the Alliance for Aging Research, the Spina Bifida Association 
of America, the National Osteoporosis Foundation and the National 
Nutritional Foods Association. Nutrition experts such as Dr. Paul 
Lachance, Chair of the Department of Food Science at Rutgers 
University, Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg of Tufts University, Dr. Charles 
Butterworth, Director of Human Nutrition at the University of Alabama 
Birmingham, and Dr. Dennis Heldman, Chair of the Department of Food 
Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Missouri have also 
called for making this common sense change to food policy.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation would contribute 
substantially to improving the nutrition and health of a segment of our 
society that too often falls below recommended levels of nutrient 
consumption.
  Scientific evidence continues to mount showing that sound nutrition 
is essential for normal growth and cognitive development in children, 
and for improved health and the prevention of a variety of conditions 
and illnesses.
  Studies have also shown, unfortunately, that many Americans do not 
have dietary intakes sufficient to meet even the conservative 
Recommended Daily Allowances or RDA's for a number of essential 
nutrients. Insufficient dietary intakes are especially critical for 
children, pregnant women and the elderly.
  A recent study conducted by the Tufts University School of Nutrition, 
and based on government data, showed that millions of poor children in 
the United States have dietary intakes that are well below the 
government's Recommended Daily Allowance for a number of important 
nutrients. The study found that major differences exist in the intakes 
of poor versus non-poor children for 10 out of 16 nutrients (food 
energy, folate, iron, magnesium, thiamin, vitamin A, vitamin B6, 
vitamin C, vitamin E, and zinc). Moreover, the proportion of poor 
children with inadequate intakes of zinc is over 50 percent; for iron, 
over 40 percent; and for vitamin E, over 33 percent.
  For some nutrients, such as vitamin A and magnesium, the proportion 
of poor children with inadequate intakes is nearly six times as large 
as for non-poor children.

  Pregnant women also have high nutritional needs. Concerns about 
inadequate folate intake by pregnant women prompted the Public Health 
Service to issue a recommendation regarding consumption of folic acid 
by all women of childbearing age who are capable of becoming pregnant 
for the purpose of reducing the incidence of spina bifida or other 
neural tube defects. That is why this change has long been a priority 
of the Spina Bifida Association of America.
  Furthermore, the percent of pregnant and nursing women who get the 
RDA level of calcium has dropped from just 24 percent in 1986 to a mere 
16 percent in 1994. That's 84 percent of women who aren't getting 
enough calcium--which we know is critical to preventing the 
debilitating effects of osteoporosis.
  And again, the evidence is that lower income women, many of whom are 
eligible for Food Stamps, are more likely to have inadequate intake of 
key nutrients. Women with income of 130 percent or less of the poverty 
level have higher rates of deficiencies in intake of Vitamins A, E, C, 
B-6 and B-12, as well as Iron, Thiamin, Riboflavin and Niacin than 
those with higher incomes.
  Obviously, the best way to obtain sufficient nutrient intake is 
through eating a variety of nutritious foods, but some groups--
particularly those at the greatest risk, including children, pregnant 
women and the elderly--may find it significantly difficult to obtain 
sufficient nutrient intake through foods alone. Accordingly, many 
people in our nation do rely on nutritional supplements to ensure that 
they and their families are consuming sufficient levels of key 
nutrients.
  This legislation would enable low-income people to have greater 
access to nutritional supplements to improve their nutrient intake. 
Currently, recipients of food stamps are not allowed to use those 
resources to purchase nutritional supplements. This restriction clearly 
serves as an impediment to adequate nutrition for low-income people who 
may need supplements to ensure they are consuming sufficient levels of 
nutrients. It defies common sense.
  This restriction also prevents food stamp recipients from exercising 
their own responsibility and choice to use food stamps for purchasing 
nutritional supplements that they determine are important to adequate 
nutrition for their children or themselves. It is a glaring 
inconsistency that food stamps may currently be used to purchase a 
variety of non-nutritious or minimally nutritious foods but not to 
purchase nutritional supplements. Incredibly, you can use Food Stamps 
to buy Twinkies, but not Vitamin C or a multivitamin.
  Opponents of this legislation will argue that food stamps are most 
effectively used to improve nutrition through purchasing food rather 
than nutritional supplements, and that if food stamps may be used for 
nutritional supplements, households will be less able to stretch their 
resources to purchase sufficient quantities of food.
  The available evidence indicates, however, that food stamp households 
actually make more careful and effective use of their resources in 
purchasing nutritious foods than consumers in general. Since food stamp 
households necessarily have a limited amount of money to spend on 
food--and generally already find it difficult to meet their food 
needs--they simply cannot afford to make unwise or unnecessary 
purchases of nutritional supplements using food stamps which would 
otherwise be used for food.
  In addition, a month's worth of daily multivitamin supplements can 
cost as little as one can of soda. So I believe the concerns that food 
stamps will be wasted or unwisely used for nutritional supplements is 
unfounded.
  Our proposal is also clearly consistent with the stated purpose of 
the Food Stamp program, that is to ``promote the general welfare and to 
safeguard the health of the nation's population by raising the 
nutrition among low-income households.''
  So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join us in 
supporting this legislation designed to improve opportunities for low-
income Americans to ensure adequate nutrition for their families and 
themselves. Simply put, if you think it doesn't make sense that Food 
Stamps can be used to buy twinkies and doughnuts but not Vitamin C or a 
daily multi-vitamin supplement, you should support this bipartisan 
legislation.
  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. 1307

       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 ``Food Stamp Vitamin and 
     Mineral Improvement Act of 1999''.

[[Page S7938]]

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the dietary patterns of Americans do not result in 
     nutrient intakes that fully meet recommended dietary 
     allowances of vitamins and minerals;
       (2) children in low-income families and the elderly often 
     fail to achieve adequate nutrient intakes from diet alone;
       (3) pregnant women have particularly high nutrient needs, 
     which they often fail to meet through diet alone;
       (4)(A) scientific studies show that nutritional supplements 
     that contain folic acid (a B vitamin) can prevent as many as 
     60 to 80 percent of neural tube birth defects;
       (B) the Public Health Service, in September 1992, 
     recommended that all women of childbearing age who are 
     capable of becoming pregnant should consume at least 0.4 of a 
     milligram of folic acid per day for the purpose of reducing 
     the risk of having a pregnancy affected with spina bifida or 
     other neural tube birth defects; and
       (C) the Food and Drug Administration has approved a health 
     claim for folic acid to reduce the risk of neural tube birth 
     defects;
       (5) infants who do not receive adequate intakes of iron may 
     be somewhat impaired in mental and behavioral development; 
     and
       (6) scientific evidence indicates that increasing intake of 
     specific nutrients over an extended period of time protects 
     against diseases or conditions such as osteoporosis, 
     cataracts, cancer, and heart disease.

     SEC. 3. USE OF FOOD STAMPS TO PURCHASE VITAMINS AND MINERALS.

       Section 3(g)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``or food product'' and 
     inserting ``, food product, or nutritional supplement 
     providing a vitamin or mineral''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1308. A bill to amend section 468A of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 with respect to deductions for decommissioning costs of nuclear 
power plants; to the Committee on Finance.


                      nuclear decommissioning fund

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined today by Senator John 
Breaux in introducing The Nuclear Decommissioning Funds Clarification 
Act. This change in the tax law is necessary because the electricity 
industry is rapidly moving from a regulatory monopoly model to the 
competitive marketplace.
  In 1984, Congress enacted Code Section 468A which was designed to 
allow state public service commissions to authorize that future costs 
for decommissioning nuclear power plants could be charged by a utility 
to its customers to be dedicated to a nuclear decommissioning fund. 
Currently, utilities are permitted a deduction for contributions to 
their decommissioning funds. The amount that can be deducted is 
currently limited to the cost of service amount or the ruling amount. 
The cost of service amount is the amount of decommissioning costs 
included in the taxpayer's cost of service for ratemaking purposes. The 
ruling amount is the amount that the IRS determines to be necessary to 
provide for level funding of an amount equal to the taxpayer's nuclear 
decommissioning costs.
  Since Section 468A was adopted, the electricity industry landscape 
has been substantially transformed. Since 1992, more than 20 states 
have approved plans to introduce competition and all states are 
considering deregulation. The Energy Committee which I chair has also 
held several hearings on Federal deregulation proposals and it is my 
hope that a federal deregulation bill will be adopted in this Congress.
  Since deductible contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund 
are based on limitations reflected in cost-of-service ratemaking, 
companies operating in a competitive market can no longer deduct 
contributions to decommissioning funds. Our bill clarifies the 
deductibility of nuclear decommissioning costs in a market environment 
and codifies the definition of nuclear decommissioning costs that limit 
contributions.
  This legislation also clarifies a number of tax issues relating to 
decommissioning funds to ensure that nuclear utilities can operate 
effectively in this new competitive environment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS:
  S. 1309. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 to provide for the preemption of State law in 
certain cases relating to certain church plans; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


       church plan parity and entanglement prevention act of 1999

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
protect the health and pension benefits of thousands of clergy and lay 
workers. This legislation clarifies the regulatory status of church 
benefit programs and allows service providers to continue contracting 
with church plans.
  Unfortunately, state insurance statutes, in all but three states, 
fail to address the legal status of these benefit programs. Thus, under 
some interpretations of state insurance law it is possible to conclude 
that these employer plans are subject to regulation as insurance 
companies. This uncertain legal status has caused service providers to 
refuse to contract with church plans--leaving these programs without 
the necessary tools to maximize benefits and reduce costs.
  Recently, the Insurance Department of South Dakota informed the 
church benefits community that either federal or state legislation is 
necessary to exempt their programs from their state's insurance laws. 
With the possibility that 46 more states could make the same request, I 
believe the only practical solution is for Congress to clarify the 
status of these plans. That is what my legislation does.
  Mr. President, my legislation is within the spirit of the National 
Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-290) which 
not only exempted church plans from federal securities laws--providing 
the same treatment secular plans had previously enjoyed--but, also 
preempted state securities laws. This is not a unique idea. Similarly, 
the Internal Revenue Code includes numerous accommodations to the 
special circumstances of church plans. For example, the church plans 
which annuitize benefits are deemed not to be commercial insurers for 
purposes of maintaining their tax-exempt status.
  Mr. President, I have heard from ministers in my state about the 
urgency to move this legislation expeditiously. Indeed, Bishop Wesley 
Morris of the United Methodist Church visited me about this very 
matter. It is supported by the Church Alliance, a coalition of more 
than 30 denominational benefit programs, including the Presbyterian 
Church in America, the Rabbinical Pension Board, the Christian Brothers 
Service, the United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the 
Episcopal Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and many others.

  While these denominations may disagree about certain theological 
issues, they are united in providing sound health care and pension 
programs to their ministers and lay workers. Furthermore, while there 
are differing opinions with the Senate, and among ourselves, about 
health care legislation, there should be no disagreement that we need 
to protect benefit plans that serve ministers and lay workers. It makes 
no sense to leave these programs at the mercy of 47 different insurance 
laws. Every person active in his or her church knows the rising cost of 
health care is a problem.
  Mr. President, I want to clarify two points with respect to 
preemption of State laws as provided by this legislation. The exception 
that allows states to enact legislation applicable to church plans is 
intended to permit states to regulate church plans only if a specific 
statute is passed by a State legislature on a stand-alone basis and the 
sole purpose of the statute is to regulate church plans.
  Furthermore, I want to point that this legislation is intended to 
permit insurance companies and other service providers to contract with 
church plans regardless of whether such church plans would have been 
treated as multiple-employer welfare arrangements under State law, if 
this legislation had not been enacted.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
        Allard, Mr. Specter, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Frist, Mr. Helms, and 
        Mr. Abraham):
  S. 1310. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
modify the interim payment system for home health services, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare 
Home

[[Page S7939]]

Health Equity Act of 1999, which is designed to provide a measure of 
financial and regulatory relief for cost-efficient home health agencies 
across the country. These agencies are experiencing severe financial 
problems that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much-needed care, 
particularly to chronically ill seniors with complex needs.
  America's home health agencies provide invaluable services that have 
enabled a growing number of our most frail and vulnerable Medicare 
beneficiaries to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where 
they want to be--in the comfort and security of their own homes.
  In 1996, home health was the fastest growing component of Medicare 
spending, consuming one out of every eleven Medicare dollars, compared 
with one in every forty in 1989. The program grew at an average annual 
rate of more than 25 percent from 1990 to 1997. As a consequence, the 
number of home health beneficiaries more than doubled, and Medicare 
home health spending soared from $2.5 billion in 1989 to $18.1 billion 
in 1996.
  This rapid growth in home health spending understandably prompted 
Congress and the Administration, as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997, to initiate changes that were intended to make the program more 
cost-effective and efficient. Therefore, there was widespread support 
for the provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which called for 
the implementation of a prospective payment system for home care. Until 
this system can be implemented, home health agencies are being paid 
according to an ``interim payment system,'' or IPS.
  In trying to get a handle on costs, however, Congress and the 
Administration created a system that penalizes efficient agencies and 
that may be restricting access for the very Medicare beneficiaries who 
need care the most--the sicker seniors with complex, chronic care needs 
like diabetic, wound care patients or IV therapy patients who require 
multiple visits.
  Unfortunately, the ``interim payment system'' is critically flawed in 
that it effectively rewards the agencies that provided the most visits 
and spent the most Medicare dollars in 1994, the base year, while it 
penalizes low-cost, more efficient providers--and their patients. None 
of us should tolerate wasteful expenditures, but neither should we 
impede the delivery of necessary services by low-cost providers.
  Home health agencies in the Northeast and the mid-West have been 
among those particularly hard-hit by the interim payment system. As the 
Wall Street Journal observed last year, ``If New England had been just 
a little greedier, its home health industry would be a lot better off 
now--Ironically, the region is getting clobbered by the system because 
of its tradition of non-profit community service and efficiency.''
  Even more troubling, this flawed system may force our most cost-
efficient providers to stop accepting Medicare patients with more 
serious health care needs. According to a recent survey by the Medicare 
Payment Advisory Commission, almost 40 percent of the home health 
agencies surveyed indicated that there were patients whom they 
previously would have accepted whom they no longer accept due to the 
IPS. Thirty-one percent of the agencies admitted that they had 
discharged patients due to the IPS. These discharged patients tended to 
be those with chronic care needs who required a large number of visits 
and were expensive to serve. As a consequence, these patients caused 
the agencies to exceed their aggregate per-beneficiary caps.

  I simply do not believe that Congress and the Administration intended 
to construct a payment system that inevitably discourages home health 
agencies from caring for those seniors who need care the most. Last 
year's Omnibus Appropriations bill did provide a small measure of 
relief for home health agencies. This proposal did not, however, go far 
enough to relieve the financial distress that cost-effective agencies 
are experiencing.
  These problems are all the more pressing given the fact that the 
Health Care Financing Administration was unable to meet its original 
deadline for implementing a prospective payment system. As a result, 
home health agencies will be struggling under the IPS far longer than 
Congress envisioned when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act.
  Moreover, it now appears that Congress greatly underestimated the 
savings stemming from the BBA. Medicare spending for home health fell 
by nearly 15 percent last year, and the CBO now projects that post-BBA 
reductions in home care spending will exceed $47 billion in FY 1998-
2002. This is a whopping three times greater than the $16 billion CBO 
originally estimated for that time period.
  I recently chaired a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) 
hearing where we heard about the financial distress and cash-flow 
problems cost-efficient agencies across the country are experiencing. 
Witnesses expressed concern that these problems are inhibiting their 
ability to deliver much-needed care, particularly to chronically ill 
patients with complex needs. More than a thousand agencies have closed 
in the past year because the reimbursement levels under Medicare fell 
so far short of their actual operating costs. Others are laying off 
staff or declining to accept new patients with more serious health 
problems.
  This points to the most central and critical issue--cuts of this 
magnitude cannot be sustained without ultimately affecting care for our 
most vulnerable seniors. At the PSI hearing, Barbara Smith, a senior 
research staff scientist with the Center for Health Services Research 
and Policy at George Washington University, testified that the 
preliminary findings of her studies suggest significant potential 
effects on beneficiaries, particularly those with unstable chronic care 
needs. Her research shows that these patients are being displaced from 
home care or are experiencing significant changes in services that 
appear to be driven by reimbursement policies rather than by clinical 
considerations. In her testimony, she stated:

       ``My main concern is that we are carving out a wedge of 
     people who are chronically ill and have intensive needs for 
     services who are not going to have a reliable source of care 
     in any sector. They are becoming the health care system's 
     untouchables.''

  Moreover, the financial problems that home health agencies have been 
experiencing have been exacerbated by a number of new regulatory 
requirements imposed by HCFA, including the implementation of OASIS, 
the new outcome and assessment information data set; new requirements 
for surety bonds; sequential billing; IPS overpayment recoupment; and a 
new 15-minute increment home health reporting requirement. Witnesses at 
the PSI hearing expressed particular frustration about what Maryanna 
Arsenault, the CEO of the Visiting Nurse Service in Saco, Maine, termed 
HCFA's regulatory policy of ``implement and suspend.'' They pointed to 
examples such as the hastily enacted requirements for surety bonds and 
sequential billing where no sooner had a mandate been put into an 
effect, than it was suspended but only after agencies had invested 
significant time and resources in compliance.
  The legislation that my colleague from Missouri and I are introducing 
today, along with a bipartisan group of 16 of our colleagues, responds 
to these concerns. It makes needed adjustments to the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997 and related federal regulations to ensure that Medicare 
beneficiaries have access to medically-necessary home health services.
  Among other provisions, the bill eliminates the automatic 15 percent 
reduction in Medicare home health payments now scheduled for October 1, 
2000, whether or not a prospective payment system is enacted. When the 
Balanced Budget Act was enacted, CBO reported that the effect of the 
BBA would be to reduce home health expenditures by $16.1 billion 
between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. CBO's March 1999 revised analysis 
estimates those reductions to exceed $47 billion--three times the 
anticipated budgetary impact. A further 15 percent cut would be 
devastating to cost-efficient providers and would further reduce 
seniors' access to care. Moreover, it is unnecessary since the budget 
target for home health outlays will be achieved, if not exceeded, 
without it.
  The legislation will also provide supplemental ``outlier'' payments 
to home health agencies on a patient-by-patient

[[Page S7940]]

basis, if the cost of care for an individual is considered to be 
significantly higher than average due to the patient's particular 
health and functional condition. This provision would remove the 
existing financial disincentive for agencies to care for patients with 
intensive medical needs who, according to recent reports issued by both 
the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission (MedPAC), are the individuals most at risk of losing access 
to home health care under the IPS.
  The current IPS unfairly penalizes historically cost-efficient home 
health agencies that have been most prudent with their Medicare 
resources. Our legislation builds on reforms in last year's Omnibus 
Appropriations Act by gradually raising low-cost agencies' per-
beneficiary limits up to the national average over three years, or 
until the new home health prospective payment system is implemented and 
IPS is terminated.
  To decrease total costs in order to remain under their per-
beneficiary limits, agencies have had to significantly reduce the 
number of visits to patients, which has, in turn, increased the cost of 
each visit. Implementation of OASIS has also significantly increased 
agencies' per-visit costs. Therefore, the legislation will increase the 
IPS per-visit cost limit from 106 to 108 percent of the national 
median.
  Other provisions of the legislation will:
  Extend the current IPS overpayment recoupment period from one to 
three years without interest;
  Revise the surety bond requirement for home health agencies to more 
appropriately target fraud;
  Eliminate the 15-minute incremental reporting requirement; and
  Maintain the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP) program through the first 
year of implementation of the prospective payment system to ensure that 
such a dramatic change in payment systems does not create new cash-flow 
problems for agencies. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-
section summary further detailing these provisions be included in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. President, the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1999 will 
provide a measure of financial and regulatory relief to beleaguered 
home health agencies in order to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries 
have access to medically-necessary home health services, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              The Home Health Equity Act of 1999--Summary

       The Home Health Equity Act of 1999 is intended to make 
     needed adjustments to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and 
     related federal regulations to ensure that Medicare 
     beneficiaries have access to medically-necessary home health 
     care services.


                            Major Provisions

       Eliminates the automatic 15 percent reduction in Medicare 
     home health payments now scheduled for October 1, 2000.
       Under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (as amended by the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act), expenditures for Medicare home health 
     care are to be reduced by 15 percent, whether or not a 
     Medicare home health prospective payment system is 
     implemented on October 1, 2000. This provision would 
     eliminate that proposed reduction. When it was enacted, the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the effect of 
     the BBA would be to reduce home health expenditures by $16.1 
     billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. CBO's March 1999 
     revised analysis now estimates those reductions to exceed $47 
     billion--three times the anticipated budgetary impact. A 
     further 15 percent cut to home health cost limits would be 
     devastating to cost-efficient providers and would reduce 
     seniors' access to care. Moreover, it is unnecessary since 
     the budget target for home health outlays will be achieved, 
     if not exceeded, without it.
       Provides supplemental ``outlier'' payments to home health 
     agencies on a patient-by-patient basis if the cost of care 
     for an individual is considered by the Secretary to be 
     significantly higher than average due to the patient's 
     particular health and functional condition.
       Recent reports issued by both the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO) and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) 
     conclude that patients with intensive medical needs are the 
     individuals most at risk of losing access to home health care 
     under the Interim Payment System (IPS). This provision would 
     remove the existing financial disincentive under the IPS for 
     agencies to care for these patients.
       Increases the per-beneficiary cost limit for agencies with 
     limits below the national average to the national average 
     cost per patient over a three-year period or until the 
     Medicare home health prospective payment system is 
     implemented.
       The Balanced Budget Act of 1997's Interim Payment System 
     (IPS) bases an agency's average per-patient reimbursement on 
     that agency's average cost per patient in 1993 or 1994. As a 
     consequences, the system unfairly penalizes historically 
     cost-efficient home health agencies that have been most 
     prudent with their Medicare resources. This provision builds 
     on reforms made by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act (OCESSA) by gradually raising 
     low-cost agencies' per-beneficiary limits up to the national 
     average over three years or until the new home health 
     prospective payment system is implemented and IPS is 
     terminated.
       Increases the IPS per-visit cost limit to 108 percent of 
     the national median.
       The Balanced Budget Act reduced the per-visit cost limit 
     from 112 percent of the mean to 105 percent of the median. 
     The OCESSA increased the limit to 106 percent of the median. 
     This provision would further increase it to 108 percent of 
     the national median. Most analysts agree that the growth in 
     Medicare home health expenditures in the early 1990s was due 
     to the high number of visits provided to patients, not to the 
     cost per visit. CBO confirms that controlling use, not price, 
     is the key to Medicare home health cost containment. To 
     decrease total costs in order to remain under their per-
     beneficiary limits, agencies have had to significantly reduce 
     the number of visits to patients, which has, in turn, 
     increased the cost of each visit. Implementation of OASIS has 
     also significantly increased agencies' per-visit costs.
       Revises the surety bond requirements for home health 
     agencies to more appropriately target fraud.
       This provision would clarify that the surety bond 
     requirement is only to be used to protect against 
     overpayments based on fraudulent claims or behavior. Perhaps 
     the main problem with the surety bond proposal that HCFA 
     developed last year (and which is currently in regulatory 
     limbo) was that it went beyond Congressional intent. Congress 
     enacted the original surety bond provision as a way to use 
     private sector monitors to help keep fraudulent providers out 
     of the market. HCFA tried, through the regulations it 
     developed, to use surety bonds as a means to recover any 
     overpayments they made to home health agencies. This 
     unnecessarily increased both the costs and difficulties 
     agencies encountered in trying to obtain a surety bond.
       Extends the IPS overpayment recoupment period to three 
     years without interest.
       The BBA did not require HCFA to publish information on 
     calculating the IPS per-visit limits until January 1, 1998, 
     even though the limits were effective beginning October 1, 
     1997. Similarly, HCFA was not required to publish information 
     related to the calculation of the agencies' annual aggregate 
     per-beneficiary limit until April 1, 1998, despite an October 
     1 start date. More than a year after the implementation of 
     the IPS, HCFA's fiscal intermediaries still had not notified 
     many agencies of the visit and per-beneficiary limits under 
     which they were expected to operate. Moreover, throughout 
     this period, fiscal intermediaries continued to pay agencies 
     in accordance with the previous years' limits, resulting in 
     significant overpayments to many home health agencies 
     throughout the country.
       Fiscal intermediaries have begun to issue notices of 
     overpayments to these agencies and are demanding repayment. 
     This has posed a significant problem, particularly for 
     smaller agencies that do not have large cash reserves. To 
     ease these repayment problems, HCFA has directed the fiscal 
     intermediaries to allow home health agencies to extend their 
     repayments over 12 months. Many agencies, however, say that 
     this is insufficient. This provision would extend the 
     overpayment recoupment period to three years without 
     interest.
       Eliminates the 15-minute incremental reporting period.
       The BBA mandates that home health agencies record the 
     length of time of home health visits in 15-minute increments, 
     which the HCFA will implement on July 1, 1999. Unfortunately, 
     HCFA's instructions implementing the 15-minute reporting 
     requirement are excessively labor-intensive. As proposed by 
     HCFA, the only time that can be counted is time spent 
     actively treating the beneficiary. Time for travel or for 
     administrative duties that are essential to patient care, 
     such as charting or coordinating work with the physician, may 
     not be counted. Implementation of the 15-minute reporting 
     requirement will not only be difficult for staff, but will 
     also be disruptive to patient care. This provision would 
     eliminate the current 15-minute reporting requirement. An 
     alternative to the 15-minute reporting requirement that 
     better measures time of direct patient care and its 
     relationship to outcomes should be developed within the 
     context of the Medicare home health PPS.
       Temporarily maintains the Periodic Interim Payment (PIP) 
     program
       PIP is a program that is available to many home health 
     agencies that permits HCFA to make payments to the agencies--
     based on

[[Page S7941]]

     historical payment levels--prior to the final settlement of 
     claims and cost-reports. This program, which is scheduled to 
     terminate on October 1, 2000, has been invaluable to 
     participating agencies and has helped them to avoid cash-flow 
     difficulties. This provision would continue PIP through the 
     first year of implementation of the prospective payment 
     system to ensure that such a dramatic change in payment 
     systems does not create new cash-flow problems.

  Mr. BOND. In the last couple days, a lot of people have been talking 
about the Medicare program and what we want it to look like as we think 
far ahead into the future. I'm glad this is happening, because this is 
an important debate. We do need to discuss things like a prescription 
drug benefit, comprehensive Medicare reform, the long-term solvency of 
the program, and other related issues.
  But as we focus on the future of Medicare, we also need to do our 
best to make sure that the existing program is working as well as it 
can. That's why we're here today. Part of the existing program-- the 
home health care benefit--is completely broken, and we've come together 
to try to fix it.
  Why do we care? Well, home health care is the key to fulfilling what 
is virtually a universal desire among seniors and those with 
disabilities--to remain independent and within the comfort of their own 
homes despite their health problems. For people who have difficulty 
leaving their home and who have health conditions that require low- to 
mid-level medical attention, home health care is a tremendous help. 
Home health care keeps these people out of more expensive and less 
comfortable settings such as nursing homes and hospitals. And home care 
is often the only source of care for many disabled individuals and 
frail elderly, especially those living in underserved rural and urban 
areas of our country. Simply put, home health is crucial to millions of 
Americans' comfort and health, and we must make sure they continue to 
have access to it.
  The problem is that more and more Americans do not have access to 
needed home health services--they simply cannot find a home health 
agency that will care for them. This means they will either not receive 
the care they need, or that they will get this care, they'll just get 
it at more expensive and intimidating facilities like hospitals or 
nursing homes. This is the crisis we are facing.
  I would like to take a moment to describe several different ways this 
home health crisis is rearing its ugly head across the country.
  First, we have seen literally thousands of home health agencies close 
their doors in the last two years. Perhaps as many as 2,000 of the 
10,000 agencies that existed in 1997 have either been driven out of 
business or out of Medicare. In Missouri alone, about 75 out of 300 
home health agencies have closed since 1997, including the well-
respected and well-established Visiting Nurse Association of Greater 
St. Louis. A few of the agencies that have closed have no doubt been 
shady characters we should be glad to see go. But many--and perhaps 
most--of the agencies that have closed are legitimate providers with 
real patients.
  Second, those agencies that have survived have had to change 
drastically the way they operate. Many have been forced into layoffs 
and cutbacks in other areas that directly or indirectly impact patient 
care. Many face chronic cash flow problems and may be forced to refund 
large amounts of cash to the Health Care Financing Administration--
perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--that they accidentally 
received because they had not yet been informed of the new ground rules 
for home health payments. Because of the bizarre incentives against 
caring for patients with the most complex cases, many home health 
agencies have also been actively managing the types of patients they 
care for, trying to avoid or discharge costlier patients.
  All of this is bad for patients, and it will likely get worse. 
Without Congressional action, it may never get better. I truly believe 
that without significant changes, home health services within Medicare 
could practically disappear. Home health services would theoretically 
still be part of the Medicare program, but few if any people with 
Medicare would be able to receive care in their home simply because 
there will be nobody there to provide it for them.
  The Medicare Home Health Equity Act--which I am introducing today 
with Senator Collins and 12 other colleagues--responds to this crisis 
and attempts to save home health care within the Medicare program.
  This bill addresses a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all 
of which have impeded or prevented home health agencies from providing 
high-quality, efficient care. Two provisions are particularly critical.
  First, as I have mentioned, home health agencies currently have 
little incentive to provide care for sicker and costlier patients. In 
fact, because more complex patients put an agency at risk of exceeding 
the annual per patient budget that is now in place for each home health 
agency, there is actually an incentive not to care for sicker patients. 
The result--which shouldn't be a surprise--is that home health agencies 
are actively trying to avoid these sicker patients, either leaving them 
without care or leaving them to check in to a more expensive health 
facility such as a nursing home or a hospital.
  The Medicare Home Health Equity Act solves this problem by creating a 
system of ``extra'' payments for sicker patients--sometimes these are 
called ``outlier'' payments. Under this plan, home health agencies 
would be assured from the start that they could receive extra payments 
for patients who meet the criteria for ``sicker'' patients. This way, 
we can remove the incentive for home health agencies to try to deny 
care to seniors with complex cases.
  The second crucial provision in the bill is something similar to a 
last-minute pardon from the governor. In addition to all of the 
problems they have faced in the last couple of years, home health 
agencies are scheduled to take another huge payment cut--about 15% of 
the total amount they receive from Medicare--in October of 2000. I fear 
that this cut would truly be the death-knell for the industry. We 
cannot allow this radical payment reduction to take place.
  In addition to these core provisions, the Collins-Bond bill deals 
with a variety of payment and regulatory issues, all designed to make 
sure that Medicare recipients continue to have access to quality home 
health care and that the home health agencies are permitted to provide 
that care in an efficient manner.
  I would like to commend Senator Collins for her leadership on this 
issue. I am pleased that we were able to develop a joint bill so that 
we could unite our forces behind one bipartisan legislative vehicle and 
one bipartisan solution. It is also encouraging to see that all of the 
national trade associations that represent home health agencies are 
supporting this bill. Finally, I would like to again thank this bill's 
cosponsors for supporting this effort and for helping to raise 
awareness that there is a home health crisis that desperately needs our 
attention in Congress.
  I for one pledge to do my best to maintain seniors access to home 
health care. We cannot allow home health services within the Medicare 
program to disappear. It doesn't make sense for the patients, and it 
doesn't make sense for Medicare.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1311. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to establish an eleventh region of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, comprised solely of the State of Alaska; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                             EPA REGION 11

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to create a new regional office for the Environmental Protection Agency 
to be based in Alaska. I have been concerned for some time about the 
relationship between the federal government and my constituents. Alaska 
has always provided unique challenges for federal regulators. Its 
weather, remoteness, and the special problems caused by them have often 
resulted in a disconnect between federal regulators and my state. 
Currently, Alaska is part of Region 10 of the EPA based in Seattle. 
While it rains a lot in Seattle, the environment of Washington state is 
much more similar to Oregon and Idaho than Alaska. Alaska comprises 17% 
of America's total size and faces climactic extremes unheard of in the 
lower 48.

[[Page S7942]]

  For example, many people have heard that the unique geography of Los 
Angeles creates extreme atmospheric inversion conditions that 
contributes to its air pollution. However, I have been told that my 
home town of Fairbanks actually has a greater inversion problem than 
not only Los Angeles, but also anywhere else in the world except for 
the South Pole.
  I also believe that the cost issue is an important one since creation 
of a regional office would lower the tremendous travel and temporary 
duty costs faced by lower 48 based EPA staff who must fly back and 
forth to Alaska. Basing them in Alaska should significantly reduce 
these travel costs.
  I recognize that some may feel that the creation of a new regional 
office in Alaska is unwise. I would point out that I do not believe 
that the Seattle office has regularly handled Alaska issues poorly, but 
I do believe that these issues could be handled better if there was a 
regional office located in Alaska. Alaska faces wetland challenges like 
no other state. Our nation has seen a tremendous loss in wetlands in 
states such as California that has lost over 80% of its original 
wetlands. In comparison, Alaska has lost less than half of one percent 
of our nation's wetlands due to development even though we are a large 
producer of our nation's natural resources. Alaska is a state where 
wetlands banking is not an appropriate solution to address the loss of 
wetlands in California. Alaska's wetlands are also very different than 
those found in California or anywhere else in our nation. Much of 
Alaska's wetlands are frozen for all but a few months of the year.
  Even the Clean Air Act has a different application in Alaska. Low 
sulfur diesel in the lower 48 for on-road usage is not appropriate for 
my state where the percentage of diesel used for on-road uses is 
minuscule compared to that of the off-road uses. This situation is 
reversed in every other state. Fortunately, the EPA has seen fit to 
waive the low sulfur diesel requirement until a new lower national 
standard for both off and on-road diesel is in place during the next 
decade. However, we need to ensure that all federal regulations put 
into place reflect the realities of every state in our nation. Creation 
of a new Alaska based regional office of the EPA would be a firm step 
forward towards this goal.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill in order to make the EPA more efficient and responsive to 
some unique environmental challenges in my state.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the 
Record.
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF EPA REGION FOR ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall establish--
       (1) an eleventh region of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, comprised solely of the State of Alaska; and
       (2) a regional office for the region located in the State.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this Act.

                          ____________________