[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8085-S8140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1312. A bill to ensure full and expeditious enforcement of the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that seek to bring about
competition in local telecommunications markets, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the telecommunications competition enforcement act of 1999
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, S. 1312, the
Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999.
The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled.
We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the
country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable
price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to
enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began
to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did
not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition
into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long
distance market.
Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point
checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then
filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell
companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and
therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance
market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to
get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996
Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into
their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the
FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the
constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court.
Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking
changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a
result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that
significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local
markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to
consumers.
Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing
effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets.
I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that
not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market
to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new
entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies
and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97
percent of those lines into the home.
Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies
proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin
competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point
checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region.
All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in
their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of
Section 271.
I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of
the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal
Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that
consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead .
. . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our
residential and business wireline customers.''
And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance,
Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance
potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers
have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and
long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what
they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet
the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months.
Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1,
1996,
[[Page S8086]]
noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open
competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices,
competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will
rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal
legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive
communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the
competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information
age.''
Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What
has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather
than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal
court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one
year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for
Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the
requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's
decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit
Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the
constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals
denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271
applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been
presented to the FCC since July 1998.
What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local
competition we tried to create with the passage of the
Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that
promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain,
and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to
grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In
permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval
on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three
years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day
conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC
agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged
violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of
long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all
access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to
competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness
of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their
monopolies.
Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks
and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times
experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these
networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local
exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to
provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my
disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has
sufficiently opened its markets to competition.
Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have
been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by
the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this
time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules
of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services
for long distance customers without first having to open their local
markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to
continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services
because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such
services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications
Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and
otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to
promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote
the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as
``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.''
Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from
providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside
their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers
inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can
provide long distance service in their region once they open their
local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to
have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies
are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts
which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative
services at low prices to consumers.
Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and
instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have
passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is
reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation
that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the
Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of
$100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section
271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February
8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the
Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell
operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its
region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the
company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six
months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist.
With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more
than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon
the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate
whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine
whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements
of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange
company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day
forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not
come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order
the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance
services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day
grace period.
Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the
section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with
additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the
checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more
provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty
of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if,
after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully,
knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the
checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to
divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the
repeated violations have occurred.
While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be
taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to
competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did
not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational
and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone
monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while
preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the
world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the
statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local
phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market
pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist.
Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and
the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating
rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive
basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell
companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists
told us their markets
[[Page S8087]]
would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their
word.
I ask 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 Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999
SUMMARY
A Bell Operating Company (BOC) is required to meet the
market opening requirements of the section 271 checklist of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for half of the states in
its region by February 8, 2001. The FCC is required to assess
a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day a BOC is in
violation of this requirement.
A BOC is required to meet the market opening requirements
of the section 271 checklist of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for all the states in its region by February 8, 2003.
The FCC is required to order a BOC to divest its
telecommunications network facilities within 180 days in
which it is in violation of this requirement.
Upon petition by any interested party, the FCC is directed
to investigate whether incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILEC) with more than 5 percent of the nation's access lines
(that are not Bell Companies) have opened their markets to
competition pursuant to Section 251(c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Upon a determination that such ILECs are not in full
compliance with Section 251(c), the FCC shall set forth the
reasons for non-compliance and grant 60 days for the ILEC to
come into full compliance. Absent such compliance after that
60 day period, the FCC is required to assess a civil
forfeiture penalty of $50,000 for each day of the continuing
violation and order the company to cease and desist in
marketing and selling long distance services to new
customers.
If upon meeting the checklist requirements, a BOC fails to
meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall
impose a forfeiture of $100,000 for each day of the
continuing violation. If upon meeting the checklist
requirements, the BOC knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly
fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the
FCC shall require the BOC, to divest its telecommunications
network facilities, within 180 days, in states in which
repeated violations have occurred.
JUSTIFICATION
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs) to open their markets to competition. Yet,
not a single BOC has met the market opening requirements of
the Section 271 checklist. No Section 271 applications have
been filed at the FCC since July of 1998. Only five
applications have been filed since 1996--none of which
complied with Section 271.
In the three years since enactment, however, the BOCs have
pursued a strategy of stonewalling and litigation that has
delayed implementation of the critical interconnection,
unbundling, collocation, and resale requirements of the Act.
Now, BOCs are seeking legislative relief from the pro-
competitive provisions of the Telecommunications Act. They
argue that they will provide rural America with advanced
communications services, but only if they are allowed to
provide long distance service to their current customers. The
truth is that BOCs can provide advanced services today.
However, to get into the long distance market, they must open
their local markets to competition. This bill provides an
incentive for them to do just that.
By requiring a date certain by which the local phone
monopolies must open their markets, and by accompanying that
requirement with federal enforcement authority, we can be
assured that American consumers will obtain the benefits of
local competition.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DeWINE, and Mr. ROBB):
S. 1314. A bill to establish a grant program to assist State and
local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, and prosecuting
computer crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
computer crime enforcement act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act. This legislation establishes a Department of
Justice grant program to support state and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to prevent, investigate and prosecute computer
crime. I am pleased that Senator DeWine, with whom I worked closely and
successfully last year on the Crime Identification Technology Act, and
Senator Robb, who has long been a leader on law enforcement issues,
support this bill as original cosponsors.
Computer crime is quickly emerging as one of today's top challenges
for state and local law enforcement officials. A recent survey by the
FBI and the Computer Security Institute found that 62% of information
security professionals reported computer security breaches in the past
year. These breaches in computer security resulted in financial losses
of more than $120 million from fraud, theft of proprietary information,
sabotage, computer viruses and stolen laptops. Computer crime has
become a multi-billion dollar problem.
I am proud to report that the States, including my home state of
Vermont, are reacting to the increase in computer crime by enacted
tough computer crime control laws. For example, Vermont's new law makes
certain acts against computers illegal, such as: accessing any computer
system or data without permission; accessing a computer to commit
fraud, remove, destroy or copy data or deny access to the data;
damaging or interfering with the operation of the computer system or
data; and stealing or destroying any computer data or system. These
state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic commerce, an
increasingly important sector of the Vermont economy and of the
nation's economy. Now all fifty states have enacted some type of
computer crime statute.
Unfortunately, too many state and local law enforcement agencies are
struggling to afford the high cost of enforcing their state computer
crime statute. The Computer Crime Enforcement Act would provide a
helping hand by authorizing a $25 million grant program to help the
states receive Federal funding for improved education, training,
enforcement and prosecution of computer crime. Our bill will help
states take a byte out of computer crime.
Congress has recognized the importance of providing state and local
law enforcement officers with the means necessary to prevent and combat
cyber attacks and other computer crime through the FBI's Computer
Analysis and Response Team (CART) Program and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. Our legislation would enhance that
Federal role by providing each state with much-needed resources to join
Federal law enforcement officials in collaborative efforts to fight
computer crime.
In Vermont, for instance, only half a dozen law enforcement officers
among the more than 900 officers in the state have been trained in
investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber evidence. As
Detective Michael Schirling of the Chittenden Unit for Special
Investigations recently observed in my home state: ``The bad guys are
using computers at a rate that's exponentially greater than our ability
to respond to the problem.'' Without the necessary educational
training, technical support, and coordinated information, our law
enforcement officials will be hamstrung in their efforts to crack down
on computer crime.
Computers have ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential
for good. But the computer age has also ushered in new challenges for
our state and local law enforcement officers. Let's provide our state
and local partners in crime fighting with the resources that they need
in the battle against computer crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Crime Enforcement Act
and its quick passage into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1314
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 ``Computer Crime Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE GRANT PROGRAM FOR TRAINING AND PROSECUTION OF
COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Office of
Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which
shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of
local government, State and local courts, other States, or
combinations thereof, to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) assist in educating and training State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct
investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime;
[[Page S8088]]
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be
used to establish and develop programs to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) educate and train State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and
forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer
crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall provide assurances to the
Attorney General that the State--
(1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such
as penal laws prohibiting--
(A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer
system or network;
(B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting,
removing of computer software, or data contained in a
computer, computer system, computer program, or computer
network; or
(C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or
denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer
system, or computer network;
(2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs,
including criminal justice resources being devoted to the
investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
(3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this
section with other federally funded technical assistant and
training programs, including directly funded local programs
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
(described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)).
(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the costs of
a program or proposal funded under this section unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out
this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may
be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses.
(3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each
shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Attorney General may use
amounts made available under this section to make grants to
Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1315. A bill to permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on
certain lands held in trust for the Navajo Nation or allotted to a
member of the Navajo Nation, in any case in which there is consent from
a specified percentage interest in the parcel of land under
consideration for lease; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
fractionated lands
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that I have
sent to the desk. It relates to a very serious problem faced by a large
number of Navajo people in my State. The issue is referred to as
``fractionated lands.''
Around the turn of the century, the Federal Government attempted to
force Indian people to assimilate by breaking up traditional tribal
lands and allotting parcels of the land to individual tribal members.
In New Mexico, this policy created what is known as the
``checkerboard,'' because alternating tracts of land are now owned by
individual Navajos, the state, the federal government, or private
landowners. A Navajo allotment was generally 160 acres. Under the
allotment system, the Navajo owner was granted an undivided interest in
the entire parcel. The heirs of the original owner also inherit an
undivided interest, geometrically compounding--or fractionating--the
number of owners of the original 160 acres.
This allotment policy, coupled with other federal laws governing
Indian land ownership, land management, and probate, have not served
the Navajo people well during this century. I am introducing
legislation today to help address this problem.
Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to illustrate why the
legislation I am proposing is needed. If a Navajo was allotted a 160-
acre parcel and had four heirs, the heirs did not inherit 40 acres each
when the original owner died. Rather, each heir inherited a 25 percent
undivided interest in the full 160-acre allotment. Going forward, when
the current four owners died, assuming again four heirs each, sixteen
heirs inherited a 6.25 percent undivided interest in the allotment. The
next generation would result in 64 heirs each with a 1.5625 percent
undivided interest. And so forth.
What makes this situation so unique is that each heir inherits an
undivided interest in the allotment. Over time, individual owners may
inherit tiny fractions in many different allotments around the
reservation. In my state, there are about 4,000 individual allotments
covering nearly 700,000 acres. At this point, these 4,000 Navajo
allotments have a total of 40,000 listed owners, and the number grows
every day. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to figure out what's wrong
with this policy.
Mr. President, in April I held a town meeting with Navajo allottees
in Nageezi, New Mexico, a small chapter house in the Northeast section
of the Navajo Reservation. The allottees talked about the serious
problems that fractionated ownership has caused. Over 100 members of
the Navajo Nation came from as far away as Aneth, Utah, to speak at the
meeting. As you know, the Navajo Nation extends into three states, New
Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and there are allottees living in all three
states.
Record keeping of individual land ownership has become a nightmare.
In many cases, owners can no longer be located. Also, ownership can be
clouded when an owner dies without a legal will--a common situation in
Indian Country.
Some individuals do not even realize they own one or more of these
allotments. Often, individuals are surprised to find out that they are
an heir to an allotment on another reservation.
Mr. President, we all recognize there are serious problems with BIA's
management of its trust responsibilities for allotted lands in New
Mexico. The management problems were brought out very clearly at a
joint Senate hearing in March. The hearing also revealed the extent to
which the government's allotment policy contributed to BIA's current
trust management problems.
On the Navajo reservation, a three-year pilot project is underway in
Farmington, New Mexico, to try to unravel some of the management
problems with allotted Navajo lands. This project, called the
Farmington Indian Minerals Office, or FIMO, is trying to cut through
the red tape created by three different Bureaus in the Department of
Interior, BIA, BLM, and MMS, which share responsibility for management
of allotted lands. The FIMO has worked hard to assist Navajo allottees
determine who their fellow allottees are and what land each allottee
owns. I support the efforts of FIMO. If this legislation is passed,
FIMO could accomplish even more on behalf of the Navajo allottees in
the three states.
Mr. President, over the years, Congress has tried to deal with the
problem of fractionated lands, and has failed every time. The long
history of trust management problems is not going to be corrected
quickly. Developing and implementing a comprehensive solution is going
to take time. The Indian Land Working Group is one of
[[Page S8089]]
the leaders in this area and has submitted a proposal for Congress to
consider. I applaud the efforts of Senators Campbell and Inouye and the
members of the Indian Affairs Committee for taking on this difficult
issue. Some of the proposals include improved record keeping, probate
and estate planning programs, and new processes for consolidating
fractionated lands. I look forward to working with the Committee to
craft a comprehensive solution.
While the larger issue of fractionated ownership is being considered
by the Senate, I believe it is appropriate to consider a stop-gap
measure to help stimulate near-term economic development on
fractionated Navajo lands. There is an abundance of oil and gas beneath
the Navajo allotments, yet the allottees are unable to benefit from
this wealth because of federal laws that make it very difficult for
Indian allottees to lease their land. To illustrate, during the last 12
years, $7 million in leasing bonuses has been paid to the state and
federal government for leases in the checkerboard region of New Mexico,
while only $27,000 has been paid to owners of Navajo allotments.
The problem lies in the 1909 Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires
all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel to
consent to its lease. In the case of Navajo allottees, 100 percent of
the allottees must consent to a lease of their land. Because of the
fractionated land problem, obtaining 100 percent consent is often
impossible because many owners cannot be located. Consequently, the
Navajo allottees are precluded from the beneficial use of their land.
The bill I am introducing today will facilitate the leasing of Navajo
allotted land for oil and gas development. In the case of non-Indians,
most states already allow mineral leases with less than 100 percent
consent of the owners as long as all persons who own an interest
receive the benefits from the lease. My bill simply extends similar
benefits to Navajo allottees. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to approve an oil or gas lease connected to Navajo
allotted land when less than 100 percent of the owners consent to such
a lease. A similar bill was passed in the 105th Congress to facilitate
mineral leasing of allotted lands on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in
North Dakota.
My bill proposes a graded system for lease approval. In situations
where there are 10 or fewer owners of an allotment, 100 percent of the
owners must consent to a lease. However, where there exists 11 to 50
owners of an allotment, only 80 percent of the owners need consent.
And, with more than 50 owners, 60 percent consent would be required.
This graded system was suggested by the Navajo allottees.
Mr. President, unemployment on the Navajo Reservation now exceeds 50
percent. The opportunities for economic development on this land are
few. It is not appropriate for the federal government to continue to
deprive the legal owners of Navajo allotted lands the option to develop
their land as they choose. This bill is a small step toward correcting
the mistakes of the past and a bigger step towards providing economic
prosperity for future generations of Navajo allottees.
The bill has the support of the Navajo Nation and the Shii Shi Keyah,
the principal Navajo Allottees' Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the
Shii Shi Keyah Association and a letter from the Navajo Nation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Shii Shi Keyah Association Resolution of the Board of Directors
Whereas, the Board of Directors of Shii Shi Keyah
Association (``SSKA''), an unincorporated association of
Navajos who have ownership interests in allotments on or near
the Navajo Reservation, generally referred to as Navajo
Indian Country, has considered a number of issues relating to
oil and gas rights and revenues which require its attention;
Whereas, United States Senator Jeff Bingaman will introduce
in the 106th Congress, 1st Session, a bill which begins ``To
permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on certain lands in
New Mexico held in trust for the Navajo Tribe or allotted to
a member of the Navajo Tribe, in any case in which there is
consent from a specified percentage interest in the parcel of
land under consideration for issue;''
Be it Resolved that SSKA will support Senator Bingaman's
bill if it is amended to include the states of Utah and
Arizona.
certification
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of
Directors of Shii Shi Keyah Association of Bloomfield, NM
with no votes against and no abstentions at a regular meeting
of the Board held on June 4, 1999.
____
The Navajo Nation,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
Re: Proposed Bill to Permit the Leasing of Oil and Gas Rights
on Certain Lands in New Mexico Held in Trust for the
Navajo Tribe or Allotted to a Member of the Navajo Tribe,
in any Case in which There Is Consent from a Specified
Percentage Interest in the Parcel of Land under
Consideration for Lease
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Bingaman: Thank you for scheduling the April 8,
1999 meeting at the Nageezi Chapter. The Navajo Nation
appreciates your interest in the problems faced by Navajo
people regarding their allotted lands in northwestern New
Mexico.
The Navajo Nation supports your efforts toward solving the
problems engendered by increasingly fractionated interests
held by Navajo individuals in allotted lands. We support the
intent of the bill, provided that it is supported by a
consensus of Navajo individuals that will be affected. In
addition, we can support most of the particulars of the bill,
although the Navajo Nation would request some minor revisions
to the bill before it is introduced, as explained below.
Initially, we are concerned whether a consensus of affected
Navajo individuals support the proposed bill. The Navajo
Nation is concerned that the Shii Shi Keyah Association
apparently opposes the bill, as indicated in a letter to you
dated March 11, 1999 from the Association's attorney, Alan R.
Taradash, copy attached. We understand that the Shii Shi
Keyah Association is a respected organization comprised of
Navajo individuals numbering in the thousands.
The approach suggested by Mr. Taradash, the conveyance of
fractionated interests into family trusts, appears to have
much to commend it. However, we are not sure that the family
trust approach and the approach reflected in the proposed
bill are mutually exclusive. The Navajo Nation
respectfully requests that your office continue to work
with affected Navajo individuals to assure that the bill
reflects the best approach or combination of approaches to
solve the problems facing those individuals. The Navajo
Nation would be happy to work with your office in this
regard, and stands ready to provide any assistance your
office may need.
In addition, the Navajo Nation is very concerned with the
effect of section 1(b)(3)(A) of the proposed legislation,
which would appear to make the Navajo Nation a party to any
lease of oil and gas rights in allotted lands in which it
might own a minority interest. While the Navajo Nation has no
objection to any minority interest it might hold being leased
in accordance with the provisions of the bill, if that is the
approach that a consensus of affected Navajo individuals
support, the Navajo Nation must opposed being made a party to
any such lease. The Navajo Nation has very deliberate
policies and requirements regarding terms and conditions in
leases to which it is a party. In the present judicial
climate, lease terms and conditions can have a profound
effect on the sovereignty of an Indian nation. Therefore, we
must respectfully request that section 1(b)(3) of the bill be
changed to read in its entirety as follows:
``(3) Effect of approval.--On approval by the Secretary
under paragraph (1), an oil or gas lease or agreement shall
be binding upon each of the beneficial owners that have
consented in writing to the lease or agreement and upon all
other parties to the lease or agreement and shall be binding
upon the entire undivided interest in a Navajo Indian
allotted land covered under the lease or agreement.''
Finally, the Navajo Nation respectfully requests that all
references to the ``Navajo Tribe'' be changed to refer to the
``Navajo Nation,'' and that the reference be deleted in
section 1(a)(3) to the Navajo Nation as ``including the
Alamo, Ramah and Canoncito bands of Navajo Indians.'' The
Term ``Navajo Nation'' is the legal name of the Navajo
Nation, and by Navajo Nation statute is preferred over the
term ``Navajo Tribe.'' We must object to the reference to the
three bands (but not others) because of the possible negative
inference that there exists some ambiguity as to whether such
bands are constituent parts of the Navajo Nation. There is no
such ambiguity now, and we wish to avoid creating any. The
reference can safely be deleted without causing any
uncertainty in the definition.
Unfortunately, fractionated interests remains a significant
problem within the Navajo Nation, as we understand it is also
within our Indian nations. The Navajo Nation would like to
work your office and with other members of Congress on
comprehensive, long-term solution to this problem. If you
have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
Sincerely,
Estelle J. Bowman,
Executive Director.
[[Page S8090]]
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1317. A bill to reauthorize the Welfare-to-Work program to provide
additional resources and flexibility to improve the administration of
the program; to the Committee on Finance.
welfare-to-work amendments of 1999
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would
continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the
greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the
Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to
families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility
criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to
enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more
resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or
substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is
similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier
this year and introduced as H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin
of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators
Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me
as original cosponsors of my bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received
from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I congratulate you on the introduction
of the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999.'' I am pleased
that your legislation joins that introduced by Rep. Benjamin
Cardin earlier this year in the House in seeking to
accomplish the Administration's objectives in reauthorizing
the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program. President Clinton
and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key
component of the overall welfare reform effort. While welfare
caseloads have declined by nearly half over the last six
years, many individuals remaining on welfare are long-term
recipients who face significant barriers to employment. As
the President said in his April 10th radio address, ``We
can't finish the job of welfare reform without doing more to
help people who have the hardest time moving from welfare to
work--those who live in the poorest neighborhoods and have
the poorest job skills. That's why I call on Congress to pass
my plan to extend the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work
program.''
This legislation incorporates the President's proposal to
extend the WtW Program, reflecting key suggestions the
Administration has received from State and local service
providers since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. The WtW program funds job creation, job placement, and
job retention efforts to help long-term welfare recipients
and non-custodial parents move into lasting, unsubsidized
employment. In addition to helping long-term welfare
recipients make the transition from welfare to work, this
bill will help more low-income fathers increase their
employment and their involvement with their children. Demand
for WtW has been great. Last year, over 1,400 applicants from
local communities across the nation applied for more than $5
billion in WtW Competitive Grants, but DOL had sufficient
resources to fund less than 10 percent of these projects. In
addition, 44 states covering 95 percent of the welfare
caseload applied for formula funds. While the fundamental
principles and features of the program are maintained
(including the focus on work, targeting resources to
individuals and communities with the greatest need, and
administration through the locally administered, business-led
workforce investment system) we are also pleased to see the
principles of the original legislation further carried out by
the addition of the following enhancements:
A simplification of eligibility criteria which continues to
focus on long-term welfare recipients but provides that at
least one, rather than two, specified barriers to employment
must be met.
The provisions of even greater flexibility to serve those
with the greatest challenges to employment by the addition of
long-term welfare recipients who are victims of domestic
violence, individuals with disabilities, or homeless as
eligible to participate.
A strong focus on the family by targeting at least 20
percent of the WtW Formula Grant funds to help noncustodial
parents (mainly fathers) with children who are on or have
exhausted Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fulfill
their responsibilities to their children by committing to
work and pay child support.
An increase in the reserve for grants to Indian tribes from
the current 1 percent of the total to 3 percent, and an
authorization for Indian tribes to apply directly to the
Department of Labor for WtW Competitive Grants.
A procedure which allows unallotted formula funds to be
used to award competitive grants in the subsequent year,
providing a preference in awarding these funds to those local
applicants and tribes from States that did not receive
formula grants.
The development of streamlined reporting requirements
through the Department of Labor.
The establishment of a one percent reserve of Fiscal Year
2000 funds for technical assistance which includes sharing of
innovative and promising practices and strategies for serving
noncustodial parents.
In addition to the changes proposed by the Administration,
the legislation also provides for:
The inclusion of children aging out of foster care as
eligible service recipients and
The addition of job skills training and vocational
educational training.
While our welfare reform efforts have resulted in some
important early successes, much remains to be done.
Reauthorizing the WtW program, together with the
Administration's proposals to provide welfare-to-work housing
vouchers, transportation funds, and employer tax credits,
will provide parents the tools they need to support their
children and succeed in the workforce. Your introduction of
the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999'' provides
significant opportunities to hard-to-employ welfare
recipients to make the transition to stable employment and
assist noncustodial parents in making meaningful
contributions to their children's well-being. I applaud and
support your efforts.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection to the transmittal of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Alexis M. Herman.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me.
President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform
efforts.
Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous
welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs
that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to
their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and
clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order
to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the
essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that
build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent
school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most
families take these things for granted because they live without the
anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment
might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to
enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access
to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they
have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The
families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and
find their children living at risk.
Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty.
Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do
not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head
of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children
are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are
living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment,
and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the
most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these
dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the
promise of this country's future in their hands.
Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing
assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the
heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare
population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare
recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population
find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer
[[Page S8091]]
would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an
essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by
providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare.
Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record
number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in
1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the
General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare-
to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the
rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment
such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or
substance abuse problems.
We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self-
sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these
individuals might have already had an educational record, special
skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their
feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare
recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to-
Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their
children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have
their benefits reduced or completely removed.
These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people
who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And
these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we
let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from
the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to
these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996
that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for
you.''
This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has
struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state
where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many
of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial
hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment.
The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and
their families in my beleaguered state.
My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also
makes a number of important improvements to the program that states,
counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to
Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of
eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an
individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months
or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for
assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics,
including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or
reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse
treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF
applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but
still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic.
Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require
participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high
school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills
at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires
substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a
disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in
eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the
participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left
more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent.
In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been
eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double
under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human
Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict
that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will
be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW
expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these
criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been
doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many
participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to
participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and
more people in need would be able to find employment.
A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any
unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive
grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously
popular.
Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5
billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded
in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under
my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from
states that did not receive a formula grant.
Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole
family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with
several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate
and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as
myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they
went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even
worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat
dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do
not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many
of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they
are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and
holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them
from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If
these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely
to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional
involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will
improve.
For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them
to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents
face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as
other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under
my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be
revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed,
underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In
addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to
the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial
parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within
12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the
child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within
the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for
food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the
Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP).
The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring
that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this
population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will
enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service
provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the
establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of
a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find
and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage
non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more
involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for
themselves and their families.
Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill
from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to
$30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native
Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work
funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to
a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work
Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides
Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are
effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say
that our Native
[[Page S8092]]
American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic
success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to
make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to
Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American
communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency.
Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up
another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to
employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when
they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take
advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000
children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive
some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after
leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them
find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system.
My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the
program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow
Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is
performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are
provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation
between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and
community-based organizations so that all are able to work together and
be better able to provide services to those who are in need.
Finally, the bill eases Welfare-to-Work's ``work first'' requirements
that mean that TANF recipients must find jobs first, before they are
able to take advantage of stand-alone programs such as job training,
basic education or vocational education programs. My bill would
designate these as allowable work activities under Welfare-to-Work.
This change is in response to requests from states who want to use
program funds to better prepare recipients for the workforce before
sending them off to a job. This approach seeks to improve TANF
recipients' chances at maintaining steady employment.
Although my colleagues may have disagreed on welfare reform in the
past, Welfare-to-Work is a program that all should be able to support.
It represents a Federal-state-local partnership, as well as a
partnership between government, private industry, and community-based
organizations. It encourages people to take responsibility for
themselves, find work, and contribute to their families and society in
a meaningful way. We cannot abandon these welfare recipients who are
the most difficult to employ and must instead invest in them in a way
that will help them find jobs paying a living wage, become self-
sufficient, and allow them to break out of the cycle of dependency on
public assistance.
I would again like to thank my colleagues Senators Moynihan,
Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me as original
cosponsors of my bill, and I urge other colleagues to join us in
supporting this important Welfare-to-Work reauthorization bill.
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Grams, Mr. Sarbanes,
and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 1318. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to award grants to States to supplement State and local
assistance for the preservation and promotion of affordable housing
opportunities for low-income families; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
affordable housing preservation act of 1999
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
with Senator Kerry, Senator Grams, and Senator Wellstone the Affordable
Housing Preservation Act of 1999.
My work on this bill began several weeks ago out of discussions with
Vermont housing advocates and private section 8 property owners, and as
well as with Senator Allard, Senator Grams and Senator Gramm during
consideration of the Financial Modernization bill. We all acknowledge
that this issue has rapidly become a serious national problem--one
where thousands of low income elderly, disabled, and families with
children are increasingly unable to afford privately-owned low income
housing units.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Commissioner
Apgar recently took the step of exercising authority provided by
Congress to use additional vouchers to stem the tide of Section 8 opt
outs and prepayments. The Affordable Housing Preservation Act will
provide a more permanent solution to this crisis.
The Jeffords/Kerry Affordable Housing Preservation Act will provide a
longterm solution by building on local partnerships between non-
profits, state and local governments, and private landlords to keep
existing projects available for low income tenants. The bill preserves
existing low income projects, as well as increase the units to expand a
tight housing marketplace through new acquisition and rehabilitation.
In Vermont rents have increased 11 percent over the past three years,
making it increasingly difficult to find affordable shelter. To make
matters worse, the lack of low income housing makes it simply
impossible to find a place to live in areas like Burlington, where the
vacancy rate is less than one percent.
The need to preserve existing housing from opt outs and prepayments
is only exceeded by the need to expand the number of housing units for
low-income families, elderly and disabled. The affect of more Section 8
vouchers is undermined when there is nowhere to use them. On any given
day in Burlington there are just 60 available rental units in a city of
more than 40,000 people.
In such circumstances, low income families cannot even find a place
to live, much less find one that's affordable. This problem has been a
key factor in increasing homelessness, as families seeking help from
Burlington's emergency shelter rose over 60 percent between 1997 and
1998.
As Section 8 federal subsidies come up for renewal more often, the
risk of opt outs by private landlords increases. Housing projects in
Brattleboro and Montpelier currently face opt out situations where
landlords will raise rents to levels that Section 8 tenants cannot
afford.
The Affordable Housing Preservation Act will build foundations for
cooperation where efforts to raise public and private money are
enhanced through federal matching grants. Vermont's community based
non-profit organizations have achieved much success by encouraging
private landlords seeking to exit the affordable housing business to
transfer ownership to these groups.
Although ``sticky vouchers'' provide much needed short term relief,
the Affordable Housing Preservation Act offers a long term solution to
the opt out and prepayment problem by expanding community-based housing
preservation and acquisition initiatives. This bill will give hope by
providing help for those elderly, disabled, and families facing
eviction or homelessness.
I look forward to working with the Chairmen and Members of the
Housing Committees in the Senate and House to fix this problem and
provide a new direction for the nation in affordable housing.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with
Senator Jeffords to draft the legislation we are introducing today, the
Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 1999. The legislation will
establish a matching grant program that provides money to states and
localities that are willing to put up some of their own funds for the
purposes of preserving affordable housing. In order to receive a grant
under this program, the owner would have to commit to maintaining the
existing affordability restrictions for a minimum of 15 years.
In addition, the legislation will encourage transfer of ownership of
these properties to non-profit housing corporations that work closely
with residents. We believe that non-profit ownership will, in the long
run, ensure the maximum possible commitment to affordability at the
lowest possible cost. The current ownership structure for assisted
housing constantly puts us in this bind of having to provide more and
more money just to keep what we have already built and paid for. With
non-profits, we will not face the constant dilemma of opt-outs,
prepayments or expiring affordability restrictions. Nonetheless,
private owners who want to continue to provide affordable housing will
be eligible under this bill.
[[Page S8093]]
I appreciate the efforts of Senator Jeffords in facing this problem
head-on. We are facing an increasing crisis in affordable housing.
Ironically, this crisis worsens as the strong economy pushes rents ever
higher, out of the reach of many working Americans and the poor. This
legislation will help us preserve this crucial affordable housing
resource.
In the long run, however, preservation of affordable housing, while
necessary, won't solve the problem facing millions of American
families. The real problem in many cities around the country is that
there is not enough production of new housing. We need to find ways to
fund the construction of new, affordable, multifamily housing for low
income and working families, and we need to fund the 100,000 additional
vouchers we authorized in last year's public housing bill. This is not
just a poor person's issue. In many states around the country--
Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Alaska, and
others--a family would need to work as many as three full time jobs at
$7 per hour, well above the minimum wage, just to afford the rent on a
typical 2 bedroom apartment. This is unsustainable economically, and it
is simply not fair.
In sum, Mr. President, the Jeffords-Kerry bill builds effectively on
efforts HUD is taking to save existing housing stock. Now, we need to
provide the funding to make sure these efforts can move forward, as we
consider longer term solutions in the months ahead.
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 1319. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to renew project-based contracts for assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 at up to market rent
levels, in order to preserve these projects as affordable low-income
housing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
save my home act of 1999
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I stand before you today to introduce
the Save My Home Act of 1999. This legislation is intended to provide a
blueprint for HUD to address the problem of owners opting out of the
section 8 program by not renewing their section 8 project-based
contracts. This is a housing crisis. In my state of Missouri alone,
section 8 contracts on over 23,000 units will expire over the next 5
years. Nationwide, section 8 contracts on over 14,000 multifamily
housing projects with over 1 million units will expire over the same
period of time.
The ``Save My Home Act of 1999'' will restate and reemphasize the
need for HUD to use its best efforts to renew all expiring section 8
project-based contracts. The bill also provides new authority for
section 8 enhanced or ``sticky'' vouchers to ensure that families in
housing for which owners do not renew their section 8 contracts will be
able to continue to live in their housing with the Federal government
picking up the additional rental costs of the unit. The use of sticky
vouchers is intended as a last resort. HUD must push for the renewal of
the section 8 project-based contracts first. The bill also focuses on
appraisals so that the cost of this housing reflects the true market
value of the rental units. This has been a huge problem and will
continue to be a problem until HUD develops the capacity and expertise
to appraise adequately these multifamily housing projects.
This legislation is needed because HUD has, until recently, refused
to renew section 8 project-based contracts at market levels. In
response to this policy, many owners of this housing have refused to
renew their section 8 contracts and the housing has been converted to
market rate housing and lost as affordable, low-income housing
inventory. This means that the assisted low-income families in this
housing often have to move because the new rents will be too high for
the section 8 rental subsidies. This is a huge problem, especially for
the elderly and for persons with disabilities who have come to see this
housing as their homes.
And this has become a crisis. For example, according to the National
Housing Trust, during 1998 alone, owners of 219 properties with some
25,488 units section 8 units voluntarily opted out of receiving federal
rental subsidies under the section 8 project-based program. Moreover,
it has been estimated that we are losing another 3,000 section 8 units
a month because of HUD's inaction. I wish we had better numbers but HUD
is not providing us or the housing advocates with this information, and
it is not clear that HUD even has this information.
However, I do want to be clear about the parameters of section 8 opt-
out crisis. HUD currently has the legal authority to renew expiring
section 8 contracts at the market rent, but has failed to implement
this authority. Congress in the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997, as enacted on October 27, 1997 in the VA/HUD
FY 1998 Appropriations bill, provided HUD with the authority to renew
section 8 contracts up to the rental market level. This was almost 2
years ago, and HUD has only announced recently a renewal policy that it
has not yet been able to implement. And despite press releases to the
contrary, I am not convinced that HUD intends to renew these contracts
except with an additional push from the Congress.
I also want to be clear about funding. HUD has enough funds to pay
for section 8 contract renewals, even though HUD would have you believe
otherwise. In particular, HUD has at least $2 billion in the Housing
Certificate fund in excess of what is needed for renewing all expiring
section 8 contracts this year. Instead of committing any of these funds
for the renewal of section 8 project-based contracts, HUD has dedicated
these funds as part of its FY 2000 budget for general section 8
contract renewals. Nevertheless, this money is available now and can be
used to renew these expiring section 8 contracts. The real problem is
that HUD does not have the ``will'' or ``commitment'' to fund these
contracts. In fact, the biggest problem is commitment because you
cannot legislate commitment. We need to find a way to make HUD renew
these section 8 project-based contracts.
HUD's lack of commitment to section 8 project-based housing has been
a problem through this Administration. From the start, both HUD and the
Administration have had a stated policy of opposing section 8 project-
based assistance in favor of vouchers. And this is true whether we are
talking about elderly housing, housing for persons with disabilities,
or housing that is located in very low vacancy areas, such as rural
areas where there is no available housing or high-cost urban areas like
Boston and San Francisco. This has been a problem in the past with the
Section 202 program and with the Mark-to-Market inventory.
One final point is that I know there is interest in both the House
and Senate in funding a grant program to assist in the sale of section
8 projects to nonprofits and tenant groups. While I support the concept
of selling section 8 projects to nonprofits and tenant groups, I am
troubled by the thought of buying projects that the Federal Government
has already paid for several times over. This program sounds like
another reiteration of the preservation program which we misguidedly
funded over several years through the VA/HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee, resulting in fraud and abuse as we vastly overpaid the
value of these projects when we could have been using those funds for
more fiscally responsible, affordable housing purposes.
I look forward to working with interested Members of Congress on
these very important issues.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1320. A bill to provide to the Federal land management agencies
the authority and capability to manage effectively the Federal lands
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
PUBLIC LANDS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today represents
a significant modification of S. 1253, which I introduced in the last
Congress. This effort represents a large body of work--both oversight
and legislative--to modernize the laws governing our stewardship over
federally-owned, multiple-use lands.
For those of you who have just tuned in, this bill is the result of
15 oversight hearings that my Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land
Management held during the 104th Congress. These hearings involved over
200 witnesses,
[[Page S8094]]
representing all points of view, and reviewing all aspects of the
management of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.
The overwhelming conclusion from all of these witnesses--developers and
environmentalists alike, public and private sector employees alike--was
that the statutes governing federal land management--the 1976 Federal
Land and Policy Management Act and the 1976 National Forest Management
Act--are antiquated, and in need of updating. These statutes were
passed by Congress in the mid-1970s to help solve land management
problems. Today, they are a large part of the problem.
I look at laws as ``tools'' for use by professional land managers and
resource scientists that help establish priorities and make management
decisions. These two tools are as antiquated as the slide-rule and
computer punch cards that were the tools used by land managers at the
time that these statutes were passed.
As a consequence of this oversight review during the 104th Congress,
and subsequent oversight hearings since, I drafted S. 1253 and
circulated it at the outset of the 105th Congress. That draft, and the
subsequently-introduced bill were, in turn, the subject of six informal
workshops and another eight formal, legislative hearings to review the
concepts embodied in both the first draft and the introduced version of
S. 1253. The ideas that emanated from the oversight hearings were
modified to reflect the suggestions of witnesses, and in recognition of
how resource management problems have subsequently evolved.
Also, during the course of the last eighteen months, we have held
additional hearings, reviewed subsequent correspondence, and enjoyed
additional dialogue about how to best modify the 1976 statutes. For
instance, we held one hearing where all four of the former Chiefs of
the Forest Service and one former Bureau of Land Management Director
shared their views about the current state of federal land management,
and where legislative action could assist their successors in
discharging the public trust more effectively.
During this time period there has been at least one seminal decision
from the Supreme Court. In Ohio Forestry Association versus Glickman,
the Supreme Court has, in my view, significantly devalued the
importance of the land management planning process authorized under the
National Land Management Act, and probably FLPMA as well. In that
decision, the Court denied standing to challenge resource management
plans, essentially on the basis that no real decisions are made. While
properly decided on the basis of existing law, I believe that decision
produced the wrong result insofar as effective resource planning is
concerned. The bill I am introducing today would explicitly set a new
course, reversing the effect of this decision in order to make resource
management plans more meaningful documents. In various other ways of a
less significant nature, the bill I am introducing today also reflects
the product of court decisions that have been rendered during the
period that we have been reviewing these issues.
The bill that I am introducing today is also the direct result of
four important pieces of information. Let me describe each of these in
turn.
First, we held an extraordinary pair of hearings with the President
of the Wilderness Society as the sole witness. These hearings were
significant in the sense that we were not limited to the usual, five-
to-ten minute exchange to communicate with one another. Instead, we
actually discussed the Wilderness Society's concerns and views about
National Forest management for several hours.
Second and equally important was the assistance provided by the
Society of American Foresters. The Society laudably took on the task of
appointing a working group of resource scientists and professionals to
review the current state of federal land management and the proposals
that we made in the last Congress, and to offer suggestions for
improvement. I commend their report as an authoritative guide to needed
changes in the current system. Most notably, the Society is emphatic,
as am I, that many, if not most, of the problems that plague federal
land management today can be resolved only through a cooperative effort
between the Administration and Congress to produce a revised
legislative charter for the land managing agencies.
Third, we were in many important respects guided by Secretary of
Agriculture, Dan Glickman's, Committee of Scientists Report, also
issued earlier this year. I commend this report to the attention of
Senators as well. In many areas, we find ourselves in agreement with
the Committee of Scientists, particularly with regard to defining a new
mission for the Forest Service. We would submit that this is needed for
the Bureau of Land Management as well--even though that was beyond the
Committee's charter. One area where the Committee's views are unclear
is whether or not these improvements can be made exclusively through
the rule-making process. The Committee seems to be of two minds about
this. It is clear to us that the kinds of changes the Committee seeks
cannot be accomplished through regulation. They must involve
fundamental statutory changes to the agencies' missions. Any other path
is, in our view, doomed to failure.
Finally, we were informed at the time of the Administration's budget
submission that the Administration would be sending forward a series of
seven important legislative proposals governing federal land
management. We were pleased that the Administration had at last come to
the conclusion that legislative changes are necessary. This has been a
source of intense dialogue between myself, Secretary Glickman,
Undersecretary Lyons, and others in the Administration for more than
two years. Given this recognition on their part, we felt duty-bound to
wait for these proposals before going forward. In the bill I am
introducing today, we have adopted, in pertinent part, five of the
Administration's seven legislative proposals. A sixth proposal is the
subject of a separate piece of legislation that was introduced in the
House yesterday (HR 2389). I am working on a companion Senate bill to
introduce shortly. Thus, I found the Administration's proposals
something that I could agree with, and want to be responsive to.
So, my work product is the result of a number of sources of
information. It has taken at least six months longer to produce than I
anticipated it would, but in the interest of: (1) securing the advice
of Secretary Glickman's Committee of Scientists; (2) evaluating the
Society of American Foresters' report; and (3) being responsive to the
Administration's legislative proposals, I believe the wait was
worthwhile.
We will now move forward with additional hearings on this proposal
confident that we are on the correct path to improve the quality of
federal land management and, through a variety of means, increase
public support for the future management of our federal forest lands.
We invite both the Administration and Members on both sides of the
aisle to join us in this effort. We move forward knowing that this
proposal, like any other, is a working draft that will by necessity
change, probably significantly, as we move forward.
However, we also move forward knowing that legislative change in this
area is both inevitable and vital. It is clear to me that this area of
public discourse vitally needs a vibrant legislative debate and a new
legislative charter so that our federal land managers can be provided
with tools a little more modern than the slide-rule and mainframe
computer punch cards.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Section-by-Section Description--Public Lands Planning and Management
Improvement Act of 1999
Sec. 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.--This legislation--
``Public Lands Planning and Management Improvement Act of
1999''--provides new authority and gives greater
responsibility and accountability to the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Department of the Interior, for planning and
management of federal lands under their jurisdiction. The two
statutes governing the agencies' land planning and
management--the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)--are now more
than two decades old; this legislation preserves those laws'
policies and requirements while it updates those laws to
reflect
[[Page S8095]]
the agencies' subsequent performance and experience.
The need for new statutory authority is one of the
principal findings of a recent report on the planning and
management of national forest and BLM lands commissioned by
the Society of American Foresters (SAF), entitled Forest of
Discord: Options for Governing our National Forests and
Federal Public Lands. The report states that ``new
legislation seems the best approach for improving federal
land management * * * Because the problems that exist are
both serious and complex, the problems cannot be resolved
through regulatory reform or through the appropriations
process. Rather, new legislation is warranted.''
The first version of this bill was introduced as S. 1253 on
October 3, 1997. Since then the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee has devoted significant attention to the
legislation. It has been the subject of 8 hearings and 6
workshops, including one hearing in which 4 former chiefs of
the Forest Service and one former director of the BLM spoke
about the need for legislation to modernize the existing
statutory base for federal land planning and managing, and
analyzed this bill through the prisms of their experiences as
agency heads, and two hearings in which the President of the
Wilderness Society provided an in depth critique of the
bill's provisions. Toward the end of 1998, the legislation
was substantially altered to accommodate numerous useful
suggestions of, and to remedy a number of concerns raised by,
the many witnesses.
In the Spring of 1999, two important documents were
published: (1) the SAF-commissioned critique of Forest
Service and BLM planning and management and call for
legislation, authored by prominent academics, state
foresters, consultants, federal officials, and private
forestland managers; and (2) the report of the Committee of
Scientists appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide advice in the course of a new rulemaking governing
Forest Service planning, Sustaining the People's Lands:
Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and
Grasslands into the Next Century. This bill was redrafted
again before its introduction to incorporate many suggestions
and concepts from these two landmark documents. As a result
of the two rewrites, this legislation is significantly
different from, and reflects a much broader array of views
and ideas than did, its predecessor in the 105th Congress.
Sec. 2. Findings.--This section contains numerous findings
which explain the need for this legislation. Many of these
findings are shared by the Committee of Scientists and SAF
reports, and the language of the most prominent findings cite
those documents. The findings--
Note the widespread public support for the twin principles
of federal land management--multiple use and sustained
yield--imposed on Forest Service lands in NFMA and on BLM
lands in FLPMA.
Recognize that NFMA and FLPMA, enacted in 1976, established
resource management planning processes as the means to apply
these land management principles to the federal lands.
State that, in the 2 decades since the enactment of NFMA
and FLPMA, fundamental flaws in the planning processes have
been exposed, to the dissatisfaction of all stakeholders.
Find that these flaws threaten the planning and management
decisionmaking processes and undermine the agencies' ability
to fulfill their statutory land management responsibilities
and to accomplish management that is well grounded in
science.
Note that Congress' desire for planning to be completed
within discrete time frames and to provide secure management
guidance has not been achieved.
Describe how planning has yet to be completed 2 decades
after the enactment of NFMA and FLPMA, and how the Forest
Service and BLM are now engaged in an apparently perpetual
planning cycle that deprives both the agencies and the public
of stable and predictable management of federal lands.
State that the two levels of planning contemplated and
required by NFMA and FLPMA have been expanded by the agencies
and the courts to include various planning exercises on
multiple, often conflicting, broader and narrower planning
scales that in many cases are focused on only a single
resource, are conducted without the procedural and public
participation safeguards required by those laws, and
result in guidance that conflicts with the planning that
is conducted in accordance with those laws.
Find that the procedures and requirements of NFMA and FLPMA
often are not compatible, and even conflict, with procedures
and requirements of other, more generally applicable
environmental laws. The result is often the de facto transfer
of planning and management decisionmaking authority from the
land management agencies--the Forest Service and BLM--to
other environmental agencies--most notably the Environmental
Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service--that do not possess comparable land
management expertise.
Find ``without doubt'' that Congress has failed to
reconcile the procedures and requirements of other
environmental laws with the planning and management processes
established by NFMA and FLPMA.
State that the land management planning is conducted
without regard for likely funding constraints on plan
implementation and that the agencies' budgets and
Congressional appropriations are not linked to the plans.
Describe how, even when the Forest Service and BLM retain
planning and management authority, they are often paralyzed
by an escalating number of administrative appeals and
lawsuits.
Note that existing law does not recognize, nor integrate
into planning, important new land management concepts such as
ecosystem management and adaptive management which are being
imposed or incorporated in federal land planning and
management without statutory authority or clear public
understanding.
State that new processes developed by stakeholders to
better participate in federal land planning and decision
making, such as the community collaborative deliberations of
the Quincy Library Group and Applegate Partnership, are not
recognized or encouraged by NFMA and FLPMA.
Find that these flaws in planning and plan implementation,
including the administrative and judicial challenges, have
escalated Forest Service and BLM land management costs and
thereby reduced land management capability.
Note that FLPMA and NFMA were enacted when federal land
ecosystems were regarded generally as healthy, but numerous
watersheds are degraded, species are declining because of
habitat loss, and forested areas are undergoing or are
threatened by an unprecedented forest health crisis.
State that monitoring to develop an adequate basis for
planning and to determine whether plans are being implemented
adequately or conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant
new planning is often promised but rarely conducted.
State that these flaws in planning and subsequently
inability to secure plan implementation have injured--both
environmentally and economically--all stakeholders, but
particularly local resource-dependent communities which have
no protection nor recourse under NFMA and FLPMA.
Find that NFMA and FLPMA, and their implementing
regulations provide much guidance on planning, but virtually
none on plan implementation, thereby devaluing the term
``Management'' common to both Acts' titles.
Report the finding of the United States General Accounting
Office (GAO) that the statutory flaws and public distrust
discussed in these findings have contributed to, and been
compounded by, the agencies' lack of a clear mission
statement.
And find that additional statutory direction for planning
and plan implementation is needed to secure stable and
predictable federal land management and to free the Forest
Service and BLM to exercise fully their professionalism in
making management decisions.
Sec. 3. Definitions.--This section defines the terms used
in this legislation. For the purpose of this section-by-
section description only two terms need definition here.
``Federal lands'' means all federal lands managed by the BLM
(excluding Outer Continental Shelf lands) and Forest Service
(including national grasslands). The four ``Committees of
Congress'' are the authorizing committees with jurisdiction
over the Forest Service and BLM: the Committee on Resources
and Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the
United States Senate.
Sec. 4. Supplemental Authority.--This section makes clear
that this legislation supplements the NFMA, FLPMA, and other
applicable law. Any inconsistency: between this bill and the
NFMA or FLPMA is resolved in favor of this bill; and between
this bill and the statutes governing management of units of
the National Wilderness Preservation, National Wild and
Scenic Rivers, and National Trails Systems is resolved in
favor of those statutes.
Sec. 5. Transition.--This section makes clear that existing
plans, policies, and other guidance concerning the federal
lands that are in effect on the date of enactment of this
legislation remain valid until they are revised, amended,
changed, or terminated in accordance with this legislation.
TITLE I--ENSURING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL LAND
PLANNING
Sec. 101. Purposes.--The purposes of Title I are to provide
a mission statement for the Forest Service and BLM and
provide Congressional direction to those agencies on the
preparation and implementation of resource management plans
for, and the planning of management activities on, the
federal lands. This mission and direction are intended to
avoid the environmental, economic, and social injuries caused
by the existing flaws and past absence of mission and
direction in federal land planning. Most importantly, this
mission and direction are expected to achieve more stable,
predictable, timely, sustainable, and cost-effective
management of federal lands. This title is also intended to
encourage collaborative processes in federal land planning,
to ensure adequate monitoring, and to establish uniform,
expeditious procedures for administrative and judicial
appeals. Finally, this title would provide for consideration
during planning of funding constraints on, and during budget
setting of funding needs for, plan implementation. The
collaborative planning, monitoring, and budgetary purposes
were not in this bill's predecessor.
[[Page S8096]]
Part A. In General
Sec. 102. Mission of the Land Management Agencies.--A
common theme of the SAF report (pp. 17-18), the Committee of
Scientists report (pp. xiv-xvi), and a 1997 GAO report
entitled, ``Forest Service Decision-making: A Framework for
Improving Performance.'' (p. 5) is the need for a new mission
direction for the Forest Service and BLM that provides
guidance beyond the multiple use and sustained yield
principles and incorporates the newer management concepts
concerning ecosystems, landscape management, and biological
diversity. This section provides that new mission statement.
It is: to manage the federal lands to assure the health,
sustainability, and productivity of the lands' ecosystems;
where consistent with that objective, to furnish a
sustainable flow of multiple goods, services, and amenities;
to preserve or establish a full range and diversity of
natural habitats of native species in a dynamic manner over
the landscape, and to designate discrete areas to conserve
certain resources or allow certain uses. This section was
rewritten, consistent with the Committee of Scientists and
SAF reports' recommendations, to accord priority to ecosystem
concerns and to clarify and ensure that the agencies are to
deliver amenities as well as goods and services.
Sec. 103. Scientific Basis for Federal Land Decisions.--To
ensure that federal land planning and management is well
grounded in science (a particular concern of the Committee of
Scientists), this section requires the Forest Service and BLM
to use in all federal land decisions the ``best scientific
and commercial data available.'' Congress first adopted this
stringent standard in the Endangered Species Act of 1973;
this bill's standard is identical to that Act's.
Part B. Resource Management and Activity Planning
Sec. 104. Levels of Planning.--To reduce the proliferating
number of federal land planning exercises, this section
limits the levels of Forest Service and BLM planning to two--
multiple-use resource management planning for designated
planning units and site-specific planning for management
activities. The two agencies are given complete discretion to
designate planning units of whatever size and number they
consider appropriate in which to conduct the resource
management planning.
The agencies may also conduct analyses or assessments for
geographical areas other than the planning units (including
ecoregion assessments as provided in Part F of this title).
The results of those analyses or assessments may be applied
to the federal lands by amending or revising the applicable
resource management plans.
This section establishes a 3-year deadline for amending or
revising existing resource management plans to include
policies developed in planning conducted outside of the two
prescribed planning levels. Non-complying planning will no
longer apply to the federal lands at the end of the 3-year
period.
Sec. 105. Contents of Planning and Allocations of Decisions
to Each Planning Level.--To eliminate redundant planning that
is time-consuming and costly, this section assigns specific
analyses to the two levels of planning established in section
104 and clarifies that the analyses may not be repeated
elsewhere in the planning process. This assignment of
planning tasks to specific planning levels is regarded as a
critically important change by the authors of the SAF report
(pp. 51, 59): ``The current land management planning
process is unclear about which decisions are made at which
points in the planning process. No public organization or
management system can be effective without clearly
articulated goals and an unambiguous decisionmaking
process, and in current planning, neither of these
conditions obtains. . . . Once the overall mission of the
lands has been identified, the most important questions
about land management planning on the national forests and
public lands relate to clarifying which issues are decided
at which levels of the decisionmaking process.''
This section requires that resource management plans
contain 5 basic elements: (1) statement of management goals
and objectives; (2) allocation of land uses to specific areas
in the planning unit; (3) determination of outputs of goods,
services, and amenities from the unit; (4) environmental
protection policies; and (5) a description of the desired
future conditions of the unit's lands and the expected
duration of time needed to achieve those conditions. Basic
elements (1) and (3) are specifically recommended by the SAF
report (p. 57): ``Resource management plans should identify
and quantify (to the extent feasible) appropriate goals and
outcomes, including vegetation management goals and commodity
and amenity outputs.'' Element 2--land allocations--is, of
course, the historic backbone of planning and is recommended
by the Committee of Scientists report (p. xxxiii). ``Desired
future conditions'' is a new, basic element added to this
bill; this concept is recommended in the Committee of
Scientists report (p. xxviii) as ``[t]he central reference
point for strategic planning.'' The agencies are admonished
to tailor the environmental protection policies in element 4,
to the maximum extent feasible, not to be prescriptive
requirements generally applicable to the entire planning
unit, but rather to provide guidance for determining specific
requirements suitable for the precise conditions at
identified sites during the planning of individual management
activities.
The agencies are tasked with describing the basic elements
in a manner that provides a basis for monitoring required by
section 116 and adaptive management required by section 117.
This requirement is new to this bill and is recommended by
SAF report (p. 57): ``The goals and outputs (including fiscal
expectations and downstream effects) should be set forth in a
manner that provides a basis for monitoring, evaluating, and
reporting agency performance.''.
Additionally, the resource management plans are required to
contain: (1) a statement of historical uses, and trends in
conditions of, the resources covered by the plans; (2) a
comparison of the projected results of the basic elements
with recent agency performance and a discussion of any
expected, significant changes in management direction,
including any steps to be taken to ameliorate any adverse
economic, social, and economic consequences that might result
from those changes; (3) a schedule and procedure for
monitoring plan implementation, management of the covered
federal lands, and trends in the covered resources' uses and
conditions as required by section 116; (4) criteria for
determining when circumstances on the covered federal lands
warrant adaptive management of the resources as required by
sections 116(a)(3) and 117(c). The requirement to compare
projected results with past performance and discuss
significant differences is a new element in this bill that is
recommended in the SAF report (p. 57): ``The plans should
compare and contrast the goals and outcomes with recent
performance, highlighting situations where a significant
change in direction is proposed.'' The requirement for a
schedule and procedures for monitoring is recommended by both
the Committee of Scientists report (``An adequate plan
contains the methods and proposed measurements for monitoring
. . .''. (p. 108) and the SAF report (``The [planning]
decision document needs to specify the monitoring process . .
.''. (p. 27)).
Another provision designed to reduce plan redundancies and
the time consumed in repetitive planning requires the
agencies to assign by a notice-and-comment rulemaking
specific analyses and decisions to each of the two planning
levels (as recommended in the SAF report (p. 59): ``Forest
planning regulations should identify the analyses and
decisions that must be made at each planning level''). The
agencies may not conduct or reconsider those analyses or
decisions in the planning level to which they are not
assigned. This section also assigns a number of analyses and
decisions by statute. In addition to the 5 basic elements
discussed previously, assigned to resource management
planning are resource inventories, cumulative effects
analyses (including effects on water quality), discussion of
relationship to State and local plans, identification of
federal lands which might be exchanged or otherwise disposed
of, and decisions on wilderness, unsuitability of lands for
certain uses (e.g., coal mining as required by section 522 of
the Surface Mining Control and reclamation Act and timber
harvesting as required by section 6 of the National Forest
Management Act), and visual objectives.
Assigned to management activity planning are analyses of
site-specific resources and environmental effects, and
decisions concerning the design of, and requirements for, the
activity, including decisions related to water quality
effects of the activity, method for harvesting forest
products, revenue benefits, and a schedule and procedures for
monitoring the effects of the activity. These assignments of
decisionmaking comport with the recommendations in the SAF
report (p. 59): ``Forest or area plans might be the
appropriate place to analyze and decide wilderness
recommendations, output targets, supply-demand relationships,
and community impacts. [Localized] plans might be the
appropriate place to analyze and decide on
silvicultural practices and restoration activities and the
mix of habitats for species viability . . . [and] access
and management unit boundaries.''
Among the more significant changes in this section from the
language of this bill's predecessors are the addition of
desired future uses to the plan's basic elements, the
emphasis on monitoring and adaptive management in resource
management planning, the requirement to address adverse
consequences of significant changes in management direction,
and the assignment of water quality analyses to both planning
levels.
Sec. 106. Planning Deadlines.--To break the cycle of
perpetual planning, this section would set deadlines for
conducting the two-level planning. These deadlines are: (1)
for resource management planning--36 months for plan
preparation, 18 months for amendments defined as significant
by regulations, 12 months for amendments defined as non-
significant by regulations, and 30 months for revisions; and
(2) for management activity planning--12 months for planning
significant activities, and 9 months for planning non-
significant activities. All of these deadlines are longer
than those in the predecessor bill, as suggested by the
former agency heads and other witnesses. Also added is a
provision that adjusts the deadlines if an activity must be
submitted to Congress as a ``rule'' under section 251 of the
Contract with American Advancement Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
868-874, 5 U.S.C. 801-808). Both the Committee of Scientists
report (``Planners should aim to complete the planning phases
from assessment through formal adoption of small landscape
plans within three years and preferably less than two.'' (p.
181)) and the SAF
[[Page S8097]]
report (``deadlines for decisions should therefore be set'')
(p. 46)) recommend planning deadlines.
Sec. 107. Plan Amendments and Revisions.--This section
ensures that the 5 basic elements of the resource management
plans are accorded equal dignity and that one element is not
arbitrarily sacrificed or ignored to achieve another. It
prohibits the Forest Service and BLM from applying a policy
to, or making a decision on, a resource management plan or a
management activity which is inconsistent with one of the
basis elements. To ensure that the agencies discover any such
inconsistency, this section requires each agency either to
report in writing with each land management activity decision
that the activity contributes to or does not preclude
achievement of the basic elements or to amend or revise the
plan to remove or reconcile the affected element. This
decision to amend would be made whenever the inconsistency is
discovered whether it is during the planning for a specific
management activity or during the monitoring of plan
implementation required by section 116. The agencies are
given the authority to waive an inconsistency without
amending the resource management plan for a single specific
management activity within any class of management activities
once during the life of the plan if the inconsistency does
not violate a nondiscretionary statutory requirement and the
determination is made that the waiver is in the public
interest.
This section also requires that any change in federal land
management that is imposed by new law, regulation, or court
order or that is warranted by new information must be
effected by amending or revising the appropriate resource
management plans. Further, unless the agency determines that
the law or court requires otherwise and publishes that
determination, the change in management does not become
effective until the amendment or revision is adopted.
This section directs that, when resource management plans
are revised, all provisions of those plans are to be
considered and analyzed in the environmental analysis
(environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental
assessment (EA)) and decision documents. This ensures that
the agency does not consider only those portions of the plans
that are particularly important to the most vociferous
advocates for a particular land use or management policy or
are of particular interest to the officials involved in the
planning exercise.
Finally, this section clarifies that, while a resource
management plan is being amended or revised, management
activities are to continue and not be stayed in anticipation
of changes that might be made by the amendment or revision.
Exceptions to this stay prohibition include whenever a stay
is required by this bill, court order, or a formal
declaration by the Secretary (without delegating the
authority). However, the agencies can stay particular
activities for purposes that are unrelated to the purpose or
the likely effect of the amendment or revision. To ensure
that de facto stays do not occur, this section provides that,
except as described above, a plan amendment or revision may
not become effective until final decisions on management
activities that are scheduled to be made during the plan
amendment or revision process have been made.
Changes to this section include wording that responds to a
concern expressed by the President of the Wilderness Society
that environmental policies could be made secondary to other
commodity-oriented policies. This was accomplished by
clarifying that no basic element--including the environmental
policies--can be made inconsistent and ignored, and that
exception can be made only once for any class of management
activities over the plan's life.
Sec. 108. Consideration of Communities Dependent on Federal
Lands and Resources.--This section requires that, in
preparing, amending, or revising each resource management
plan, the Forest Service and BLM must consider if, and
explain whether, the plan will maintain to the maximum extent
feasible the stability of any community that has become
dependent on the commodity or non-commodity resources of
the federal lands to which the plan applies. Consideration
of dependent communities was strongly recommended in the
Committee of Scientists report (pp. xxi, 45): ``Within the
context of sustainability, planning should consider the
needs, resilience, and vulnerability of economies and
communities in selecting long-term management
strategies.'' ``The national forests and grasslands must
serve all of the nation's people; nevertheless, local
residents deserve particular attention when the
contributions of the forests to economic and social
sustainability are being considered.''
The procedure for meeting this mandate is to include in the
EIS or EA on the plan, amendment, or revision a discussion
of: the impact of each plan alternative on the revenues and
budget, public services, wages, and social conditions of each
federal lands-dependent community; how the alternatives would
relate to historic community expectations; and how the
impacts were considered in the final plan decision.
This section defines a community dependent on the commodity
or non-commodity resources of the federal lands as one which
is located in proximity to federal lands and is significantly
affected socially, economically, or environmentally by the
allocation of uses of one or more of the lands' commodity or
non-commodity resources. The secretaries are to consult with
the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor in establishing by
rulemaking criteria for identifying these communities.
This section was changed to recognize that many communities
are as dependent on non-commodity resources (for professional
guiding, river running, hunting and fishing, etc.) as others
are dependent on commodity resources and that both types of
communities should be given special attention in planning.
Sec. 109. Ecosystem Management Principles.--This section
provides a statutory basis for the relatively new ecosystem
management concept. It requires that this concept be
incorporated into planning. As the agencies accomplish this
integration of ecosystem management and planning, they are
cautioned that this new concept may not supersede other
statutory mandates. This section requires that the Forest
Service and BLM consider and discuss ecosystem management
principles in the EISs or EAs for resource management plans,
amendments, and revisions. It also states that these
principles are to be applied consistent with, and may not be
used as authority for not complying with, the other
requirements of this legislation, FLPMA, NFMA, and other
environmental laws applicable to resource management
planning.
``Ecosystem management'' is defined in section 3. That
definition has been altered in this bill to incorporate the
basic management mandate recommended by the Committee of
Scientists report (pp. xiv, 177): ``ecological, economic, and
social sustainability''.
Part C. Encouragement of Collaborative Planning
Decentralized, collaborative planning is emphasized in both
the Committee of Scientists report (pp. xxiii-xxv) and the
SAF report (p. 46). Although the provisions in this part have
appeared in earlier versions of this bill, they are arranged
here into one part in order to emphasize the collaborative
planning concept.
Sec. 110. Participation of Local, Multi-Interest
Committees.--To encourage local solutions to federal land
management issues developed through collaborative planning by
neighboring citizens of diverse interests, this section
provides for the establishment of two types of local, matter-
interest committees. The first is the ``independent committee
of local interests'' established without the direction,
intervention, or funding of the agencies and including at
least one representative of a non-commodity interest and one
representative of a commodity interest. Prototypes for this
type of committee are the Quincy Library Group and Applegate
Partnership.
This section encourages these independent committees to
prepare planning recommendations for the federal lands by
imposing the requirement on the agencies that they include
those recommendations as alternatives in the EISs or EAs
which accompany the preparation, amendment, or revision of
resource management plans. If more than two independent
committees are established and submit planning alternatives
for the same federal lands, the Forest Service or BLM will
include the alternatives of the two committees it determines
to be most broadly representative of the interests to be
affected by the plan, amendment, or revision, and will
attempt to consolidate for analysis or otherwise discuss the
other committees' alternatives. Finally, the section
authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to provide to any
independent committee whose planning alternative is adopted
sufficient funds to monitor the alternative's implementation.
These independent committees would be exempt from the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
Second, the agencies are empowered to establish local
committees corresponding to the federal land's planning
units. The membership of these committees must be broadly
representative of interests affected by planning for the
planning units for which they are formed. The agencies must
seek the advice of the committees prior to adopting,
amending, or revising the relevant resource management
plans and provide the committees with funding to monitor
plan implementation.
Sec. 111. Citizen Petitions for Plan Amendments or
Revisions.--Section 122 establishes deadlines for challenging
resource management plans, amendments, and revisions. The
section provides a procedure for citizens who believe a plan
has become inadequate after the deadlines have passed to seek
change in the plan and, if unsuccessful in obtaining change,
to challenge the plan. This section authorizes any person to
challenge a plan after the deadline solely on the basis of
new information, law, or regulation. The mechanism for
challenge is a petition for plan amendment or revision. The
Forest Service or BLM must accept or deny the petition within
90 days, and any request for a stay within 5 days, or receipt
of the petition. If the agency fails to respond to or denies
the petition or stay request, the petitioner may file suit
immediately against the plan. If the agency accepts the
petition, the process of amending or revising the plan begins
immediately. The agency's decision to accept or deny the
petition is not subject to the consultation requirement of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the environmental
analysis requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA).
The principal change in this section was in response to the
testimony of the President of
[[Page S8098]]
the Wilderness Society. It adds the opportunity for a
petitioner to seek a stay of any activities subject to the
petitioned plan amendment.
Sec. 112. Notice and Comment on Management Activities.--
This section adopts a provision from the provision in the
Fiscal Year 1993 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act which provided procedures for adminsitrative appeals of
Forest Service land management activities. In this bill and
its prior versions the appeal procedures were incorporated in
a broader administrative appeals section (here, section 122).
Consequently, this bill and its predecessors would repeal
that 1993 appropriations act rider. As pointed out by the
President of the Wilderness Society, inadvertently dropped
from the repealed language was a provision requiring notice
(by mail and newspaper) and comment (within a 30 day period)
on Forest Service land management activities. This section
restores that provision and expands it to include land
management activities of the BLM.
Part D. Consideration and Disclosure of Budget and Funding Effects
Sec. 113. Disclosure of Funding Constraints on Planning and
Management.--To ensure that planning decisions are not based
on overly optimistic funding expectations and are not
rendered irrelevant by enactment of differing appropriations,
this section requires that the EIS or EA on ech resource
management plan, or plan amendment or revision, contain a
determination on how the 5 basic elements (goals and
objectives, land use allocations, outputs of goods and
services, environmental protection policies and standards,
and desired future conditions) will be implemented within a
range of funding levels (with at least one level which
provides less funds annually, and one level which provides
more funds annually, than the level of funding for the fiscal
year in which the EIS or EA is prepared).
The Committee of Scientists, the SAF report authors, and
the GAO (Forest Service Issues Related to Management of
National Forests for Multiple Uses, 1996) all recognized the
fundamental problem of what the Committee of Scientists (p.
107) called the ``disconnect between budgets and plans.'' As
described in the SAF report (p. 22), ``Even though the Forest
Service has generally received the funds requested for land
management planning, it has not delivered the outputs that
the plans specify. Some plans have been developed without
budget constraints. This gap between plans and reality means
that many of the actions called for in the plans and
justified on multiple-use grounds can never be realized
simply because of lack of funds.'' All three reports
basically call for the same remedy (i.e., ``Forest or area
plans should explain how the goals and outcomes would be
affected by differing budgets.'' SAF report, p. 62) that is
provided in this section.
Sec. 114. Fully Allocated Costs Analysis.--To ensure that
the costs to all uses are revealed, this section directs the
Forest Service and BLM to disclose in the EISs and EAs on
resource management plans, amendments, and revisions the
fully allocated cost including foregone revenues, expressed
as a user fee or cost-per-beneficiary, of each non-commodity
output from the federal lands to which the plans apply.
Sec. 115. Budget and Cost Disclosures.--To better relate
the agencies' planning process with Congress' appropriations
process, this section requires that the President's budget
request to Congress include an appendix that discloses the
amount of funds that would be required to achieve 100% of the
annual outputs of goods and services in, and otherwise
implement fully, each Forest Service and BLM resource
management plan. This provision, together with section 113,
implements two critical recommendations in the SAF report (p.
62): ``A persistent criticism of resource management plans is
that annual appropriations have not always matched the
funding assumptions. Forest or area plans should explain
how the goals and outcomes would be affected by differing
budgets. Annual reporting on agency performance can then
compare and contrast the goals and targets of the plan
with the requested budgets and actual appropriations.''.
In the face of escalating planning costs, particularly
those associated with ecoregion assessments, this section
also requires the agencies to submit to Congress each year an
accounting of the total costs and cost per function or
procedure for each plan, amendment, revision or assessment
published in the preceding year.
Part E. Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Set out in this part are the two most important functions
conducted by the agencies (in addition to responding to
citizen petitions for plan amendment or revision authorized
by section 111) to ensure that resource management plans--
once prepared--are implemented and kept current. The first of
these functions is monitoring. A recurring theme of numerous
studies (including both the Committee of Scientists and SAF
reports and the 1997 GAO report, Forest Service Decision-
making: A Framerwork for Improving Performance) is that, in
the words of the SAF report (p. 51), ``[b]oth natural
resources monitoring and program implementation monitoring
are currently inadequate.'' The Committee of Scientists
report emphasizes that the second of these functions--
adaptive management--is wholly dependent on adequate
monitoring. Because monitoring is expensive (SAF report, p.
38) and is not typically a prerequisite to land management
decisions, it is usually deprived of necessary funding by
both Congress and the agencies. This part provides statutory
emphasis for, and attempts to provide more secure funding to,
these critical functions. This part consolidates and
strengthens various provisions in the previous version of
this bill.
Sec. 116. Monitoring.--This section requires use of funds
from the Monitoring Funds established by section 118 to
monitor the implementation of each resource management plan
at least biennially. The monitoring is to (1) ensure that no
basic element (goal, land allocation, output, environmental
policy, or desired future condition) of the plan is
constructively changed through a pattern of incompatible
management activities or of failures to undertake compatible
management activities, (2) determine that no conflict has
arisen between any of the basic elements of the plan, and (3)
determine if circumstances warrant adaptive management of the
plan. The monitoring is to be conducted in accordance with
the procedures for monitoring that are required to be
included in each resource management plan by section 105.
Likewise, the determination of circumstances warranting
adaptive management are to be made in accordance with the
criteria for such determinations which section 105 also
requires be included in each plan.
Sec. 117. Adaptive Management and Other Changes Due to
Monitoring.--This section requires corrective management
actions or plan amendments or revisions whenever, as provided
in section 116, the monitoring discloses changed
circumstances, conflicts in plan elements, or circumstances
warranting adaptive management.
Sec. 118. Monitoring Funds.--This section would implement a
recommendation in the SAF report (p. 62) that ``[m]onitoring
should be separately and adequately funded.'' This section
establishes a Public Lands Monitoring Fund for BLM lands and
Forest Lands Monitoring Fund for Forest Service lands to
provide a supplemental funding source for important
monitoring activities. The Funds would receive all monies
collected from federal lands in any fiscal year that are in
excess of federal land revenues projected in the President's
baseline budget (minus the State's and local government's
share as required by law). The monies in the Funds may be
used, without appropriations, to conduct the monitoring
required by section 116 or to fund the monitoring of the
local, multi-interest committees under section 110.
Added to this section is a provision that encourages each
agency to use private contractors, including contractors
under the Jobs in the Woods Program, to conduct monitoring,
except the monitoring done by the multi-interest committees.
Part F. Planning--Related Assessments
Sec. 119. Purpose and Authorization of Ecoregion and Other
Assessments.--The purpose of this part and section is to
authorize the new practice of preparing ecoregion and other
assessments of environmental, economic, and social issues and
conditions that transcend the boundaries of planning units
established pursuant to section 104 for the purpose of
informing the resource management planning for, and the
planning of management activities on, the federal lands. The
Committee of Scientists (pp. xxvi-xxvii) endorses assessments
as vehicles for ``provid[ing] the context for. . . .
planning.''
First, this section authorizes the Forest Service and BLM
to prepare these ecoregion or other assessments, which may
include non-federal lands if the Governors of the affected
States or the governing bodies of the affected Indian tribes,
as the case may be, agree. It requires the agency to give the
four Committees of Congress and the public 90 days advance
notice before initiating an assessment. The notice to
Congress and Federal Register notice must include: (1) a
description of the land involved; (2) the agency officials
responsible; (3) the estimated costs of and the deadlines
for the assessment; (4) the charter for the assessment;
(5) the public, State, local government and tribal
participation procedures; (6) a thorough explanation of
how the region or area for the assessment was identified
and the attributes which establish it; and (7) detailed
reasons for the decision to prepare the assessment.
Sec. 120. Status, Effect, and Application of Assessments.--
This section provides that the assessments must not contain
any decisions concerning resource management planning or
management activities. The Committee of Scientists (p. xxvi)
endorses this approach: ``A critical component of the
framework proposed by the Committee is that assessments are
not decision documents and should not be made to function
under the NEPA processes associated with decision-making.''
The section also establishes a procedure for applying
information or analysis contained in ecoregion or other
assessments to the planning and management activities. It
directs the relevant agency to make a decision within 6
months of completion of an assessment whether any information
or analyses in the assessment warrants amendments to, or
revisions of, a resource management plan for the federal
lands to which the assessment applies. If the decision is
made for an amendment or revision, no management activity on
federal lands may be delayed or altered on the basis of the
assessment while the amendment or revision is prepared. This
section also prohibits any federal official from using an
assessment as an
[[Page S8099]]
independent basis to regulate non-federal lands. Finally, as
the assessments are non-decisional, this section provides
that they will not be subject to the consultation
requirements of the Endangered Species Act or the
environmental documentation requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. (``Most critically, assessments do
not produce decisions and, therefore, should not be made to
function under the NEPA processes associated with decision
making.'' Committee of Scientists report, p. 95.)
Sec. 121. Reports to Congress on Assessments.--This section
mandates three reports on ecoregion and other assessments.
First, this section directs the agencies to report
biennially to the four Committees of Congress on ecosystem
and other assessments, their implications for federal land
management, and any resource management plan amendments or
revisions based on assessments. The reports also must include
the agencies' views of the benefits and detriments of, and
recommendations for improving, assessments.
Second, this section requires the GAO to prepare and submit
to the same Committees of Congress a report on each
assessment 3 years after the conclusion of the assessment.
The report is to: review the degree of protection for non-
commodity resources on, and the level of goods and services
from, the relevant federal lands that are projected by the
assessment; provide an evaluation of whether such resource
protection and amount of goods and services were actually
delivered and, if not, why; and recommendations to change
assessments to change assessments to secure more accurate
projections and better delivery.
Third, the GAO is directed to provide the Committees of
Congress with an overall evaluation of the efficacy of
assessments seven years after enactment.
Dropped from this bill was the Pacific Northwest Plan
Review provision that was contained in earlier versions and
was criticized by witnesses for environmental organizations.
Part G. Challenges To Planning
The purposes of this part are to ensure that challenges--
both administrative and judicial--of resource management
plans and management activities are brought more timely, and
by those who truly participate in the agencies' processes. It
does not eliminate challenges or insulate agency decisions
from challenges.
Sec. 122. Administrative Appeals.--This section directs the
Forest Service and BLM to promulgate rules to govern
administrative appeals of decisions to approve resource
management plans, amendments, and revisions, and of decisions
to approve, disapprove, or otherwise take final action on
management activities. While allowing the agencies
considerable discretion in rulemaking, this section does
provide that the rules must: (1) require that, in order to
bring an appeal, the appellant must have commented in writing
during the agency process on the issue or issues to be
appealed if an opportunity to comment was provided and if the
issue or issues were manifest at that time (SAF report
recommendation (p.58): ``Increase the requirements for filing
an administrative appeal by requiring participation in the
decision process related to the specific decision''); (2)
provide that administrative appeals of plans may not
challenge analyses or decisions assigned to management
activities under section 105 and administrative appeals of
management activities may not challenge analyses or decisions
assigned to plans under section 105; (3) provide deadlines
for bringing the administrative appeals (not more than 120
days after a plan or revision decision, 90 days after an
amendment decision, and 45 days after a management activity
decision); (4) provide deadlines for final decisions on
the appeals (not more than 120 days for appeal of a plan
or revision, 90 days for appeal of a plan amendment, and
45 days for appeal of a management activity, with possible
15 days extension for each); (5) provide that, in the
event of failure to render a decision by the applicable
deadline, the decision on which the appeal is based is to
be deemed a final agency action which allows the appellant
to file suit immediately; (6) require the agency to
consider and balance environmental and/or economic injury
in deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal; (7)
provide that no stay may extend more than 30 days beyond a
final decision on an appeal of a plan, amendment, or
revision or 15 days beyond a final decision on an appeal
of a management activity; and (8) establish categories of
management activities excluded from administrative appeals
(but not lawsuits) because of emergency, time-sensitive,
or other exigent circumstances.
This section is more comprehensive than the section of the
Fiscal Year 1993 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act which concerned appeals only of management activities
(not management plans, amendments, and revisions) of the
Forest Service (not BLM). As this section supplants that more
limited provision, it repeals that provision when the new
appeals rules required by this section become effective.
Sec. 123. Judicial Review.--This section establishes venue
and standing requirements in, sets deadlines for, and
otherwise governs lawsuits over resource management plans,
amendments, revisions, and petitions and management
activities.
The venue for plan-related litigation is the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the lands (or the
largest portion of the lands) to which the plan applies are
located. The venue for litigation over a management activity,
or petition for plan amendment or revision is the U.S.
District Court in the district where the lands (or the
largest portion of the lands) on which the activity would
occur or to which the plan applies are located.
This section also clarifies that standing and intervention
of right is to be granted to the fullest extent permitted by
the Constitution. This means those who are economically
injured cannot be barred by the non-constitutional,
prudential ``zone of interest'' test developed by the
judiciary. This section also overturns the Supreme Court's
1998 decision in Ohio Forestry Association v. Sierra Club
(118 S. Ct. 1665 (1998)) which drastically limited the
ability of environmental organizations or other litigants
from filing lawsuits challenging resource management plans.
On the other hand, this section limits standing to those who
make a legitimate effort to resolve their concerns during the
agency's decisionmaking process and do not engage in
``litigation by ambush'' by withholding their concerns until
after the agency decision is made. Specifically, this section
requires that the plaintiff must have participated in the
agency's decisionmaking process and submitted a written
statement on the issue or issues to be litigated if the
opportunity to comment was provided and the issue or issues
were manifest at that time, and must have exhausted
opportunities for administrative review.
Deadlines for bringing suit are 90 days after the final
decision on the administrative appeal of a resource
management plan, amendment, or revision, and 30 days after a
final decision on the administrative appeal of a management
activity or final disposition of a petition for plan
amendment or revision. If the challenge involves a statute
(e.g., Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act) which
requires a period of notice before filing a citizen suit,
suit must be filed no later than 7 days after the end of that
notice period.
This section bars suits brought on the basis of new
information, law, or regulation until after a petition for
plan amendment or revision is filed and a decision is made on
it.
This section also clarifies that suits concerning resource
management plans and management activities are to be decided
on the administrative record.
Several changes were made to this section to respond to
concerns expressed by the President of the Wilderness
Society.
TITLE II--COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
Sec. 201. Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to
eliminate primarily procedural conflicts among, and
coordinate, the various land management and environmental
laws without reducing--indeed enhancing--environmental
protection. A wide variety of reports from diverse sources
have consistently sounded the theme that conflicting laws
have made management of federal lands more difficult. Among
these reports are both the Committee of Scientists report (p.
xli) and the SAF report (pp. 23-24), the 1992 Office of
Technology Assessment report Forest Service Planning:
Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs and Sustaining
Ecosystems (p. 59), and the 1997 GAO report Forest Service
Decision-making: A Framework for Improving Performance (p.
11). The SAF report (p. 23) summarizes one fundamental
consequence: ``Because [other federal and state] agencies
have different missions, they interpret statutes and
regulations differently. The result, too often, is that they
fail to agree on land management decisions. In recent cases,
land management has been guided as much by decisions of the
regulatory agencies as by the resource agencies.''
The SAF report finds that legislation is required to
address this problem; the Committee Scientists report (p.
xli), which focuses on recommendations to improve Forest
Service regulations, opines that, as to this problem,
legislative action may be necessary. This part approaches,
but does not go as far as, the principal recommendation of
the SAF report (pp. 55-56) relevant to this problem:
``Consistent with sound land management theory, the federal
land management agencies should be given broad authority and
responsibility to meet all environmental requirements.
Consultation is appropriate, but other federal and state
agencies should not have the responsibility for approving
land management activities. If the federal land management
agencies do not act in a prudent, responsible fashion, their
actions should be subject to legal challenges.''
Sec. 202. Environmental Analysis.--This section describes
how compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
will occur in resource management planning and planning for
management activities. It requires that EIS be prepared
whenever a resource management plan is developed or revised.
(Plan amendments may have either and EIS or EA depending on
their significance.) This section also provides that, for
management activities, an EA ordinarily is prepared. The EA
for the management activity is to be tiered to the EIS for
the applicable resource management plan. The agency may
prepare a full EIS on a management activity if it determines
the nature or scope of the activity's environmental impacts
is substantially different from, or greater than, the nature
or scope of impacts analyzed in the EIS on the applicable
resource management plan.
[[Page S8100]]
Sec. 203. Wildlife Protection.--This section addresses the
relationship of the Endangered Species Act to federal land
planning and management. First, it provides a certification
procedure by which the Forest Service and BLM can become
certified by the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct the
consultation responsibilities normally assigned to the Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Services
by section 7 of the ESA. If they are certified, the two land
management agencies will have the authority to prepare the
biological opinions under the ESA just as they now prepare
EISs under NEPA.
Second, this section addresses situations in which the
resource management plan may have to undergo consultation
because of a new designation of an endangered or threatened
species or of a species' critical habitat, or new information
about an already designated species or habitat. This section
requires that a decision be reached as to whether
consultation is required on the plan within 90 days of the
new designation, and that any amendment to or revision of the
plan be completed within 12 or 18 months, respectively, after
the new designation. It also allows individual management
activities to continue under the plan while it is being
amended or revised, if those activities either separately
undergo consultation concerning the newly designated species
or habitat or are determined not to require consultation.
Sec. 204. Water Quality Protection.--This section addresses
the relationship of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to federal land
planning and management. It provides that any management
activity that constitutes a non-point source of water
pollution is to be considered in compliance with applicable
CWA provisions if the State in which the activity will occur
certifies that it meets best management practices or their
financial equivalent. The agency, however, may choose not to
seek State certification and satisfy the separate applicable
CWA requirements.
Sec. 205. Air Quality Protection.--This section addresses
the relationship of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to federal land
planning and management. It provides that, when a Forest
Service forest supervisor or BLM district manager (after
providing an opportunity for review by the appropriate
Governor) finds that a prescribed fire will reduce the
likelihood of greater emissions from a wildfire, and will be
conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts on air quality
to the extent practicable, the prescribed fire is deemed to
be in compliance with applicable CAA provisions.
Sec. 206. Meetings With Users of the Federal Lands.--This
section addresses the relationship of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) to federal land planning and management.
It clarifies that the agencies may meet without violating
FACA with one or more: holders of, or applicants for, federal
permits, leases, contracts or other authorizations for use of
the federal lands; other than persons who conduct activities
on the federal lands; and persons who own or manage lands
adjacent to the federal lands.
TITLE III--DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL RENEWABLE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Sec. 301. Purposes.--The purpose of this title is to
replace the Renewable Resource Assessment and Renewable
Resource Program administered by the Forest Service under the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
with a Global Renewable Resources Assessment administered by
an independent National Council on Renewable Resource Policy.
Sec. 302. Global Renewable Resources Assessment.--This
section emphasizes the vital importance of renewable
resources to national and international social, economic, and
environmental well-being, and of the need for a long-term
perspective in the use and conservation of renewable
resources. To achieve that perspective, this section directs
that a Global Renewable Resources Assessment be prepared
every 5 years. The Assessment must include: (1) an analysis
of national and international renewable resources supply and
demand; (2) an inventory of national and international
renewable resources, including opportunities to improve their
yield of goods and services; (3) an analysis of environmental
constraints and their effects on renewable resource
production in the U.S. and elsewhere; (4) an analysis of the
extent to which the renewable resources management programs
of other countries ensure sustainable use and production of
such resources; (5) a description of national and
international research programs on renewable resources; (6) a
discussion of policies, laws, etc. that are expected to
affect significantly the use and ownership of public and
private renewable resource lands; and (7) recommendations for
administrative or legislative initiatives.
Sec. 303. National Council on Renewable Resources Policy.--
This section establishes the National Council on Renewable
Resources Policy. Its functions are the preparation and
submission to Congress of the Global Renewable Resources
Assessment and the periodic submission to the Forest Service,
BLM, and four Committees of Congress of recommendations for
administrative and legislative changes or initiatives.
The Council has 15 members, 5 each appointed by the
President, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker
of the House. The Chair is to be selected from the members.
This section has typical provisions for filling vacancies,
appointment of an Executive Director, compensation of the
members and the Executive Director, appointment of personnel,
authority to contract with federal agencies, and rulemaking
and other powers of the Council.
This section strives to ensure the independence of the
Council in three ways. First, it requires that the Council
submit its budget request concurrently to both the President
and the Appropriations Committees of Congress. Second, it
requires concurrent submission of the Assessment, analyses,
recommendations, and testimony to Executive Branch officials
or agencies and the four Committees of Congress. Finally, it
prohibits any attempt by a federal official or agency to
require prior submission of the Assessment, analyses,
recommendations, or testimony for approval, comments, or
review.
Sec. 304. Repeal of Certain Provisions of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act.--This section
repeals those provisions of the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act that direct the Forest
Service to prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment and
Renewable Resource Program.
TITLE IV--ADMINISTRATION.
Part A. In General
Sec. 401. Confirmation of the Chief of the Forest
Service.--This section provides for Senate confirmation of
appointments to the office of Chief of the Forest Service,
thereby establishing the same appointment procedures as those
applicable to the Director of the BLM. This section also sets
certain minimum qualifications for the appointee: (1) a
degree in a scientific or engineering discipline that is
relevant to federal land management; (2) 5 years or more
experience in decisionmaking concerning management, or
research concerning the management, of federal lands or other
public lands; and (3) 5 years or more experience in
administering an office or program with a number of employees
equal to, or greater than, the average number of employees in
national forest supervisors' offices.
Sec. 402. Interagency Transfer and Interchange Authority.--
This section authorizes the BLM and Forest Service to
transfer between them adjacent lands not exceeding 5,000
acres or exchange adjacent lands not exceeding 10,000 acres
per transaction. These transactions are: (1) to occur without
tranfer of funds; (2) to be effective 30 days or more after
publication of Federal Register notice; (3) not to affect any
legislative designation for the lands involved; and (4)
subject to valid existing rights. In response to the
testimony of the President of the Wilderness Society, a
proviso is added that absolutely prohibits modification or
removal of any special designation of, or any special
management direction applicable to, lands transferred or
interchanged under this section that was made or provided by
statute, except by another Act of Congress. The proviso also
provides that administrative designations may be altered or
removed only by amendments to the applicable resource
management plans.
Sec. 403. Commercial Filming Activities.--This section
requires the agencies to issue permits and charge fees for
commercial filming and still photography on federal lands. It
is modelled on S. 568, introduced by Senator Thomas.
Criteria for setting the fee for commercial filming are
based on the scale of the filming activities and their
potential impact on the federal lands. The agencies are also
to recover any costs they incur as a result of the filming
activities. The agencies are required to issue permits and
collect fees for still photography when models or props
not part of the federal lands or resources are used, and
may issue permits and collect fees when there is a
likelihood of resource impact, disruption of public use,
or risk to public health or safety.
The fees and costs collected under this section are to be
retained in a special account in the Treasury and used,
without appropriation, for high-priority visitor or resource
management activities in the federal land units where the
permitted activities occurred.
Sec. 404. Visitor Facilities Improvement Demonstration
Programs.--This section is modeled on legislation prepared by
the Forest Service for the Administration's FY 2000 budget
request. It directs the agencies to develop demonstration
programs to evaluate the use of private funding for the
construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operation of
federally owned visitor centers on federal lands. Each agency
is authorized to undertake up to 15 projects in which
individuals, corporations, public agencies, and non-profit
groups are selected competitively to develop and operate new,
or improve and operate existing, visitor centers. The terms
of the projects are to be based on the agencies' estimates of
the time necessary for the concessionaires to depreciate
their capital investments in the projects, but in no case
more than 30 years. When a project is terminated or revoked,
the agency or succeeding concessionaire will purchase any
remaining value in the capital investment that is not fully
depreciated. The agencies are also authorized to sell
existing federally owned visitor facilities at fair market
value, so long as the purchasers agree that any construction
will be consistent with the applicable resource management
plans.
The agencies are directed to charge concession fees
established by the concessionaires' competitive bids, and
those fees are to be used, without appropriation, for
enhancing
[[Page S8101]]
visitor services and facilities. The concessionaires must
provide bonds 5 years before the end of the projects to
ensure that the visitor facilities will be in satisfactory
condition for future use. The Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of the Interior are each required to submit a
report to the four Committees of Congress evaluating the
demonstration program and making any appropriate
recommendations on whether to make the program permanent.
Sec. 405. Fees for Linear Rights-of-Ways.--This section
incorporates legislation prepared by the Forest Service for
the Administration's FY 2000 budget request. It directs each
agency to collect rental fees for all linear rights-of-way
for power lines, roads, pipelines, etc. under section 501 of
FLPMA and the Act of February 25, 1920, except for rights-of-
way that are exempted by law or regulation.
Sec. 406. Fees for Processing Records Requests.--To
discourage inordinately broad ``fishing expedition'' requests
under the Freedom of Information Act that severely tax agency
funding and personnel, this section prohibits the waiver or
reduction of fees under that Act for any records request to
the Forest Service or BLM that will cost in excess of $1000
for a single request or for multiple requests of any one
party within a 6-month period.
Sec. 407. Off-Budget Study.--The SAF report speculates (pp.
27-28) that under certain assumptions the BLM and the Forest
Service could become ``self-financing.'' The Committee of
Scientists report (p. 179) suggests that ``the Forest Service
should consider the development of more self-funding
activities to reduce its dependence on appropriated funds.''
To test these speculations and suggestions, this section
tasks the GAO with the responsibility to conduct a study for
Congress of the feasibility of making the Forest Service and
BLM self-supporting by taking the agencies off-budget (no
appropriated funds) and returning to them all revenues
generated on federal lands (with mineral revenues from
national forest lands allocated to the Forest Service),
except revenues which by other laws are paid to States and
local governments.
Sec. 408. Exemption From Strict Liability for the Recovery
of Fire Suppression Costs. Section 504 of FLPMA directed the
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations governing
liability of users of rights-of-way granted under that Act.
The subsequent regulations imposed liability without fault
for, among other things, the recovery of fire suppression
costs of up to $1 million (43 C.F.R. Sec. 2803.1-5). This
section would amend section 504 to relieve entities that use
the rights-of-way for electrical transmission from strict
liability for such costs. This provision does not relieve
these entities from liability for fire suppression costs when
they are at fault.
Part B. Nonfederal Lands
This part seeks to increase the timeliness and cost
efficiency of Forest Service and BLM decisionmaking which
directly affects private lands.
Sec. 409. Access to Adjacent or Intermingled Nonfederal
Lands.--This section establishes procedures for processing
applications for access to nonfederal land across federal
land as guaranteed by section 1323 of the Alaska National
Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). First, this
section requires that the application processing be completed
within 180 days and, if it is not, the access be deemed
approved. It sets a 15-day deadline for notifying the
applicant whether the application is complete. This
section makes clear that the analyses conducted under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species
Act are to consider the effects of the construction,
maintenance and use of the access across the federal lands
not the use of the nonfederal lands to be accessed.
Finally, it clarifies that any restrictions imposed on the
access grant pursuant to section 1323 of ANILCA may limit
or condition the construction, maintenance, or use of the
access across the federal lands, but not the use of the
nonfederal lands to be accessed.
Sec. 410. Exchanges of Federal Lands for Nonfederal
Lands.--This section establishes procedures for exchanges
under, and amends, section 206(b) of FLPMA. As any management
activity on any federal lands or interests in lands newly
acquired under an exchange will be required to undergo full
National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act
review, this section provides that on the exchange itself an
EA satisfies the environmental analysis requirements of
section 102(2) NEPA and any consultation required under ESA
will be completed within 45 days instead of the 90-day period
provided by section 7 of ESA. Further, this section provides
that any exchange mandated by Congress requires no NEPA
documentation. This section also explicitly states that no
management activity may be undertaken on the newly acquired
federal lands or interests in land until NEPA and ESA are
fully complied with and, if necessary, the applicable
resource management plan is amended or revised. This section
requires that processing of the exchange must be completed
within one year of the date of submission of the exchange
application. Further, the nonfederal land or interests in
land in the exchange are to be appraised without restrictions
imposed by federal or State law to protect an environmental
value or resource if protection of that value or resource is
the very reason why the land is being acquired by the federal
government.
This section also allows the Forest Service and BLM to
offer for competitive bid the exchange of federal lands or
interests in land that meets certain conditions. It also
authorizes the agencies to identify early or ``prequalify''
federal lands or interests in land for exchange. Further,
when an exchange involves school trust lands, the agency is
excused from conducting a cultural assessment under section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act if it enters
into an agreement with the State that ensures State
protection after the exchange of archaeological resources or
sites to the maximum extent practicable. Further, this
section authorizes the Forest Service to exchange federally
owned subsurface resources within the National Forest System
or acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937.
This section establishes special funds with a cap of
$12,000,000 for the agencies to use, subject to
appropriations, for processing land exchanges (including
making cash equalization payments where required to equalize
values of exchange properties). Finally, the maximum value of
lands in an exchange which may be undertaken on the basis of
approximately equal value (rather than strictly equal value)
is raised from $150,000 to $500,000.
Part C. The Forest Resource
This part contains 5 sections concerning sales of forest
products on federal lands. This bill drops a provision
contained in its predecessors that allowed bidding on timber
sales for the express purpose of protecting--not harvesting--
the trees. This provision had the distinction of garnering
opposition from both the timber industry and the
environmental community.
Sec. 411. Timber Sale Preparation User Fee.--This section
is modeled on legislation prepared by the Forest Service for
the Administration's FY 2000 budget request. It authorizes
the agencies to develop 8-year pilot programs to recover from
timber purchasers the direct costs of timber sale preparation
and harvest administration. Alternatively, purchasers can
elect to contract with parties on approved agency lists to
conduct timber sale administration activities. Exempted from
collection under the programs would be the costs of complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act, conducting
stewardship timber sales under section 347 of the fiscal year
1999 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, and
conducting timber sales where the fees would adversely affect
the sales' marketability or the ability of small businesses
to bid on the sales. Fees collected are to be used to pay for
the administration of the pilot programs.
Sec. 412. Forest Health Credits in Sales of Forest
Products.--This section provides the Forest Service and BLM
with an optional approach to undertaking forest health
management activities that would be impractical for the
agencies to accomplish under existing procedures or within
existing programs. This approach permits the agencies to
include new provisions in the standard contract provisions
for any salvage sale of forest products or any sale of forest
products constituting a forest health enhancement project
under section 413. These new provisions would obligate the
purchaser to undertake certain forest health management
activities which could logically be performed as part of the
sale. In return, the purchaser receives ``forest health
credits'' to offset the cost of performing the activities
against the purchaser's payment for the forest products.
These forest health management activities are subject to the
same contractual requirements as all other harvesting
activities. Sale contracts with these forest health credits
provisions are to have terms of no more than 3 years.
Before forest health credits provisions can be included in
a contract of sale of forest products, the agency concerned
has to identify and select the specific forest health
management activities. Forest health activities would be
eligible for forest health credits if the agency concerned
finds that: (1) they would address the effects of the
operation of the sale or past sales, or involve vegetation
management within the sale area; and (2) they could be
accomplished most effectively when performed as part of the
sale contract, and would not likely be performed otherwise.
Forest health management activities are defined to include
thinning, salvage, stand improvement, reforestation,
prescribed burning or other fuels management, insect or
disease control, riparian or other habitat improvement, or
other activity which has any of 5 purposes: improve forest
health; safeguard human life, property, and communities;
protect other forest resources threatened by adverse forest
health conditions; restore the integrity of ecosystems,
watersheds, and habitats damaged by adverse forest health
conditions; or protect federal investments in forest
resources and future federal, State, and local revenues.
Once the determination is made to add forest health
management activities requirements to a sale of forest
products, the specific activities are identified, and their
costs are appraised, the required activities and the forest
health credits assigned to those activities are identified in
the sale's advertisement and prospectus. (After the sale, the
agency, with the concurrence of a sale purchaser, can alter
the scope of the forest health management activities or
amount of credits when warranted by changed conditions.) This
section provides that sales with forest health credits need
not return more
[[Page S8102]]
revenues than they cost and are not to be considered in
determining the revenue effects of individual forest, Forest
Service region, or national forest products sales programs.
Appropriated funds can be used to offset the costs of
forest health management activities prescribed in a forest
products sale contract (typically when the total cost of such
activities would otherwise exceed the value of the offered
forest products materials or likely dampen competitive
interest in the sale), but only if those funds are derived
from the resource function or functions which would directly
benefit from the performance of the activities and are
appropriated in the fiscal year in which the sale is offered.
The amount of any appropriated funds to be paid for forest
health management activities under a sale contract also must
be announced in the sale's advertisement and prospectus.
All forest health credits earned by the purchaser are
redeemable. Earned forest health credits can be transferred
to any other sale of forest products held by the purchaser
which is located in the same region of the Forest Service or
same jurisdiction of the BLM State office, as the case may
be. The credits are considered ``earned'' when the
purchaser satisfactorily performs the forest health
management activity to which the credits are assigned in
the sale advertisement. If the purchaser normally would be
required to pay for all the forest products materials
prior to completion of a forest health management activity
or activities assigned forest health credits, the
purchaser could elect to defer a portion of the final
payment for the harvested materials equal to the forest
health credits assigned to the activity.
This section sunsets in 5 years, but previously awarded
contracts for sale of forest products with forest health
credits provisions remain in effect under the terms of this
section after that time. To assist the Congress in
determining whether this section should be reenacted, the
Forest Service and BLM are required to monitor the
performance of sales contracts with forest health credits and
submit a joint report to Congress assessing the contracts'
effectiveness and whether continued use of such contracts is
advised.
Sec. 413. Special Funds.--This section gives permanent
status to the funds for salvage sales of forest products of
the Forest Service and BLM and expands their purposes to
allow use of the fund monies for a full array of forest
health enhancement projects.
Sec. 414. Private Contractors.--To ensure that processing
of sales of forest products is accomplished in a timely
manner in an era of severe budget and personnel constraints,
this section encourages that the agencies, to the maximum
extent possible, use private contractors to prepare the
sales. To ensure the integrity of sale decisionmaking, this
section also requires the agencies to review the contractors'
work before making any decisions on the sales and bars the
contractors from commenting on or participating in the sales'
decisions.
Sec. 415. Special Forest Products.--This section is modeled
on legislation prepared by the Forest Service for the
Administration's FY 2000 budget request. It directs the
Forest Service to collect fees for the fair market value
(established by appraisal methods or bidding procedures) of
special forest products harvested from national forest lands
and the costs for authorizing and monitoring the harvesting.
Special forest products are defined as any vegetation or
other life form not excluded from fees by regulation. The
Forest Service is to use the fair market value fees collected
under this section for conducting inventories of special
forest products and assessing and addressing any impacts from
harvesting activities, and the recovered costs for
administration of the program.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Regulations.--This section requires the Forest
Service and BLM to promulgate rules to implement this
legislation within a year and a half of its enactment.
Sec. 502. Authorization of Appropriations.--This section
authorizes appropriations to implement this legislation for
10 fiscal years after enactment. It also sunsets at the same
time all other statutory authorizations for appropriations to
the Forest Service and BLM for management of the federal
lands.
Sec. 503. Effective Date.--This section provides that this
legislation will take effect upon its enactment, and
admonishes that no decision or action authorized by this
legislation is to be delayed pending rulemaking.
Sec. 504. Savings Clauses.--This section ensures that
nothing in this legislation conflicts with the law pertaining
to the revested Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay
Wagon Road grant lands in Oregon. Further, this section bars
construing any provision of this legislation as terminating
any valid lease, permit, right-of-way, or other right or
authorization of use of the federal land existing upon
enactment and as altering in any way any Native American
treaty right. Finally, this section provides that all actions
under this legislation are subject to valid existing rights.
Sec. 505. Severability.--This final section contains the
standard severability clause.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 1321. A bill to amend title III of the Family Violence Prevention
and Services Act and title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 to limit the effects of domestic violence on the lives of
children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
children who witness domestic violence protection act of 1999
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Children
Who Witness Domestic Violence Protection Act. My legislation, which I
am joined by Senator Murray in offering today, is a comprehensive first
step towards confronting the impact that witnessing domestic violence
has on children. This bill addresses the issue from multiple
perspectives, including mental health, education, child protection
services, supervised visitation centers, law enforcement, and crisis
nurseries.
There are many facets to the serious problem we have with violence in
our country. The evening news brings violent images from around the
world into our homes every day. We also witness through various media
the violent images or hear stories of violence that has occurred in our
own communities and in our schools like Columbine High.
Images of violence bombard our children from the movies, video games,
or from television programs. But there is a type of violence in the
lives of America's children that is not in the spotlight. Increasingly,
children are witnessing real-life violence in their homes. In fact, it
is in their own homes that many children witness violence for the first
time.
Over 3 million children are witnessing violence in their homes each
year, and it is having a profound impact on their development.
Frequently, these children are physically injured by the violence.
But always, they carry with them lasting emotional sears from having
been exposed to the threat and trauma of injury, assault or killing.
This exposure to domestic violence changes the way children view the
world. It may change the value they place on life itself. It affects
their ability to learn, to establish relationships, and to cope with
stress.
Witnessing domestic violence has such a profound impact on children,
placing them at high risk for anxiety, depression, and, potentially,
suicide. Further, these child victims may exhibit more aggressive,
antisocial, and fearful behaviors. They are also at greater risk of
becoming future offenders.
Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating
their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development,
sleep disturbances, and feelings of helplessness, depression and
anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, anti-social,
fearful and inhibited behaviors. They also show lower social competence
than other children.
Children from homes where their mothers were abused have also shown
less skill in understanding how others feel and in examining situations
from the other's perspective when compared to children from non-violent
households. Even one episode of violence can produce post-traumatic
stress disorder in children.
Exposure to family violence, many studies suggest, is the strongest
predictor of violent delinquent behavior among adolescents. It is
estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of chronically violent
adolescents have witnessed extreme parental conflict.
Recent studies have demonstrated that up to 50% of children who come
before the juvenile dependency court on allegations of abuse and
neglect have been exposed to domestic violence in their homes.
In a Justice Department funded study of children in Rochester, NY,
children who had grown up in families where domestic violence occurred
were 21 percent more likely to report violent delinquency than those
not so exposed. Children exposed to multiple forms of family violence
reported twice the rate of youth violence as those from nonviolent
families.
A 1994 survey of 115 mothers in the waiting room of Boston City
Hospital's Primary Care Clinic found that by age 6, one in ten children
had witnessed a knifing or shooting. An additional 18 percent of the
children under six had witnesses pushing, hitting or shoving. Half of
the reported violence occurred in the child's home.
Many children actually see their father, stepfather, or mother's
boyfriend
[[Page S8103]]
not only beat their mothers but rape them as well. Although some
parents believe that they succeed in shielding their children from the
batterer's aggression, children often provide detailed accounts of the
very events which adults report they did not witness. Reports by
children and by adults of their memories of childhood experience
indicate that parents severely underestimate the extent to which their
children are exposed to violence.
Children who witness domestic violence are traumatized and need
support. Who is a child going to turn to when their mother is the
victim of their father? Who is a child going to talk to when their
sibling has emotionally shut down and no longer speaks? Who is a child
going to go to for help when they need assistance?
Children have the right to know that what is happening in their home
is wrong. Children have the right to feel that we are about their
safety.'
This bill addresses the issue from multiple perspective including
mental health, education, children protection services, supervised
visitation centers, law enforcement, and crisis nurseries.
There are some creative programs in this country that are forging
partnerships in their communities to meet the needs of traumatized
children. I have visited such programs in Boston, San Francisco and
Minnesota.
More must be done.
To address the devastating impact that witnessing domestic violence
has on the mental health of children, my legislation provides nonprofit
agencies with the funds needed to design and implement multi-system
interventions for child witnesses. This partnerships would involve the
courts, schools, health care providers, child protective services,
battered women's programs and others. Promoting collaboration and
coordination among all the professionals involved can broaden the
community's response to the child.
This response would include developing and providing: Guidenace to
evaluate the need of child witnesses; safety and security procedures
for child witnesses and their families; counseling and advocacy for
families of child witnesses; mental health treatment services; and
outreach and training to community professionals.
My legislation also encourages collaboration between domestic
violence community agencies and schools to provide educational
programming and support services for students and staff. Domestic
violence agencies will work with schools to provide: Training for
school officials about domestic violence and its impact on children;
educational programming and materials on domestic violence for
students; and support services, such as counselors, for students and
school officials.
Among the many detrimental impacts of witnessing domestic violence,
children exposed to domestic violence are at high risk for learning
difficulties and school failure. Research indicates that children
residing in shelters show significantly lower verbal and quantitive
skills when compared to children nationally. These deficits, when
coupled with the impact on children's behavioral and emotional
functioning, demand that schools be able to understand and address the
needs of children who have witnessed domestic violence. Further,
service providers continue to find that the occurrence of domestic
violence could be detected sooner if various points of contact with the
family had been better trained to recognize the indicators of such
family violence.
Children cannot always compartmentalize traumatic events--instead the
domestic violence comes to school with each and every child witness. It
undermines their school performance, and their relationship with other
children.
This legislation also addresses domestic violence and the people who
work to protect our children from abuse and neglect. There is a
significant overlap between domestic violence and child abuse. In
families where one form of family violence exists, there is a
likelihood that the other does, too. In a national survey, researchers
found that 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives
also frequently abused their children.
The problem is that Child Protective Services and domestic violence
organizations have separately set up programs to address one of these
forms of violence, yet few address both when they occur together in
families. My bill creates incentives for local governments to
collaborate with domestic violence agencies in administering their
child welfare programs.
Under my legislation, funds will be awarded to States and local
governments to work collaboratively with community-based domestic
violence programs to: Provide training to the staff, supervisors, and
administrators of child welfare service agencies and domestic violence
programs, including staff responsible for screening, intake,
assessment, and investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect;
assist agencies in recognizing that the overlap between child abuse and
domestic violence places both children and adult victims in danger;
develop relevant protocols for screening, intake, assessment,
investigation, and interventions; and increase the safety and well-
being of child witnesses of domestic violence as well as the safety of
the non-abusing parent.
Another important part of my legislation is funding to increase the
availability of supervised visitation centers. Since domestic violence
often escalates during separation and divorce, and visitation is
frequently used as an opportunity for abuse, this provision is designed
to shield children from further exposure to violence. It creates a
grants program which domestic violence service providers can apply for
on a competitive basis to create family visitation centers. Use of
these centers can minimize stressful and potentially dangerous
interactions among family members. In addition, the centers provide
judges with a further tool to deal with problematic visitations when
there has been a history of violence.
On July 3, 1996 5 year old Brandon and 4 year old Alex were murdered
by their father during an unsupervised visit. Their mother Angela was
separated from Kurt Frank, the children's father. During her marriage,
Angela was physically and emotionally abused by Frank, and Frank had
hit Brandon and split open his lip when he stepped in front of his
mother during a domestic violence incident. Angela had an Order of
Protection against Kurt Frank, but during custody hearings her request
for her husband to only receive supervised visits was rejected. Kurt
Frank murdered his two sons during an unsupervised visit. We must do
better for the 3 million children witnesses still living out there.
Law enforcement officers are those who find traumatized children
hiding behind doors, beneath furniture, in closets. They are generally
the first to arrive and their ability to recognize and address the
needs of the children is critical.
This bill provides further training to law enforcement officers
regarding the appropriate treatment of children who have witnessed
domestic violence. Police officers will be trained in child development
and issues related to domestic violence so that they may: Recognize the
needs of children who have witnessed domestic violence; meet children's
immediate needs at the scene of the crime; and establish a
collaborative working relationship between police officers and local
domestic violence service agencies.
Families faced with domestic violence also need a safe place for
their children during times of crisis.
This legislation provides funds to States to assist private and
public agencies and organizations to provide crisis nurseries for
children who are abused, neglected, at risk of abuse or neglect, or who
are in families receiving child protective services. Nurseries will be
available to provide a safe place for children and to alleviate the
social and emotional stress among children and families impacted by
domestic violence.
In conclusion, we must pass this legislation for children who are
traumatized by what they have seen. We must pass this legislation for
children like Brandon and Alex who deserve to have our protection from
harm.
Please join me in the protection of children who witness domestic
violence.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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:
[[Page S8104]]
Children Who Witness Domestic Violence Protection Act of 1999--Summary
The Children Who witness Domestic Violence Protection Act is a
comprehensive first step toward confronting the impact that witnessing
domestic violence has on children. Over 3 million children in the
United States witness domestic violence in their homes each year. These
children are at a high risk for aggression, depression, learning
difficulties, school failure, delinquency, and even suicide. The
attitudes a child develops concerning the use of violence and conflict
resolution in their own relationship are also affected. Further,
children living in homes where domestic violence occurs are at a
greater risk of being abused themselves. This bill addresses the needs
of children witnesses domestic violence by providing for mental health
services, education programs, child protection services, supervised
visitation centers, the training and support of law enforcement
personnel, and crisis nurseries.
mental health
Multi-System Interventions for Children Who Witness Domestic
Violence.
This bill will provide nonprofit agencies with funding to bring
various service providers together to design and implement intervention
programs for children who witness domestic violence. These working
partnerships will involve counselors, courts, schools, health care
providers, battered women's programs and others. Intervention programs
will include counseling and advocacy for child witnesses and their
families, strategies to ensure the safety and security of the children
and their families, and outreach and training to community
professionals about the issue of children witnessing domestic violence.
Funds can be use to develop new programs or to carry out programs that
have been successful in other communities. Authorization of
appropriations for the multi-system interventions is $5,000,000 for 3
years (totaling $15,000,000).
Education
Combatting the Impact of Witnessing Domestic Violence on Elementary
and Secondary School Children.
This bill will create opportunities for domestic violence community
agencies and elementary and secondary schools to work together to
address the needs of children who witness domestic violence. Domestic
violence agencies will work with schools to provide domestic violence
training to school officials so they can understand how witnessing
domestic violence affects the children in their schools. Educational
programming and materials will be provided to students to they can
learn about the problem. Also, support services such as counselors will
be provided for students and school officials to help address the
problems of children witnessing domestic violence. Authorization of
appropriations for combating the impact of witnessing domestic violence
on school children is $5,000,000 for 3 years (totaling $15,000,000).
child protection services
Child Welfare Worker Training on Domestic Violence.
This bill will provide training to both child welfare and domestic
violence workers to assist them in recognizing the treating domestic
violence as a serious problem threatening the safety and well being of
both children and adults. Funds will be awarded to States and local
governments to work with one or more community-based programs to
provide training and assistance to workers in the area of domestic
violence as it relates to cases of child welfare.
Training will include teaching staff to recognize the overlap between
child abuse and domestic violence which places both children and adult
victims in danger, and developing methods for identifying the presence
of domestic violence in child welfare cases. Staff will also be taught
how to increase the safety and well-being of child witnesses of
domestic violence as well as the safety of the non-abusing parent.
Protocols will be developed with law enforcement, probation and other
justice agencies in order to ensure that justice system interventions
and protections are readily available for victims of domestic violence
served by the social service agency.
Authorization of appropriations for child welfare worker training is
$5,000,000 for 3 years (totaling $15,000,000).
supervised visitation centers
This bill increases the availability of visitation centers for visits
and visitation exchange of child witnesses and their parents. It
provides money which domestic violence service providers can use to
establish an operate supervised visitation centers. Authorization of
appropriations for safe havens from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund is $20,000,000 for 3 years (totaling $60,000,000).
Law enforcement: Police Officer training
This bill provides training to law enforcement officers in how to
care for children who have witnessed domestic violence. Police officers
will be trained in child development and issues related to domestic
violence so that they may recognize the needs of children who have
witnessed domestic violence. Police officers will be taught how to meet
children's immediate needs at the scene of violence. Authorization of
appropriations for law enforcement officer training from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund is $3,000,000 for 3 years (totaling
$9,000,000).
crisis nurseries
This bill provides funds to States to assist private and public
agencies and organizations to provide crisis nurseries for children.
Families faced with domestic violence need a safe place for their
children during times of crisis. Authorization of appropriations for
crisis nurseries of $15,000,000 for 3 years (totaling $45,000,000).
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Kenendy):
S. 1322. A bill to prohibit health insurance and employment
discrimination against individuals and their family members on the
basis of predictive genetic information or genetic services; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
THE GENETIC NONDISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT ACT OF
1999
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, with my colleagues Senators
Kennedy, Harkin, and Dodd, I announce the introduction of the Genetic
Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of 1999, a
piece of legislation designed to stop genetic discrimination. The
advent of testing for genes that indicate a predisposition to disease
has presented us with a new series of opportunities and challenges.
While prior awareness of susceptibility to disease offers millions the
chance to take preventive measures that will help them live healthier
and longer lives, there also exists the possibility that genetic
information will be misused. It is for that reason that we Democrats
feel strongly that measures must be taken to ensure that health
insurers may not discriminate against patients on the basis of
predictive genetic information, and that employers may not discriminate
against employees in the provision of health insurance or by
withholding job benefits as a result of the improper use of genetic
information.
When the Patients' Bill of Rights reaches the floor after the July
recess, we hope to offer this bill as an amendment to the bill under
consideration. This issue, like many others, exposes a fault line
between the Republican and Democratic approach to health insurance
reform.
Scientific advances now make it possible to identify genes that
indicate a predisposition to disease. For example, tests for genes
associated with hereditary breast cancer are commercially available.
Genetic information may prove highly beneficial in areas related to
prevention, treatment, diet, or lifestyle. While this is profoundly
good news for patients, it also raises fears regarding how genetic
information will be used in the workplace. Advances in genetic and
screening, accelerated by the Human Genome Project at the National
Institutes of Health, increase physicians' ability to detect genetic
mutations. These technologies and their resulting genomic data will
enhance medical science, but may also lead to discrimination.
Regrettably, many employers may not hire individuals whom they
believe will require time off or medical treatment at some point in the
future due to a genetically transmitted disease. Equally disturbing,
employers may simply deny insurance coverage to employees who they
believe are predisposed to genetic disease. This discrimination could
result despite the
[[Page S8105]]
fact that genetic testing only indicates that an individual may be
predisposed to a disease--not necessarily whether that disease will
develop.
This issue is already touching the lives of many Americans. For
example, a survey last year by the American Management Association of
over 1,000 companies indicated that 5% of responding employers
currently do genetic testing of their employees. While that number may
sound small, its more than the number of companies who test for HIV
status. And of those companies who do genetic testing on their
employees, 19% have chosen not to hire an individual and 10% have
dismissed an employee based on the genetic test results.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that fear of discrimination already has
inhibited people who may be susceptible to disease from getting genetic
testing. In some cases, this means that gene carriers will miss out on
early diagnosis, treatment or even prevention. If consumers avoid
taking advantage of available diagnostic tests out of fear of
discrimination, they may suffer much more serious--and more expensive--
health problems in the long run.
That is why our proposal to ban employment discrimination is clearly
supported by the American people. A recent national poll by the
National Center for Genome Resources demonstrates that an overwhelming
majority of those surveyed--85%--think that employers should be
prohibited from obtaining information about an individual's genetic
conditions, risks, and predispositions.
We will pay the price in more than increased health care costs if we
allow genetic information to be used in a discriminatory manner.
Discrimination based on genetic factors can be as unjust as that based
on race, national origin, religion, sex or disability. In each case,
people are treated inequitably, not because of their inherent
abilities, but solely because of irrelevant characteristics. Genetic
discrimination that excludes qualified individuals from employment robs
the marketplace of skills, energy, and imagination. Finally, genetic
discrimination undercuts the Human Genome Project's fundamental purpose
of promoting public health. Investing resources in the Human Genome
Project is justified by the benefits of identifying, preventing and
developing effective treatments for disease. But if fear of
discrimination deters people from genetic diagnosis or from confiding
in physicians and genetic counselors, and makes them more concerned
with job loss than with care and treatment, our understanding of the
humane genome will be for naught.
Because genetic information could be used unfairly, Congress must
expand the scope of its anti-discrimination laws to include a ban on
genetic discrimination. Our bill has three major components: (1) it
forbids employers from discriminating in hiring or in the terms and
conditions of employment on the basis of genetic information, (2) it
forbids health insurers from discriminating against individuals on the
basis of genetic information, and (3) it prevents the disclosure of
genetic information to people who have no legitimate need for the
information: health insurers, health insurance data banks, or to
employers.
Now, before the use of genetic information becomes widespread, we
must make sure that dramatic scientific advances do not have negative
consequences for the public. We have an historic opportunity to preempt
this problem. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, over the past decade the science of
identifying genetic markers for diseases has evolved at an astonishing
pace. For an increasing number of Americans science fiction has become
reality--their doctors can now scan their unique genetic blueprints and
predict the likelihood of their developing diseases like cancer,
Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.
Armed with this knowledge, individuals and families can make informed
decisions about their health care including, in some cases, even taking
steps to prevent the disease or to detect and treat it early.
Unfortunately, phenomenal advances in our knowledge about genetics
have outpaced the protections currently provided in law. Thus, the
potential also exists for this remarkable new information--which is
making such a difference in people's lives in terms of their health--
this information could always be used by health insurers, employers, or
others to deny health coverage or job opportunities to people.
We know the Federal and State laws currently offer only a patchwork
of protections against the misuse of genetic information. While the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 took
important first steps toward prohibiting genetic discrimination in
health insurance, it left large gaps. For example, it does not prohibit
insurers from requiring genetic testing or from disclosing genetic
information and offers no protection at all for people who must buy
their insurance in the individual market.
While several States--including my own--have enacted legislation
prohibiting health insurance discrimination, these laws cannot protect
more than 51 million American individuals in employer-sponsored,
``self-funded'' health plans. Additionally, few States have chosen to
address the issue of employment discrimination or the separate issue of
the privacy of genetic records.
I have personal experience that this issue is not a partisan issue.
Two years ago, my distinguished friend and colleague from New Mexico,
Senator Domenici, and I introduced one of the first bills on this
critical topic addressing both insurance and employment discrimination.
Last year, along with many of my Democratic colleagues, I joined
Senator Snowe of Maine in supporting strong legislation protecting
patients from genetic discrimination in insurance.
Today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator
Harkin, and Senator Kennedy, in introducing comprehensive legislation
to safeguard the privacy of genetic information and to prohibit health
insurance or employment discrimination based on genetic information.
Specifically, this legislation, which we call the Genetic
Nondiscrimination Health Insurance and Employment Act, would prohibit
health insurers from discriminating based on genetic predisposition to
an illness or condition and would prevent insurers from requiring
applicants for health insurance to submit to genetic testing.
This bill would also address the concerns about employment
discrimination by preventing employers from firing or refusing to hire
individuals who may be susceptible to a genetic condition.
Finally, this legislation would hold employers and insurers
accountable by imposing strong penalties on those who violate these
previous just stated provisions.
In a few short years researchers will have the ability to translate
the entire genetic code, revealing each individual's unique genetic
blueprint. It is an astonishing prospect. Last year, in a visit I made
to Yale University's Genetic Testing Center, I had the opportunity to
see into the future and glimpse cutting-edge uses of this technology. I
also had the opportunity to hear of the fears expressed by patients at
this center.
As an aside, we are talking about predisposition. We are now reaching
a point on breast cancer in women, through tests being done over the
years on twins, where we are able to determine almost at birth the
likelihood or the probability of a woman contracting breast cancer at
the time of that child's birth--looking into the future based on the
genetic markers.
That is profound information. It could make a huge difference to be
able to know early on about a predisposition based upon your genetic
makeup, knowing you have a probability or a likelihood later in life of
contracting certain diseases. That allows that individual and that
family early on to take the steps through diet and/or mediation,
prescriptions, and so forth, to avoid the possibility of contracting
these dreaded diseases. That is the great news. It is phenomenal. It is
happening at such a pace, it is hard to believe.
As we gather this information that a person may be, based upon their
genetic makeup, susceptible to breast cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's
disease, or other forms of cancer, that information ought to be
protected. I believe it should. It is one thing if you
[[Page S8106]]
have a condition and you keep that from an employer and they hire you
and they want to know whether or not you have a condition. I don't
think anyone ought to be allowed to deny revealing information that an
employer ought to have. But a predisposition--that information ought
not to deprive you of a job or health insurance just because that
genetic information indicates that may be the case.
This is what happens. While I visited this wonderful Genetic Testing
Center at Yale University, I met with some patients and the researchers
who do this work. They asked me to pay attention and listen to a couple
of patients with whom they work.
Keith Hall has been a patient at Yale for several years, since he was
first diagnosed with something called tuberous sclerosis. Let me
explain what that is. It is a genetic disease that causes tumors of the
brain, kidney, and other organs, and sometimes mental retardation.
Keith, obviously, worries about what will happen to his insurance if he
ever has to switch jobs with that condition.
I also met with Ashley Przybylski, an 11-year-old girl from Oxford,
CT. Ashley suffers from a genetic nutritional disorder that can cause
seizures and brain damage. Currently, the family insurance covers the
exorbitant cost of medication that keeps her healty--about $33,000 a
year. Ashley faces the prospect of being denied coverage when she gets
older.
While we as a nation welcome these scientific achievements--we will
be able to determine in the case of both Keith and Ashley that they
have a predisposition for tuberous sclerosis or genetic nutritional
disorders--if both this child and this individual were to be denied
employment or insurance because of a genetic predisposition because
that information becomes available, that is wrong and should be
corrected.
This legislation is designed to try to provide this kind of
protection to people as we move forward with the wonderful information
gathering of genetic information.
The issue is too important to ignore for another year. Each day that
passes, more individuals suffer discrimination. Each day we fail to
act, more families are forced to make decisions about genetic testing
based not on health care but on fear.
I pledge my commitment to ensuring that progress on the Human Genome
Project is matched against the potential discrimination in establishing
some fundamental rights of privacy.
I welcome comments from my colleagues and others who may be
interested in being a part of this effort to try to get ahead of the
curve as we deal with the wonderful news of genetic marking that can
make such a difference in people's lives.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, genetic discrimination is a terribly
important issue and one that I have been following for quite some time
now. I am pleased to be here today with Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd,
and Senator Kenendy to introduce the ``Genetic Non-discrimination in
Health Insurance and Employment Act of 1999.''
The advances we have made recently in the study of the human gene are
mind-boggling. The identification of a number of disease-related genes
is providing scientists with important new tools for understanding the
underlying mechanisms for many illnesses. Genomic technologies have the
potential to lead to better diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately to
the prevention and cure of many diseases and disabilities.
Yet discrimination in health insurance and employment, and the fear
of potential discrimination, threaten our ability to conduct the very
research we need to understand, treat, and prevent genetic disease.
Moreover, discrimination--and the fear of discrimination--threaten our
ability to use new genetic technologies to improve human health.
Let me give you just a few examples:
In the early 1970's some insurance companies denied coverage and some
employers denied jobs to African-Americans who were identified as
carriers for sicklecell anemia, even though they were healthy and would
never develop the disease.
More recently, in a survey of people in families with genetic
disorders, 22% indicated that they, or a member of their family, had
been refused health insurance on the basis of their genetic
information.
And a number of researchers have been unable to get individuals to
participate in cancer genetics research. Fear of discrimination is
cited as the reason why.
But this is more than just about numbers and anonymous individuals,
it's about real people--including my own family. As many of you know,
both my sisters died from breast cancer. And other members of my family
might be at risk. Should I counsel them to get tested for the BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutations? Should I counsel them to disclose our family history
to their health care providers?
Right now, I'm torn. I know that if my family is to have access to
the best available interventions and preventive care, they should get
tested, and they should disclose our family's medical history to their
physicians. But, conversely, if they are to get any health care at all,
they must have access to health insurance. Without strong protections
against discrimination, access to health insurance is currently in
question.
In 1995, I introduced an amendment during the markup of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. My amendment clarified
that group health plans could not establish eligibility, continuation,
enrollment, or contribution requirements based on genetic information.
My amendment became part of the manager's package that went to the
floor, and it ultimately became law.
HIPAA is a good first step. We should be proud of that legislation.
Yet if our goal is to ensure that individuals have access to health
insurance coverage and to employment opportunities--regardless of their
genetic makeup--we must pass comprehensive anti-discrimination
protections.
Our proposed legislation offers such protections. Let me describe
them in brief:
First, this legislation prohibits insurers and employers from
discriminating on the basis of genetic information. It is essential to
prohibit discrimination both at work and in health insurance coverage.
If we only prohibit discrimination in the insurance context, employers
who are worried about future increased medical costs will simply not
hire individuals who have a genetic predisposition to a particular
disease.
Second, under our proposal, health insurance companies are prohibited
from disclosing genetic information to other insurance companies,
industry-wide data banks, and employers. If we really want to prevent
discrimination, we should not let genetic information get into the
wrong hands.
Finally, if protections against genetic discrimination are to have
teeth, we must include strong penalties and remedies to deter employers
and insurers from discriminating in the first place.
In closing, let me say that this legislation will ensure that every
American will enjoy the latest advances in scientific research and
health care delivery, without fear of retribution on the basis of their
sensitive genetic information. All of us should be concerned about this
issue, because all of us have genetic information that could be used
against us. As we move into the new millennium, everyone should enjoy
the benefits of 21st century technologies--and not be harmed by 21st
century discrimination.
I applaud the committment of my fellow co-sponsors on this important
issue and look forward to working with the rest of my colleagues to
pass federal legislation that will prohibit genetic discrimination in
the workplace and in health insurance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Nation is making extraordinary
progress in biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health will
have developed a working draft of the entire human genome by next
spring. Comprehensive knowledge of the genetic sequence will enable
researchers to identify large numbers of mutations associated with
disease. Understanding the molecular basis of hereditary diseases will
expedite the search for more effective treatments and cures. The
benefits for patients are likely to be unparalleled in the history of
medicine.
But this new scientific knowledge also raises a number of ethical,
legal, and social questions. The National Institutes of Health is
dealing with many of these challenges through programs funded by the
National Human Genome Research Institute.
[[Page S8107]]
Congress also has a key role to play in this process, especially in
dealing with genetic discrimination, which is an increasingly serious
problem in health insurance and the workplace. A 1996 study in
``Science and Engineering Ethics'' documented more than 200 cases of
discrimination against individuals with genetic predispositions to
certain diseases, even though the individuals have no symptoms of the
disease as yet. For example, some employers have used genetic screening
to identify African Americans with the gene mutation for sickle cell
anemia. Those with the sickle cell gene mutation were denied jobs, even
though many were only carriers of the mutation and would never become
ill themselves.
In other cases, persons at risk for Huntington's disease have been
denied health insurance and have lost their jobs. Similar concerns are
arising in the wake of research showing a genetic basis for breast
cancer. Ethnic groups who were participants in research to identify
disease-related genes are increasingly concerned about the adverse
effects on their insurance coverage and their jobs. Even at the
National Institutes of Health, 32% of women offered a test for a
genetic mutation related to breast cancer refused to take the test,
citing concerns about possible discrimination and the loss of privacy.
To deal with this issue, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, Senator
Dodd, and I are introducing legislation to ban genetic discrimination
by both health insurers and employers. Our proposal is the culmination
of years of work and debate over genetic discrimination. The proposal
that we are introducing today is based on our belief that neither your
health insurer nor your employer should be able to discriminate against
you based upon your genetic information. In this era, when many people
obtain their health insurance through their employer, it is especially
critical that both health insurers and employers are prohibited from
disclosing genetic information to each other. Proposals that do not
address both the insurance and the employment aspects of the issue will
not truly prevent genetic discrimination.
Our legislation prohibits health insurers from setting premiums and
defining eligibility on the basis of genetic information. Because we
believe that genetic testing is a decision that patients should make
with their physicians, our bill prohibits insurers from suggesting or
requiring patients to undergo genetic testing. Because insurers do not
need to know genetic information for most situations, our bill
prohibits them from requesting, collecting, or purchasing genetic
information. In addition, the bill does not allow health insurers to
share genetic information with each other, to disclose genetic
information to industry-wide data banks, or to disclose genetic
information to employers.
We know that employers are beginning to collect genetic information
and discriminate against applicants and employees. Many examples
illustrate the problem on a personal level, such as the story of
Christine, in Milwaukee, WI. One of Christine's parents developed
Huntington's disease, which meant that Christine had a 50% chance that
she had inherited the mutant gene that would cause her to develop the
disease. Christine decided to undergo a genetic test to determine
whether she had inherited the mutation. She traveled to the University
of Michigan in Ann Arbor for the test, and paid for the test herself. A
co-worker in the small firm where Christine worked overheard Christine
making the arrangements for the test and told Christine's supervisor.
Her supervisor was initially sympathetic and offered to help. Christine
then underwent the genetic test and learned that she had indeed
inherited the mutation and would therefore eventually develop the
disease. When Chistine shared this information with her supervisor, she
was fired, despite a series of outstanding job evaluations. Now,
because of Christine's experience, none of her siblings are willing to
have the genetic test.
This type of blatant discrimination must be stopped. Our legislation
prohibits employers from collecting genetic information from any
source, including health insurers, and from making any type of
employment decision based on genetic information.
We should all be concerned about genetic discrimination, because we
all have mutations in our genes, and medical researchers are
discovering new relationships between genes and diseases. Without
legislative action, genetic discrimination will intensify as more genes
associated with specific diseases are discovered, and as genetic
testing becomes more common. Earlier this week, Vice President Gore
proposed a challenge to the biomedical research community--to identify
all genes associated with cancer by the year 2002.
Our legislation is supported by the Alliance to Genetic Support
Groups, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the American
Civil Liberties Union, and Hadassah.
Congress should act quickly to pass legislation to ban genetic
discrimination in health insurance and the workplace, so that we can
benefit from those research advances without the threat that people
will lose their jobs or their health insurance.
I ask uninamous consent that their letters of support be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Breast Cancer Coalition,
July 1, 1999.
Hon. Ted Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the National Breast
Cancer Coalition (NBCC), I am writing to thank you for your
leadership in offering the Genetic Nondiscrimination in
Health Insurance and Employment Act of 1999. As you know,
NBCC is a grassroots advocacy organization made up of over
500 organizations and tens of thousands of individuals, their
families and friends. We are dedicated to the eradication of
the breast cancer epidemic through action and advocacy.
Addressing the complex privacy, insurance and employment
discrimination questions raised by evolving genetic
discoveries is one of our top priorities.
Discrimination in health insurance and employment is a
serious problem. In addition to the risks of losing one's
insurance or job, the fear of potential discrimination
threatens both a woman's decision to use new genetic
technologies and seek the best medical care from her
physician. It also limits the ability to conduct the research
necessary to understand the cause and find a cure for breast
cancer.
The Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act (1996)
took some significant steps toward extending protection in
the area of genetic discrimination in health insurance. But
it did not go far enough. Moreover, since the enactment of
Kassebaum-Kennedy, there have been incredible discoveries at
a very rapid rate that offer fascinating insights in the
biology of breast cancer, but that may also expose
individuals to an increased risk of discrimination based on
their genetic information. For instance, because of the
discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2, breast cancer susceptibility
genes, we now face the reality of a test that can detect the
increased risk associated with heritable breast cancer.
Genetic testing may well lead to the promise of improved
health. But if women are too fearful to get tested, they
won't be able to gain from the future benefits genetic
testing might offer.
We commend your efforts to go beyond Kassebaum-Kennedy
toward ensuring that all individuals--not just those in group
health plans--are guaranteed protection against
discrimination in the health insurance arena and the
employment venue based on their genetic information. The
Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment
Act of 1999 would also guarantee individuals important
protections against rate hikes based on genetic information,
would prohibit insurers from demanding access to genetic
information contained in medical records or family histories,
and would restrict insurers' release of genetic information.
Passage of this legislation, and the protections it offers,
are essential not only for women with a genetic
predisposition to breast cancer, but also for women living
with breast cancer, their families, and the millions of women
who will be diagnosed with breast cancer. We look forward to
working with you towards getting the Genetic
Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of
1999 enacted this year.
Thank you again for your outstanding leadership, and please
do not hesitate to call me or NBCC's Government Relations
Manager, Jennifer Katz if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Fran Visco, President.
____
Hadassah, The Women's Zionist
Organization of America, Inc.
July 1, 1999.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of Hadassah's 300,000
members, I would like to thank you, as well as Senators
Daschle, Dodd, and Harkin for introducing ``The Genetic Non-
discrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of
1999.'' The very information that may save someone's health
[[Page S8108]]
or life should under no circumstances be used to deny them
the insurance coverage needed to pay for this care.
The issue of genetics-based discrimination by both
insurance companies and employers has come to be of
particular concern to the Jewish community. Over the past few
years, studies have shown that certain populations experience
heightened hereditary susceptibility to certain genetic
mutations and their corresponding diseases. In particular,
women of Ashkenazi or Eastern European Jewish descent have
been found to demonstrate a distinct genetic predisposition
to both breast and ovarian cancers. Most recently, there have
been scientific findings linking colon cancer to Ashkenazi
Jews.
Unfortunately, as Jews and other at-risk populations have
sought to learn more about their genetic backgrounds, they
have been confronted by genetics-based discrimination. As a
result of this discrimination, many individuals choose not to
receive genetic testing, or to even participate in research
studies. As scientists continue to identify the genetic
``markers'' for more and more diseases, the issue of genetic
discrimination stands to confront each and every one of us--
men and women alike--regardless of ethnic heritage.
Hadassah has been active in support of similar legislation,
such as H.R. 306, sponsored by Representative Louise
Slaughter (D-NY), regarding health insurance discrimination.
We are optimistic that similar endeavors from your office,
and from those of your colleagues, will continue to expand
the scope and prominence of this issue. Hopefully, our
combined efforts will insure the passage of this legislation,
and ultimately result in the elimination of genetics-based
discrimination in both health insurance and employment.
Please sign Hadassah on as supporters of this bill.
I look forward to working with you on this important piece
of legislation. If you have any additional questions, or
would like our assistance, please contact Ms. Tana Senn,
Director of American Affairs/Domestic Policy. Again, we
applaud your efforts in addressing this crucial issue.
With admiration and appreciation.
Marlene E. Post,
National President.
____
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation,
July 1, 1999.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The American Civil Liberties Union is
a national, private, non-profit organization of more than
250,000 members dedicated to preserving the principles of
liberty embodied in the Bill of Rights and the U.S.
Constitution. The ACLU applauds the efforts of Senators
Daschle, Dodd, Harkin and Kennedy in their continued efforts
to promote awareness of the current and future problems of
genetic discrimination. We are in full support of the Genetic
Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of
1999 and ask that the issue of genetic discrimination be
given complete and immediate attention.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Gruber, Legal Director,
ACLU National Taskforce on
Civil Liberties in the Workplace.
____
National Partnership for
Women & Families,
July 1, 1999.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I want to thank you for, once again,
taking the lead on an issue of great importance to women. The
National Partnership for Women & Families is proud to endorse
your bill, ``The Genetic Nondiscrimination In Health
Insurance and Employment Act of 1999.''
We believe that genetic discrimination is the next big
civil rights issue. The job of deciphering every gene found
in the human body--more than 80,000 in all--is proceeding at
record speed. Just a decade ago, genetic testing was largely
restricted to prenatal tests to look for birth defects.
Today, more than 550 genetic tests are being used for the
diagnosis of disease, and millions of women and their
families stand to benefit from improved prevention,
detection, and treatment of diseases like breast and ovarian
cancer.
Unfortunately, without adequate protection against misuse,
the potential for real medical benefit from genetic advances
may be outweighed by the fear of discrimination by insurers
and employers. Your bill will alleviate that fear and allow
women and men to benefit from medical and scientific
progress. Thank you once again for all your hard work on this
issue.
Sincerely yours,
Judith L. Lichtman,
President, National Partnership for
Women & Families.
Susannah A. Baruch,
Director of Legal and Public Policy,
National Partnership for Women & Families.
______
By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bunning):
S. 1323. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to ensure that certain
Federal power customers are provided protection by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
THE TVA CUSTOMER PROTECTION ACT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today
to introduce a bill known as the TVA Customer Protection Act. This
legislation will implement a number of consumer protections that will
make TVA accountable to ratepayers and better prepare TVA to compete in
a restructured electricity market. I am pleased to have Senator Bunning
as an original cosponsor on this bill.
The legislation I am introducing, which is virtually identical to the
legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress, provides Valley
ratepayers protections against unchecked and unjustified increases in
their power rates. Included in this bill are checks against future
increases in TVA's massive debt. This bill will put an end to TVA's
ability to compete unfairly with its regional distributors and will
prohibit TVA from sticking ratepayers with the bill for its
international forays that have no relevance to its responsibility to
provide low-cost power to the Valley. Finally, this bill also codifies
an agreement between TVA and several industry associations to limit
TVA's authority as a government entity to compete with small businesses
in non-electric services.
Mr. President, TVA is a federal corporation that was first
established in 1933, to tame the Tennessee River, our nation's fifth
largest river, and to bring economic development to this once poverty
stricken region. Today, TVA provides power to nearly all of Tennessee
and to parts of six other states covering over 80,000 square miles and
serving eight million consumers. The bulk of TVA's power sales are made
through municipal and cooperative distributors, which in turn are
responsible for delivering that power to every home, office and farm in
the Valley. TVA has exclusive power contracts with its distributors and
the three-member TVA board sets the retail rates offered by
distributors.
Mr. President, while TVA has achieved significant success, it has not
come without a price. Today, TVA customers are paying a premium for
TVA's excesses and mismanagement. For example, TVA has accumulated an
enormous debt of nearly $26 billion, despite its monopoly status and
the Board's unilateral rate making authority. As a result, in 1998, TVA
customers paid an astronomical 30 cents of every $1 to interest
expenses. When you match TVA's interest charge of 30 cents to the 11
cents paid by the Federal Government, it makes Uncle Sam look like a
conservative financial planner. When compared to the average regulated
public utility, which pays a mere 7 percent in finance cost, it is
obvious that this isn't a good deal for TVA ratepayers.
In a 1994 study, the General Accounting Office determined that TVA's
financial condition ``threatens its long-term viability and places the
federal government at risk.'' Only through years of unaccountability
and fiscal irresponsibility could a power company have ever reached
this level of debt, despite the fact that TVA is a monopoly provider of
electricity.
As a result of TVA's fiscal mismanagement and bloated budgets, TVA
rates are higher than those of FERC-regulated utilities in Kentucky.
Since 1988, wholesale power rates of regulated utilities in Kentucky
have steadily fallen, while TVA has maintained the same level, albeit
higher than Kentucky utilities. Then, in 1997, TVA was forced to raise
rates by 7 percent in an effort to get its fiscal house back in order.
It is apparent that due to TVA's past financial mismanagement,
thousands of Kentucky residents are paying more for power than Kentucky
residents who are outside the TVA fence.
Mr. President, another way to quantify the impact of TVA's fiscal
irresponsibility is to compare the electric rates paid by Kentuckians.
Mr. President I have a chart here that displays the rate premiums paid
by the 211,427 TVA customers living in Kentucky. I have used the rates
filed by Kentucky Utilities and TVA's publicly disclosed rates between
1999 and 2003. Based on these rates, Kentuckians will pay an average of
$50 million more annually for the privilege of being served by TVA.
Over the next five years this amounts to a $250 million ``TVA
membership fee.'' It is painfully clear the Kentuckians who are served
by TVA are getting a raw deal from this New Deal program.
[[Page S8109]]
Mr. President, I have come to the conclusion that TVA needs to be
made more accountable for its actions. Not more accountable to Congress
or the President, but the people TVA is charged to serve--Valley
customers.
Mr. President, it is my desire to provide TVA customers with a clear
picture of TVA's financial situation including its rates, charges and
costs. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is authorized
under the Federal Power Act with regulating electric utilities. FERC
currently provides regulatory oversight to over 200 utilities for
wholesale and transmission power rates to ensure that their electric
rates and charges are ``just and reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential.'' At present, TVA is entirely exempt
from these necessary regulations allowing it to operate as a self-
regulating monopoly, with no such mandate for openness, fairness or
oversight.
Mr. President, I am not alone in this belief. The distributors
serving Memphis, Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, and Paducah,
Kentucky, share my views that TVA should fully comply with the FERC
authority. Recently, before the House Commerce Committee, Mr. Herman
Morris, Jr., President and CEO of the Memphis Light, Gas and Water
Division testified on behalf of MLGWD and the Knoxville Utilities Board
that FERC would ``provide a neutral forum for resolving disputes
regarding TVA transmission, wholesale sales pricing, terms and
conditions.'' Mr. Morris went on to say that FERC jurisdiction is
``necessary to provide Tennessee Valley distributors the same level of
protection that the rest of the country enjoys.''
Requiring TVA to comply with FERC regulations will serve two
purposes. First, it will allow customers to accurately evaluate TVA's
wholesale and transmission pricing to ensure the rates charged are
``just and reasonable'' and will provide customers with a forum for
challenging future rate increases just as every other regulated utility
does.
Second, this information will provide FERC with a better
understanding of the costs TVA has accumulated. Understanding the full
scope of these costs will be critical in an open transmission and
wholesale market. It will also have a significant impact in determining
how competitive TVA will be in the future.
Another measure which I have added this year builds on the full
disclosure provisions by requiring FERC to conduct an investigation to
determine TVA's total stranded cost liability. I have heard from a
number of distributors who are very concerned about the potential
stranded cost liability they might be assessed. They adamantly oppose
paying for any costs or services they haven't paid for. For example,
residents of Paducah, Kentucky don't want to pay for the costs TVA
incurred in providing service to Nashville. Unfortunately, nobody has
any idea of the total stranded cost liability TVA has incurred or can
be recovered. This investigation will uncover those costs that were
prudently incurred and are eligible for recovery as stranded costs.
In order to ensure that TVA keeps its promise of lowering its debt, I
have proposed that TVA be required to meet four need-based criteria
before it is able to add costly generating capacity. For my colleagues
who are not familiar with TVA, it is important to note that TVA's
tremendous level of debt is a result of TVA's aggressive and unchecked
plan to add new generating capacity in the Valley. In 1966, TVA
announced a plan to build 17 nuclear facilities throughout the Valley.
Today less than half of these facilities are in commercial service.
As a result, TVA is $26 billion in debt and has invested $14 billion
in non-performing nuclear assets which have driven rates up in the
Valley. To prevent history from repeating itself, I believe it is
necessary to apply safeguards against overbuilding. TVA must
demonstrate a legitimate need before committing such significant
resources again.
This legislation will also prohibit TVA from using Valley ratepayers
to subsidize power sales outside the Valley in the future. All new
generation will be required to meet the needs of Valley ratepayers.
Mr. President, let me take a moment to go through the other important
customer reforms included in the bill. Section Four of the bill
prohibits TVA from continuing to subsidize their foreign endeavors at
ratepayer's expense. Quarter million dollar conferences in China and
other points on the globe are not consistent with either TVA's deficit
reduction goals or its mission to be a low-cost power provider to the
Valley.
Another provision that I have included is a measure proposed by the
TVA distributors. Section Five in the bill protects distributors from
unfair competition by ending TVA's ability to directly serve large
industrial customers. In the past, TVA has been able to directly serve
some of the valley's largest industrial customers. Through this
loophole, TVA is able to use its considerable market power to unfairly
compete with distributors.
Section Seven of this bill will increase TVA's level of
accountability by applying all federal antitrust laws and penalties. I
have included this provision in response to heavy-handed tactics used
by TVA to punish the City of Bristol, Virginia, for signing a contract
with another energy provider.
TVA applied heavy-handed tactics by predicting unreliable electricity
services as a disincentive to leaving, and TVA attempted to syphon-off
Bristol's industrial customers by offering direct-serve power contracts
at 2 percent below any rate offered by Bristol. I find these predatory
practices to be entirely unacceptable, especially applied to one of its
own customers. It is my belief that since TVA's activities were
performed in a commercial endeavor, they should be held to the same
standards as any other corporation under the antitrust laws.
I understand that TVA is willing to subject themselves to federal
antitrust laws, so long as they aren't subject to any penalties. Mr.
President, I have some advice for TVA.
If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime.
Finally, this legislation limits TVA's ability to branch out into
other businesses beyond power generation and transmission. TVA has
attempted to diversify into equipment leasing as well as engineering
and other contracting services in direct competition with other Valley
businesses. I don't believe that TVA should be permitted to use its
considerable advantages, like its tax-exempt status, to compete against
Valley businesses. TVA has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with Valley
businesses not to compete against them.
My legislation codifies that agreement. Mr. President, I hope these
reforms will offer TVA customers--both distributors and individuals
alike--the means to make TVA more accountable and put an end, once and
for all, to TVA's unaccountability and unchecked fiscal
irresponsibility. I want to put an end to TVA membership premium and
let all Kentuckians benefit from some of the lowest power rates in the
nation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1323
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 ``TVA Customer Protection Act
of 1999''.
SEC. 2. INCLUSION IN DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY.
(a) In General.--Section 201(e) of the Federal Power Act
(16 U.S.C. 824(e)) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, and includes the Tennessee
Valley Authority''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 201(f) of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(f)) is amended by striking
``foregoing, or any corporation'' and inserting ``foregoing
(other than the Tennessee Valley Authority) or any
corporation''.
SEC. 3. DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824b) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) TVA Exception.--This section does not apply to a
disposition of the whole or any part of the facilities of the
Tennessee Valley Authority if--
``(1) the Tennessee Valley Authority discloses to the
Commission (on a form, and to the extent, that the Commission
shall prescribe by regulation) the sale, lease, or other
disposition of any part of its facilities that--
``(A) is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
under this Part; and
``(B) has a value of more than $50,000; and
[[Page S8110]]
``(2) all proceeds of the sale, lease, or other disposition
under paragraph (1) are applied by the Tennessee Valley
Authority to the reduction of debt of the Tennessee Valley
Authority.''.
SEC. 4. FOREIGN OPERATIONS; PROTECTIONS.
Section 208 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824g) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Tennessee Valley Authority.--
``(1) Limit on charges.--
``(A) No authorization or permit.--The Commission shall
issue no order under this Act that has the effect of
authorizing or permitting the Tennessee Valley Authority to
make, demand, or receive any rate or charge, or impose any
rule or regulation pertaining to a rate or charge, that
includes any costs incurred by or for the Tennessee Valley
Authority in the conduct of any activities or operations
outside the United States.
``(B) Unlawful rate.--
``(i) In general.--Any rate, charge, rule, or regulation
described in subparagraph (A) shall be deemed for the
purposes of this Act to be unjust, unreasonable, and
unlawful.
``(ii) No limitation on authority.--Clause (i) does not
limit the authority of the Commission under any other
provision of law to regulate and establish just and
reasonable rates and charges for the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
``(2) Annual report.--The Tennessee Valley Authority shall
annually--
``(A) prepare and file with the Commission, in a form that
the Commission shall prescribe by regulation, a report
setting forth in detail any activities or operations engaged
in outside the United States by or on behalf of the Tennessee
Valley Authority; and
``(B) certify to the Commission that the Tennessee Valley
Authority has neither recovered nor sought to recover the
costs of activities or operations engaged in outside the
United States by or on behalf of the Tennessee Valley
Authority in any rate, charge, rule, or regulation on file
with the Commission.''.
SEC. 5. TVA POWER SALES AND PROPERTY VALUATION.
(a) In General.--Part II of the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 215. TVA POWER SALES.
``(a) In General.--The Tennessee Valley Authority shall not
sell electric power to a retail customer that will consume
the power within the area that, on the date of enactment of
this section, is assigned by law as the distributor service
area, unless--
``(1) the customer (or predecessor in interest to the
customer) was purchasing electric power directly from the
Tennessee Valley Authority as a retail customer on that date;
``(2) the distributor is purchasing firm power from the
Tennessee Valley Authority in an amount that is equal to not
more than 50 percent of the total retail sales of the
distributor; or
``(3) the distributor agrees that the Tennessee Valley
Authority may sell power to the customer.
``(b) Retail Sales.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the rates, terms, and conditions of retail sales of
electric power by the Tennessee Valley Authority that are not
prohibited by subsection (a) shall be subject to regulation
under State law applicable to public utilities in the manner
and to the extent that a State commission or other regulatory
authority determines to be appropriate.
``(c) Assurance of Adequate Electric Generation Capacity.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, after the date of enactment of this section, the
Tennessee Valley Authority shall not construct or acquire by
any means electric generation capacity, or sell the output of
electric generation capacity constructed or acquired after
that date, unless the Commission has issued to the Tennessee
Valley Authority a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing the construction or acquisition of
electric generation capacity.
``(2) Criteria for issuance of certificate.--The Commission
shall issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity
under paragraph (1) only if the Commission finds, after
affording an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, that--
``(A) the reserve power margin of the Tennessee Valley
Authority for the area within which the Tennessee Valley
Authority is permitted by law to be a source of supply--
``(i) is less than 15 percent; and
``(ii) is expected to remain less than 15 percent for a
period of at least 1 year unless new capacity is constructed
or acquired;
``(B) the Energy Information Administration has submitted
to the Commission, with respect to issuance of the
certificate of public convenience and necessity, a
determination that--
``(i) there is no commercially reasonable option for the
purchase of power from the wholesale power market to meet the
needs of the area within which the Tennessee Valley Authority
is permitted by law to be a source of supply; and
``(ii) the proposed construction or acquisition is the only
commercially reasonable means to meet the firm contractual
obligations of the Tennessee Valley Authority with respect to
the area within which the Tennessee Valley Authority is
permitted by law to be a source of supply;
``(C) the electric generation capacity or the output of the
capacity proposed to be authorized will not make the
Tennessee Valley Authority a direct or indirect source of
supply in any area with respect to which the Authority is
prohibited by law from being, directly or indirectly, a
source of supply; and
``(D) the electric generation capacity proposed to be
authorized is completely subscribed in advance for use by
customers only within the area for which the Tennessee Valley
Authority or distributors of the Authority were the primary
source of power supply on July 1, 1957.
``SEC. 216. VALUATION OF CERTAIN TVA PROPERTY.
``(a) Evidentiary Hearing.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this section, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Commission shall commence a
hearing on the record for the purpose of determining the
value of the property owned by the Tennessee Valley
Authority--
``(1) that is used and useful; and
``(2) the cost of which was prudently incurred in providing
electric service, as of July 1, 1999, to--
``(A) the distributors of the Authority; and
``(B) the customers that directly purchased power from the
Authority.
``(b) Procedures and Standards.--In making the
determination under subsection (a), the Commission shall use,
to the maximum extent practicable, the procedures and
standards that the Commission uses in making similar
determinations with respect to public utilities.
``(c) Timing of Final Order.--The Commission shall issue a
final order with respect to the determination under
subsection (a)--
``(1) not later than 1 year after the date of commencement
of the hearing under subsection (a); or
``(2) not later than a date determined by the Commission by
an order supported by the record.
``(d) Timing of Order Awarding Recovery of Stranded
Costs.--The Commission may issue an order awarding recovery
to the Tennessee Valley Authority of costs rendered
uneconomic by competition not earlier than the date on which
the Commission issues a final order with respect to the
determination under subsection (a).''.
(b) Transition.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall
file all rates and charges for the transmission or sale of
electric energy and the classifications, practices, and
regulations affecting those rates and charges, together with
all contracts that in any manner affect or relate to
contracts that are required to be filed under Part II of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) (as amended by
subsection (a)) and that are in effect as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. FILING AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF TVA DOCUMENTS.
Part III of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825 et seq.)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 319 through 321 as sections
320 through 322, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 318 the following:
``SEC. 319. FILING AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF TVA DOCUMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Tennessee Valley Authority shall
file and disclose the same documents and other information
that other public utilities are required to file under this
Act, as the Commission shall require by regulation.
``(b) Regulation.--
``(1) Timing.--The regulation under subsection (a) shall be
promulgated not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this section.
``(2) Considerations.--In promulgating the regulation under
subsection (a), the Commission shall take into consideration
the practices of the Commission with respect to public
utilities other than the Tennessee Valley Authority.''.
SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.
The Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 16 the
following:
``SEC. 17. APPLICABILITY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.
``(a) Definition of Antitrust Laws.--In this section, the
term `antitrust laws' means--
``(1) an antitrust law (within the meaning of section (1)
of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12));
``(2) the Act of June 19, 1936 (commonly known as the
`Robinson Patman Act') (49 Stat. 1526, chapter 323; 15 U.S.C.
13 et seq.); and
``(3) section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 45), to the extent that the section relates to unfair
methods of competition.
``(b) Applicability.--Nothing in this Act modifies,
impairs, or supersedes the antitrust laws.
``(c) Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) TVA deemed a person.--The Tennessee Valley Authority
shall be deemed to be a person, and not government, for
purposes of the antitrust laws.
``(2) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the antitrust laws (including the availability of any
remedy for a violation of an antitrust law) shall apply to
the Tennessee Valley Authority notwithstanding any
determination that the Tennessee Valley Authority is a
corporate agency or instrumentality of the United States or
is otherwise engaged in governmental functions.''.
[[Page S8111]]
SEC. 8. SAVINGS PROVISION.
(a) Definition of TVA Distributor.--In this section, the
term ``TVA distributor'' means a cooperative organization or
publicly owned electric power system that, on January 2,
1998, purchased electric power at wholesale from the
Tennessee Valley Authority under an all-requirements power
contract.
(b) Effect of Act.--Nothing in this Act or any amendment
made by this Act--
(1) subjects any TVA distributor to regulation by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; or
(2) abrogates or affects any law in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act that applies to a TVA distributor.
SEC. 9. PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, CONTRACTING, AND
ENGINEERING SERVICES.
Section 4 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16
U.S.C. 831c) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Provision of Construction Equipment, Contracting, and
Engineering Services.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, except as provided in this subsection, the
Corporation shall not have power to--
``(A) rent or sell construction equipment;
``(B) provide a construction equipment maintenance or
repair service;
``(C) perform contract construction work; or
``(D) provide a construction engineering service;
to any private or public entity.
``(2) Electrical contractors.--The Corporation may provide
equipment or a service described in subparagraph (1) to a
private contractor that is engaged in electrical utility work
on an electrical utility project of the Corporation.
``(3) Customers, distributors, and governmental entities.--
The Corporation may provide equipment or a service described
in subparagraph (1) to--
``(A) a power customer served directly by the Corporation;
``(B) a distributor of Corporation power; or
``(C) a Federal, State, or local government entity;
that is engaged in work specifically related to an electrical
utility project of the Corporation.
``(4) Used construction equipment.--
``(A) Definition of used construction equipment.--In this
paragraph, the term `used construction equipment' means
construction equipment that has been in service for more than
2,500 hours.
``(B) Disposition.--The Corporation may dispose of used
construction equipment by means of a public auction conducted
by a private entity that is independent of the Corporation.
``(C) Debt reduction.--The Corporation shall apply all
proceeds of a disposition of used construction equipment
under subparagraph (B) to the reduction of debt of the
Corporation.''.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission such sums as are necessary to
carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
____
TVA Board Spent More Than $85,000 To Travel in 1998
Knoxville, Tenn.--Credit card receipts show Tennessee
Valley Authority board members spent more than $85,000 in
1998 on travel expenses, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
Among the charges are lodging at the Ritz-Carlton hotel
near Washington, a casino resort in Nevada and a golf club in
Mississippi. TVA Chairman Craven Crowell alone took 92 trips,
including 12 to foreign countries, The Knoxville News-
Sentinel reported.
Crowell's charges totaled $49,541. Crowell, who is
currently in England with other Tennessee business leaders,
declined to discuss the issue with the newspaper last week.
Among Crowell's duties while traveling are promoting TVA
bonds, meeting with utility officials and attending
conferences, according to TVA officials.
``These are not pleasure trips,'' said TVA spokesman Steve
Bender. ``The chairman is working on these trips.''
The U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm
of Congress, is probing how TVA Inspector General George
Prosser spent TVA expense money, after a written request from
Crowell. In question are more than $10,000 in travel and
entertainment charges.
Prosser maintains the expenses are legitimate and he is the
victim of retaliation by TVA officials because he
investigated TVA executive Joe Dickey for fraud.
Prosser's expenses include a $500 hotel bill from a
Mississippi casino, $4,500 at attractions with golf courses
and more than $200 in liquor.
Crowell currently is the only member of the three-member
TVA board. Johnny Hayes left in January to work in Vice
President Al Gore's presidential campaign, and Bill Kennoy's
nine-year term ended May 18.
In 1998, Kennoy spent $17,935 on 69 trips, and he didn't
return phone calls from the newspaper seeking comment. Hayes
spent $17,268 on 155 trips.
``I never charged golf, a meal or anything else where I
wasn't on TVA business,'' Hayes said.
``I was out with customers constantly,'' he said. ``I
fished with them. I golfed with them. I went to every major
convention they had.''
U.S. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., D-Memphis, said the travel
expenses seemed high at first glance.
``The real measure is how much they accomplish on the
trips,'' Ford said.
____
Paducah Power System,
Paducah, KY, July 1, 1999.
Senator Mitch McConnell,
Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: Having reviewed the ``TVA Customer
Protection Act of 1999,'' the Board and management of Paducah
Power System are supportive of the bill.
Specifically, the protection from TVA competing with the
distributors for retail customers as long as at least half of
the distributors wholesale power requirements are purchased
from TVA is very important.
The provision for identifying and establishing the
methodology and value of stranded cost is extremely
important. This information will assist future planning for
distributors.
Additionally, the protection of Valley ratepayers from
subsidizing off system sales provides distributors within the
Valley to continue to provide energy at the lowest practical
cost.
Thank you for your efforts and continuing interest in the
people of Western Kentucky and all the Tennessee Valley.
Feel free to call if I can be of any assistance.
Respectfully,
Don Fuller,
General Manager.
______
By Mr. FRIST:
S. 1326. A bill to eliminate certain benefits for Members of
Congress, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Citizen Congress Act
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Citizen
Congress Act, a bill which will end the five greatest perks and
privileges which separate the Members of Congress from the American
people, and which will eliminate taxpayer-funded financial incentives
which encourage Members to become life-long legislators. In the past
two Congresses, I have introduced a more broad version of this
legislation. However, in the next two years, I want to focus on
removing the top five taxpayer-funded financial incentives which
encourage Senators and Representatives to remain in office as career
politicians. I believe that the elimination of these five special
privileges will return Congress to the institution our fore-fathers
established.
As we approach the two-hundred and twenty-third anniversary of the
founding of our great country, we should remember that our Founding
Fathers envisioned a Congress of citizen legislators who would leave
their families and communities for a short time to write legislation
and pass laws, and then return home to live under those laws they
helped to pass. Unfortunately, we have stayed from that vision. With
the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act four years ago, we
made the first step towards ensuring that Members of Congress abide by
the same laws as everyone else. In spite of this measure, Members of
Congress continue to receive special perks and privileges unavailable
to most American citizens. While I support term limits for Members of
Congress, and I remain committed to passing a term limits amendment to
the Constitution, there are other more immediate actions we can take to
restore faith in Congress.
The legislation I introduce today represents an achievable step
toward making Congress more accountable and responsible to the American
people. The Citizen Congress Act will eliminate the five greatest
financial incentives for Members to become life-long legislators, and
will put them on equal footing with the majority of Americans. The
provisions of this legislation include: Eliminate the taxpayer subsidy
element of Congressional pensions; require public disclosure of
Congressional pensions; eliminate automatic COLA's for Congressional
pensions; eliminate automatic COLA's for Congressional pay; and require
a roll call vote on all Congressional pay increases.
Eliminating the taxpayer subsidy of Congressional pensions and
reforming the overall Congressional pension system represents a
remarkable improvement. With the Citizen Congress Act, Senators and
Representatives will no longer be eligible for pensions that far exceed
what is available in the private sector and are padded with matching
taxpayer dollars. Instead, Members will have access to the same plans
as other federal employees and private citizens,
[[Page S8112]]
with no taxpayer subsidy. This will ensure that Members who serve in
Congress for many years do not accumulate multi-million dollar pensions
at the public's expense. Automatic cost of living adjustments for
Congressional pensions are also eliminated in this bill. Additionally,
requiring a public roll call vote on pay increases ensures that Members
of Congress do not vote themselves a pay increase in the dead of night,
as has been the case many, many times in the past.
At a time when everyone is tightening their belts to maintain fiscal
responsibility and restore confidence in our government, it is only
fitting that Members of Congress eliminate the perks and privileges
which separate them from the American people. This is what Tennesseans
tell me when I travel across our state, and that is what I am doing
with the Citizen Congress Act. I encourage my colleagues to join me in
passing this important legislation and bringing Congress another step
closer to the American people.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 1326
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 ``Citizen Congress Act''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT COVERAGE FOR MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, effective at the beginning of the Congress next
beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, a
Member of Congress shall be ineligible to participate in the
Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees'
Retirement System, except as otherwise provided under this
section.
(b) Participation in the Thrift Savings Plan.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), a Member may participate in
the Thrift Savings Plan subject to section 8351 if title 5,
United States Code, at anytime during the 12-year period
beginning on the date the Member begins his or her first
term.
(c) Refunds of Contributions.--
(1) In General.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall prevent
refunds from being made, in accordance with otherwise
applicable provisions of law (including those relating to the
Thrift Savings Plan), on account of an individual's becoming
ineligible to participate in the Civil Service Retirement
System or the Federal Employees' Retirement System (as the
case may be) as a result of the enactment of this section.
(2) Treatment of refund.--For purposes of any refund
referred to in paragraph (1), a Member who so becomes
ineligible to participate in either of the retirement systems
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be treated in the same way
as if separated from service.
(d) Annuities Not Affected to the Extent Based on Prior
Service.--Subsection (a) shall not be considered to affect--
(1) any annuity (or other benefit) entitlement which is
based on a separation from service occurring before the date
of the enactment of this Act (including any survivor annuity
based on the death of the individual who so separated); or
(2) any other annuity (or benefit), to the extent provided
under subsection (e).
(e) Preservations of Rights Based on Prior Service.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of determining eligibility
for, or the amount of, any annuity (or other benefit)
referred to in subsection (d)(2) based on service as a Member
of Congress--
(A) all service as a Member of Congress shall be
disregarded except for any such service performed before the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) all pay for service performed as a Member of Congress
shall be disregarded other than pay for service which may be
taken into account under subparagraph (A).
(2) Preservation of rights.--To the extent practicable,
eligibility for, and the amount of, any annuity (or other
benefit) to which an individual is entitled based on a
separation of a Member of Congress occurring after such
Member becomes ineligible to participate in the Civil Service
Retirement System or the Federal Employees' Retirement System
(as the case may be) by reason of subsection (a) shall be
determined in a manner that preserves any rights to which the
Member would have been entitled, as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, had separation occurred on such date.
(f) Regulations.--Any regulations necessary to carry out
this section may be prescribed by the Office of Personnel
Management and the Executive Director (referred to in section
8401(13) of title 5, United States Code) with respect to
matters within their respective areas of responsibility.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the terms ``Member of
Congress'' and ``Member'' have the meaning of the term
``Member'' as defined under section 8331(2) or 8401(20) of
title 5, United States Code.
(h) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
considered to apply with respect to any savings plan or other
matter outside of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84
of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 3. DISCLOSURE OF ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL RETIREMENT
BENEFITS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Section 105(a) of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 1965 (2 U.S.C. 104a; Public Law 88-454;
78 Stat. 550) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the
House of Representatives shall include in each report
submitted under paragraph (1), with respect to Members of
Congress, as applicable--
``(A) the total amount of individual contributions made by
each Member to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund and the Thrift Savings Fund under chapters 83 and 84 of
title 5, United States Code, for all Federal service
performed by the Member as a Member of Congress and as a
Federal employee;
``(B) an estimate of the annuity each Member would be
entitled to receive under chapters 83 and 84 of such title
based on the earliest possible date to receive annuity
payments by reason of retirement (other than disability
retirement) which begins after the date of expiration of the
term of office such Member is serving; and
``(C) any other information necessary to enable the public
to accurately compute the Federal retirement benefits of each
Member based on various assumptions of years of service and
age of separation from service by reason of retirement.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC ANNUITY ADJUSTMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
The portion of the annuity of a Member of Congress which is
based solely on service as a Member of Congress shall not be
subject to a cost-of-living adjustment under section 8340 or
8462 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS.
(a) Pay Adjustments.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 601(a)(1) of such Act is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
(3) by striking ``, as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this
subsection''.
SEC. 6. ROLLCALL VOTE FOR ANY CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE.
It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of
Representatives to dispose of any amendment, bill,
resolution, motion, or other matter relating to the pay of
Members of Congress unless the matter is decided by a
rollcall vote.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bond, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Kerrey, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 1327. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act to provide States with more funding and greater flexibility in
carrying out programs designed to help children make the transition
from foster care to self-sufficiency, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
foster care independence act of 1999
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is a rare opportunity when we can
provide assistance to one of our nation's most vulnerable groups:
children in the foster care program. Currently, Independent Living
Programs for older foster children end at their 18th birthday,
abandoning these teens in the middle of a critical transition period
from adolescence to adulthood. Sadly, these young people are left to
negotiate the rough waters of adulthood without vital health and mental
health resources and critical life-skills. That is why I am pleased to
join my colleagues Senators Rockefeller, Bond, Moynihan, and others in
introducing the Foster Care Independence Act.
Many of the 20,000 adolescents who leave the foster care rolls each
year to become adults come from particularly troubled backgrounds.
Typically, these young people have experienced on average four
placements in the past seven years of their lives. As a result, they
lack a sense of permanency and the skills essential to becoming self-
reliant and productive adults. Our bill will cushion the transition to
adulthood by funding Independent Living Programs and ensuring access to
the critical health care and mental health services provided by
Medicaid through a foster child's 21st birthday.
Most importantly, it doubles the money available to state-
administered
[[Page S8113]]
Independent Living Programs, allowing them to provide the day-to-day
living needs for 18 to 21-year-olds while they learn valuable life
skills. This more comprehensive program with a long transition period
will promote the safety, health, and permanency in the lives of these
children. It also removes a significant barrier to these children's
adoption by ensuring that the families who adopt them have access to
the appropriate resources through age 21.
In addition, this bill provides them access to the health and mental
health services offered through Medicaid. Numerous studies of
adolescents who leave foster care have found that this population has a
significantly higher-than-normal rate of school drop outs, out-of-
wedlock pregnancies, homelessness, health and mental health problems,
poverty, and unemployment. They are also more likely to be victims of
crime and physical assaults. My more comprehensive program addresses
these grave health and safety concerns by allowing adolescents who age
out of or are adopted out of foster care to continue to receive crucial
health, and mental health care benefits through the age of 21.
I am heartened by the broad, bipartisan support that the Independent
Living Act of 1999, introduced by my colleague, Representative Nancy
Johnson, received last week in the House. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this important measure and ask unanimous consent that
the full text and summary of the bill printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1327
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--IMPROVED INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM
Subtitle A--Improved Independent Living Program
Sec. 101. Improved independent living program.
Subtitle B--Related Foster Care Provision
Sec. 111. Increase in amount of assets allowable for children in foster
care.
Subtitle C--Medicaid Amendments
Sec. 121. State option of medicaid coverage for adolescents leaving
foster care.
Subtitle D--Welfare-To-Work Amendments
Sec. 131. Children aging out of foster care eligible for services.
TITLE II--SSI FRAUD PREVENTION
Subtitle A--Fraud Prevention and Related Provisions
Sec. 201. Liability of representative payees for overpayments to
deceased recipients.
Sec. 202. Recovery of overpayments of SSI benefits from lump sum SSI
benefit payments.
Sec. 203. Additional debt collection practices.
Sec. 204. Requirement to provide State prisoner information to Federal
and federally assisted benefit programs.
Sec. 205. Rules relating to collection of overpayments from individuals
convicted of crimes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of assets held in trust under the SSI program.
Sec. 207. Disposal of resources for less than fair market value under
the SSI program.
Sec. 208. Administrative procedure for imposing penalties for false or
misleading statements.
Sec. 209. Exclusion of representatives and health care providers
convicted of violations from participation in social
security programs.
Sec. 210. State data exchanges.
Sec. 211. Study on possible measures to improve fraud prevention and
administrative processing.
Sec. 212. Annual report on amounts necessary to combat fraud.
Sec. 213. Computer matches with medicare and medicaid
institutionalization data.
Sec. 214. Access to information held by financial institutions.
Subtitle B--Benefits for Certain Veterans of World War II
Sec. 251. Establishment of program of special benefits for certain
World War II veterans.
TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT
Sec. 301. Elimination of enhanced matching for laboratory costs for
paternity establishment.
Sec. 302. Elimination of hold harmless provision for State share of
distribution of collected child support.
TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
Sec. 401. Technical corrections relating to amendments made by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996.
TITLE I--IMPROVED INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM
Subtitle A--Improved Independent Living Program
SEC. 101. IMPROVED INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 establishes
that safety, health, and permanency are paramount when
planning for children in foster care. States are required to
make reasonable efforts to locate permanent families for all
children, including older children and teens, for whom
reunification with their biological families is not in the
best interests of the children.
(2) Older children who continue to be in foster care as
adolescents may become eligible for Independent Living
programs. These Independent Living programs are not an
alternative to permanency planning for these children.
Enrollment in Independent Living programs can occur
concurrent with continued efforts to locate, and achieve
placement in, permanent families for older children in foster
care.
(3) About 20,000 adolescents leave the Nation's foster care
system each year because they have reached 18 years of age
and are expected to support themselves. In addition,
approximately 5,000 adolescents (foster children over the age
of 12) are adopted out of the foster care system each year,
of whom approximately 620 are over the age of 16 at the time
of their adoption. A large percentage of these children have
not yet completed their high school education.
(4) Congress has received extensive information that
adolescents leaving foster care are in trouble. A careful
study of all the children aging out of foster care in
Wisconsin during 1994 showed high rates of school drop out,
out-of-wedlock childbearing, homelessness, poverty, and being
the target of crime and physical assaults.
(5) The Nation's State and local governments, with
financial support from the Federal Government, should offer
an extensive program of education, health and mental health
care, training, employment, financial support, and post
adoption support services for adolescents leaving foster care
(including those who exit foster care to adoption), with
participation in such program beginning several years before
high school graduation and continuing, as needed, until the
young adults exiting foster care establish independence or
reach 21 years of age.
(b) Improved Independent Living Program.--Section 477 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 677) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 477. INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide
States with flexible funding that will enable the States to
design and conduct programs--
``(1) to identify children who are likely to remain in
foster care during their teenage years and that help these
children make the transition to self-sufficiency by providing
services such as assistance in obtaining a high school
diploma, career exploration, vocational training, job
placement and retention, training in daily living skills,
training in budgeting and financial management skills,
substance abuse prevention, and how to maintain their own
physical and mental health, including how to access health
care, mental health, and community-based peer-support
services;
``(2) to help children leaving foster care, including those
adopted after age 16, obtain the education, training, and
services necessary to obtain and maintain employment;
``(3) to help children leaving foster care, including those
adopted after age 16, prepare for and enter postsecondary
training and education institutions;
``(4) to provide personal and emotional support to children
aging out of foster care, through mentors, the promotion of
interactions with dedicated adults, and continued efforts at
locating permanent family resources, including adoption, for
these children; and
``(5) to provide financial assistance, access to health and
mental health care, supervised housing, counseling,
employment, education, permanency planning, and other
appropriate support and services that promote active and
responsible citizenship, healthy development, and community
membership to former foster care recipients between 18 and 21
years of age to complement their own efforts to achieve long-
term self-sufficiency.
``(b) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--A State may apply for funds from its
allotment under subsection (c) for a period of 5 consecutive
fiscal years by submitting to the Secretary, in writing, a
plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and the
certifications required by paragraph (3) with respect to the
plan.
``(2) State plan.--A plan meets the requirements of this
paragraph if the plan specifies which State agency or
agencies will administer, supervise, or oversee the programs
carried out under the plan, and describes how the State
intends to do the following:
[[Page S8114]]
``(A) Design and deliver programs to achieve the purposes
of this section in such a way that each child's health,
safety, opportunity for a permanent family, and successful,
long-term self-sufficiency is of paramount concern.
``(B) Ensure that all political subdivisions in the State
are served by the programs, though not necessarily in a
uniform manner.
``(C) Ensure that the programs serve children of various
ages and at various stages of achieving independence.
``(D) Involve public and private individuals and
organizations familiar with, or interested in addressing, the
needs of youths aging out of foster care, including young
people served by these programs, and, where they exist,
organizations of youths who have been in foster care.
``(E) Use objective criteria for determining eligibility
for benefits and services under the programs, and for
ensuring fair and equitable treatment of benefit recipients.
``(F) Cooperate in national evaluations of the effects of
the programs in achieving the purposes of this section.
``(G) Designate an independent living coordinator to
oversee the delivery of benefits and services under the
programs.
``(3) Certifications.--The certifications required by this
paragraph with respect to a plan are the following:
``(A) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will provide assistance and services to
children who have left foster care after the age of 16 but
have not attained 21 years of age.
``(B) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that not more than 30 percent of the amounts paid to
the State from its allotment under subsection (c) for a
fiscal year will be expended for room or board for children
who have left foster care after the age of 16 and have
attained 18 but not 21 years of age, and that such room and
board services shall be supervised, including interaction
between the youths and adults, and the provision of such
services shall include a requirement that the participating
youths must be actively enrolled in educational, vocational
training, or career development programs.
``(C) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that none of the amounts paid to the State from its
allotment under subsection (c) will be expended for room or
board for any child who has not attained 18 years of age.
``(D) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State has consulted widely with public and
private individuals and organizations familiar with, or
interested in addressing, the needs of youths aging out of
foster care, including young people served by the programs
under the plan, and, where they exist, organizations of
youths who have been in foster care, in developing the plan
and that the State has given all interested members of the
public at least 30 days to submit comments on the plan.
``(E) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will make every effort to coordinate the
State programs receiving funds provided from an allotment
made to the State under subsection (c) with other Federal and
State programs for youth, especially transitional living
youth projects authorized under part B of title III of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and
funded and administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services, local housing programs, programs for disabled
youth, and school-to-work programs.
``(F) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that each Indian tribe in the State has been informed
about the programs to be carried out under the plan; that
each such tribe has been given an opportunity to comment on
the plan before submission to the Secretary; and that
benefits and services under the programs will be made
available to Indian children in the State on the same basis
as to other children in the State.
``(G) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will use training funds provided under
the program of Federal payments for foster care and adoption
assistance to provide training to help foster parents,
adoptive parents, workers in group homes, and case managers
understand and address the issues confronting adolescents
preparing for independent living, with such training
utilizing a youth development approach, and will, to the
extent possible, coordinate such training with the
independent living program conducted for adolescents.
``(H) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State will ensure that each adolescent
participating in any program under this section will have a
personal independent living plan, and that adolescents
themselves will participate directly in designing their own
program activities that prepare them for independent living
and in taking personal responsibility for fulfilling their
program requirements.
``(I) A certification by the chief executive officer of the
State that the State has established and will enforce
standards and procedures to prevent fraud and abuse in the
programs carried out under the plan.
``(4) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve an application
submitted by a State pursuant to paragraph (1) for a period
if--
``(A) the application is submitted on or before June 30 of
the calendar year in which such period begins; and
``(B) the Secretary finds that the application contains the
material required by paragraph (1).
``(5) Authority to implement certain amendments;
notification.--A State with an application approved under
paragraph (4) may implement any amendment to the plan
contained in the application if the application,
incorporating the amendment, would be approvable under
paragraph (4). Within 30 days after a State implements any
such amendment, the State shall notify the Secretary of the
amendment.
``(6) Availability.--The State shall make available to the
public any application submitted by the State pursuant to
paragraph (1), and a brief summary of the plan contained in
the application.
``(c) Allotments to States.--For fiscal year 2000 and each
succeeding fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot the amount
specified in subsection (h) that remains after applying
subsection (g)(2) among States with applications approved
under subsection (b) for the fiscal year in the following
manner:
``(1) The Secretary shall first allot to each State an
amount equal to the amount payable to the State for fiscal
year 1998 under this section, as in effect on the day before
the date of the enactment of the Foster Care Independence Act
of 1999.
``(2) From the amount remaining after carrying out
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall allot to each State that
elects the option under section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV) to
provide medical assistance to independent foster care
adolescents the sum of--
``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the amount allotted to
the State under paragraph (1), plus
``(B) an amount bearing the same ratio to the amount
remaining after carrying out paragraph (1) and subparagraph
(A) as the number of children in foster care under a program
of the State in the most recent fiscal year for which such
information is available bears to the total number of
children in such foster care in all States for such most
recent fiscal year.
``(3) Reallotment of unused funds.--The Secretary shall use
the formula provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection to
reallot among the States with applications approved under
subsection (b) for a fiscal year any amount allotted to a
State under this subsection for the preceding year that is
not payable to the State for the preceding year.
``(d) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A State to which an amount is paid from
its allotment under subsection (c) may use the amount in any
manner that is reasonably calculated to accomplish the
purposes of this section.
``(2) No supplantation of other funds available for same
general purposes.--The amounts paid to a State from its
allotment under subsection (c) shall be used to supplement
and not supplant any other funds which are available for the
same general purposes in the State.
``(e) Penalties.--
``(1) Use of grant in violation of this part.--If the
Secretary is made aware, by an audit conducted under chapter
75 of title 31, United States Code, or by any other means,
that a program receiving funds from an allotment made to a
State under subsection (c) has been operated in a manner that
is inconsistent with, or not disclosed in the State
application approved under subsection (b), the Secretary
shall assess a penalty against the State in an amount equal
to not less than 1 percent and not more than 5 percent of the
amount of the allotment.
``(2) Failure to comply with data reporting requirement.--
The Secretary shall assess a penalty against a State that
fails during a fiscal year to comply with an information
collection plan implemented under subsection (f) in an amount
equal to not less than 1 percent and not more than 5 percent
of the amount allotted to the State for the fiscal year.
``(3) Penalties based on degree of noncompliance.--The
Secretary shall assess penalties under this subsection based
on the degree of noncompliance.
``(f) Data Collection and Performance Measurement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with
State and local public officials responsible for
administering independent living and other child welfare
programs, child welfare advocates, members of Congress, youth
service providers, and researchers, shall--
``(A) develop outcome measures (such as measures of
educational attainment, employment, career goal-setting and
development, active participation in personal health care,
development of healthy relationships with family, mentors,
and other community members, as well as, avoidance of
dependency, homelessness, nonmarital childbirth, illegal
activities, substance abuse or alcohol dependence, and high-
risk behaviors) that can be used--
``(i) to assess the performance of States in operating
independent living programs, and
``(ii) to explicitly track all outcomes, particularly those
related to educational attainment, for youths who are
provided with room and board services under such State
programs;
``(B) identify data elements needed to track--
``(i) the number and characteristics of children receiving
services under this section;
``(ii) the type and quantity of services being provided;
and
``(iii) State performance on the outcome measures;
[[Page S8115]]
``(C) develop and implement a plan to collect the needed
information beginning with the 2nd fiscal year beginning
after the date of the enactment of this section; and
``(D) ensure that the data collection plan described in
subparagraph (C) will be coordinated with the development and
implementation of other data collection efforts required
under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the
Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System and the Statewide
Automated Child Welfare Information Systems.
``(2) Report to the congress.--Within 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report detailing the plans and timetable for collecting from
the States the information described in paragraph (1).
``(g) Evaluations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct evaluations
of such State programs funded under this section as the
Secretary deems to be innovative or of potential national
significance. The evaluation of any such program shall
include information on the effects of the program on
education, employment, and personal development. To the
maximum extent practicable, the evaluations shall be based on
rigorous scientific standards including random assignment to
treatment and control groups. The Secretary is encouraged to
work directly with State and local governments to design
methods for conducting the evaluations, directly or by grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement.
``(2) Funding of evaluations.--The Secretary shall reserve
1.5 percent of the amount specified in subsection (h) for a
fiscal year to carry out, during the fiscal year, evaluation,
technical assistance, performance measurement, and data
collection activities related to this section, directly or
through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with
appropriate entities.
``(h) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--To
carry out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $140,000,000 for each fiscal
year.''.
(c) Payments to States.--Section 474(a)(4) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 674(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) the lesser of--
``(A) 80 percent of the amount (if any) by which--
``(i) the total amount expended by the State during the
fiscal year in which the quarter occurs to carry out programs
in accordance with the State application approved under
section 477(b) for the period in which the quarter occurs
(including any amendment that meets the requirements of
section 477(b)(5)); exceeds
``(ii) the total amount of any penalties assessed against
the State under section 477(e) during the fiscal year in
which the quarter occurs; or
``(B) the amount allotted to the State under section 477
for the fiscal year in which the quarter occurs, reduced by
the total of the amounts payable to the State under this
paragraph for all prior quarters in the fiscal year.''.
(d) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall issue such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section.
Subtitle B--Related Foster Care Provision
SEC. 111. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF ASSETS ALLOWABLE FOR CHILDREN
IN FOSTER CARE.
Section 472(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
672(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In
determining whether a child would have received aid under a
State plan approved under section 402 (as in effect on July
16, 1996), a child whose resources (determined pursuant to
section 402(a)(7)(B), as so in effect) have a combined value
of not more than $10,000 shall be considered to be a child
whose resources have a combined value of not more than $1,000
(or such lower amount as the State may determine for purposes
of such section 402(a)(7)(B)).''.
Subtitle C--Medicaid Amendments
SEC. 121. STATE OPTION OF MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR ADOLESCENTS
LEAVING FOSTER CARE.
(a) In General.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act is
amended--
(1) in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii))--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (XIII);
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (XIV); and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(XV) who are independent foster care adolescents (as
defined in (section 1905(v)(1));''; and
(2) in section 1905 (42 U.S.C. 1396d), by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(v)(1) For purposes of this title, the term `independent
foster care adolescent' means an individual--
``(A) who is under 21 years of age;
``(B)(i) who, on the individual's 18th birthday, was in
foster care under the responsibility of a State, (ii) who is
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section
477(a)(2) (regardless of whether or not the State has
exercised the option described in such subparagraph (B) or
(C)), or (iii) who was adopted after the individual's 16th
birthday and before the individual's 18th birthday and with
respect to whose adoption there was in effect an adoption
assistance agreement described in section 473; and
``(C) who meets the income and resource standards (if any)
established by the State consistent with paragraph (2).
The State may waive the application of any resource or income
standard otherwise applicable under subparagraph (C) for
reasonable classifications of adolescents.
``(2) The income and resource standards (if any)
established by a State under paragraph (1)(C) may not be less
than the corresponding income and resource standards applied
by the State under section 1931(b) and the income and
resource methodologies (if any) used in applying such
paragraph may not be more restrictive than the methodologies
referred to in paragraph (2)(C) of such section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1903(f)(4) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396b(f)(4)) is amended by inserting
``1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XV),'' after 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)((X),''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to medical assistance for items and services
furnished on or after October 1, 1999, without regard to
whether or not final regulations to carry out such amendments
have been promulgated by such date.
Subtitle D--Welfare-To-Work Amendments
SEC. 131. CHILDREN AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE ELIGIBLE FOR
SERVICES.
(a) Recipients With Characteristics of Long-Term
Dependency; Children Aging Out of Foster Care.--Clause (iii)
of section 403(a)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(5)(C)(iii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (II), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after subclause (II) the following new
subclause:
``(III) to children--
``(aa) who have attained 18 years of age but not 25 years
of age; and
``(bb) who, on the day before attaining 18 years of age
were recipients of foster care maintenance payments (as
defined in section 475(4)) under part E or were in foster
care under the responsibility of a State.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(5)(C)(iii) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(iii)) is amended
by inserting ``hard to employ'' before ``individuals'' in the
heading.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
TITLE II--SSI FRAUD PREVENTION
Subtitle A--Fraud Prevention and Related Provisions
SEC. 201. LIABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES FOR OVERPAYMENTS
TO DECEASED RECIPIENTS.
(a) Amendment to Title II.--Section 204(a)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404(a)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``If any payment of more
than the correct amount is made to a representative payee on
behalf of an individual after the individual's death, the
representative payee shall be liable for the repayment of the
overpayment, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall
establish an overpayment control record under the social
security account number of the representative payee.''.
(b) Amendment to Title XVI.--Section 1631(b)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``If any payment of more than the
correct amount is made to a representative payee on behalf of
an individual after the individual's death, the
representative payee shall be liable for the repayment of the
overpayment, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall
establish an overpayment control record under the social
security account number of the representative payee.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to overpayments made 12 months or more after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 202. RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF SSI BENEFITS FROM LUMP
SUM SSI BENEFIT PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1631(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``monthly'' before ``benefit payments'';
and
(2) by inserting ``and in the case of an individual or
eligible spouse to whom a lump sum is payable under this
title (including under section 1616(a) of this Act or under
an agreement entered into under section 212(a) of Public Law
93-66) shall, as at least one means of recovering such
overpayment, make the adjustment or recovery from the lump
sum payment in an amount equal to not less than the lesser of
the amount of the overpayment or 50 percent of the lump sum
payment,'' before ``unless fraud''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 12 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act and shall apply to amounts incorrectly paid which
remain outstanding on or after such date.
SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--Section 1631(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1383(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively; and
[[Page S8116]]
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4)(A) With respect to any delinquent amount, the
Commissioner of Social Security may use the collection
practices described in sections 3711(f), 3716, 3717, and 3718
of title 31, United States Code, and in section 5514 of title
5, United States Code, all as in effect immediately after the
enactment of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
`delinquent amount' means an amount--
``(i) in excess of the correct amount of payment under this
title;
``(ii) paid to a person after such person has attained 18
years of age; and
``(iii) determined by the Commissioner of Social Security,
under regulations, to be otherwise unrecoverable under this
section after such person ceases to be a beneficiary under
this title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3701(d)(2) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 204(f)''
and inserting ``sections 204(f) and 1631(b)(4)''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Section 204(f) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``3711(e)'' and inserting ``3711(f)''; and
(2) by inserting ``all'' before ``as in effect''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to debt outstanding on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE STATE PRISONER INFORMATION
TO FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED BENEFIT
PROGRAMS.
Section 1611(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(I)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``is
authorized to'' and inserting ``shall''.
SEC. 205. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION OF OVERPAYMENTS FROM
INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF CRIMES.
(a) Waivers Inapplicable to Overpayments by Reason of
Payment in Months in Which Beneficiary Is a Prisoner or a
Fugitive.--
(1) Amendment to title ii.--Section 204(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 404(b)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any
payment to any person made during a month in which such
benefit was not payable under section 202(x).''.
(2) Amendment to title xvi.--Section 1631(b)(1)(B)(i) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(b)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by inserting
``unless (I) section 1611(e)(1) prohibits payment to the
person of a benefit under this title for the month by reason
of confinement of a type described in clause (i) or (ii) of
section 202(x)(1)(A), or (II) section 1611(e)(5) prohibits
payment to the person of a benefit under this title for the
month,'' after ``administration of this title''.
(b) 10-Year Period of Ineligibility for Persons Failing To
Notify Commissioner of Overpayments in Months in Which
Beneficiary Is a Prisoner or a Fugitive or Failing To Comply
With Repayment Schedule for Such Overpayments.--
(1) Amendment to title ii.--Section 202(x) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 402(x)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4)(A) No person shall be considered entitled to monthly
insurance benefits under this section based on the person's
disability or to disability insurance benefits under section
223 otherwise payable during the 10-year period that begins
on the date the person--
``(i) knowingly fails to timely notify the Commissioner of
Social Security, in connection with any application for
benefits under this title, of any prior receipt by such
person of any benefit under this title or title XVI in any
month in which such benefit was not payable under the
preceding provisions of this subsection, or
``(ii) knowingly fails to comply with any schedule imposed
by the Commissioner which is for repayment of overpayments
comprised of payments described in subparagraph (A) and which
is in compliance with section 204.
``(B) The Commissioner of Social Security shall, in
addition to any other relevant factors, take into account any
mental or linguistic limitations of a person (including any
lack of facility with the English language) in determining
whether the person has knowingly failed to comply with a
requirement of clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A).''.
(2) Amendment to title xvi.--Section 1611(e)(1) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(J)(i) A person shall not be considered an eligible
individual or eligible spouse for purposes of benefits under
this title by reason of disability, during the 10-year period
that begins on the date the person--
``(I) knowingly fails to timely notify the Commissioner of
Social Security, in an application for benefits under this
title, of any prior receipt by the person of a benefit under
this title or title II in a month in which payment to the
person of a benefit under this title was prohibited by--
``(aa) the preceding provisions of this paragraph by reason
of confinement of a type described in clause (i) or (ii) of
section 202(x)(1)(A); or
``(bb) section 1611(e)(4); or
``(II) knowingly fails to comply with any schedule imposed
by the Commissioner which is for repayment of overpayments
comprised of payments described in clause (i) of this
subparagraph and which is in compliance with section 1631(b).
``(ii) The Commissioner of Social Security shall, in
addition to any other relevant factors, take into account any
mental or linguistic limitations of a person (including any
lack of facility with the English language) in determining
whether the person has knowingly failed to comply with a
requirement of subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i).''.
(c) Continued Collection Efforts Against Prisoners.--
(1) Amendment to title ii.--Section 204(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 404(b)), as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this
section, is amended further by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) The Commissioner shall not refrain from recovering
overpayments from resources currently available to any
overpaid person or to such person's estate solely because
such individual is confined as described in clause (i) or
(ii) of section 202(x)(1)(A).''.
(2) Amendment to title xvi.--Section 1631(b)(1)(A) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(b)(1)(A)) is amended by adding after and
below clause (ii) the following flush left sentence:
``The Commissioner shall not refrain from recovering
overpayments from resources currently available to any
individual solely because the individual is confined as
described in clause (i) or (ii) of section 202(x)(1)(A).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to overpayments made in, and to benefits payable
for, months beginning 24 months or more after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 206. TREATMENT OF ASSETS HELD IN TRUST UNDER THE SSI
PROGRAM.
(a) Treatment as Resource.--Section 1613 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382b) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``Trusts
``(e)(1) In determining the resources of an individual,
paragraph (3) shall apply to a trust (other than a trust
described in paragraph (5)) established by the individual.
``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, an individual
shall be considered to have established a trust if any assets
of the individual (or of the individual's spouse) are
transferred to the trust other than by will.
``(B) In the case of an irrevocable trust to which are
transferred the assets of an individual (or of the
individual's spouse) and the assets of any other person, this
subsection shall apply to the portion of the trust
attributable to the assets of the individual (or of the
individual's spouse).
``(C) This subsection shall apply to a trust without regard
to--
``(i) the purposes for which the trust is established;
``(ii) whether the trustees have or exercise any discretion
under the trust;
``(iii) any restrictions on when or whether distributions
may be made from the trust; or
``(iv) any restrictions on the use of distributions from
the trust.
``(3)(A) In the case of a revocable trust established by an
individual, the corpus of the trust shall be considered a
resource available to the individual.
``(B) In the case of an irrevocable trust established by an
individual, if there are any circumstances under which
payment from the trust could be made to or for the benefit of
the individual or the individual's spouse, the portion of the
corpus from which payment to or for the benefit of the
individual or the individual's spouse could be made shall be
considered a resource available to the individual.
``(4) The Commissioner of Social Security may waive the
application of this subsection with respect to an individual
if the Commissioner determines that such application would
work an undue hardship (as determined on the basis of
criteria established by the Commissioner) on the individual.
``(5) This subsection shall not apply to a trust described
in subparagraph (A) or (C) of section 1917(d)(4).
``(6) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `trust' includes any legal instrument or
device that is similar to a trust;
``(B) the term `corpus' means, with respect to a trust, all
property and other interests held by the trust, including
accumulated earnings and any other addition to the trust
after its establishment (except that such term does not
include any such earnings or addition in the month in which
the earnings or addition is credited or otherwise transferred
to the trust); and
``(C) the term `asset' includes any income or resource of
the individual or of the individual's spouse, including--
``(i) any income excluded by section 1612(b);
``(ii) any resource otherwise excluded by this section; and
``(iii) any other payment or property to which the
individual or the individual's spouse is entitled but does
not receive or have access to because of action by--
``(I) the individual or spouse;
``(II) a person or entity (including a court) with legal
authority to act in place of, or on behalf of, the individual
or spouse; or
``(III) a person or entity (including a court) acting at
the direction of, or on the request of, the individual or
spouse.''.
(b) Treatment as Income.--Section 1612(a)(2) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382a(a)(2)) is amended--
[[Page S8117]]
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) any earnings of, and additions to, the corpus of a
trust established by an individual (within the meaning of
section 1613(e)), of which the individual is a beneficiary,
to which section 1613(e) applies, and, in the case of an
irrevocable trust, with respect to which circumstances exist
under which a payment from the earnings or additions could be
made to or for the benefit of the individual.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (F); and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) that, in applying eligibility criteria of the
supplemental security income program under title XVI for
purposes of determining eligibility for medical assistance
under the State plan of an individual who is not receiving
supplemental security income, the State will disregard the
provisions of section 1613(e);''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2000, and shall apply to
trusts established on or after such date.
SEC. 207. DISPOSAL OF RESOURCES FOR LESS THAN FAIR MARKET
VALUE UNDER THE SSI PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1613(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1382b(c)) is amended--
(1) in the caption, by striking ``Notification of Medicaid
Policy Restricting Eligibility of Institutionalized
Individuals for Benefits Based on'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``paragraph (1) and'' after ``provisions
of'';
(ii) by striking ``title XIX'' the first place it appears
and inserting ``this title and title XIX, respectively,'';
(iii) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting
``clause (ii)'';
(iv) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (B)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``by the State agency''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 1917(c)'' and all that follows
and inserting ``paragraph (1) or section 1917(c).''; and
(C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
(B) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (A)(ii)'';
(4) by striking ``(c)(1)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
(5) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated
by paragraph (4) of this subsection) the following new
subsection:
``(c)(1)(A)(i) If an individual or the spouse of an
individual disposes of resources for less than fair market
value on or after the look-back date described in clause
(ii)(I), the individual is ineligible for benefits under this
title for months during the period beginning on the date
described in clause (iii) and equal to the number of months
calculated as provided in clause (iv).
``(ii)(I) The look-back date described in this subclause is
a date that is 36 months before the date described in
subclause (II).
``(II) The date described in this subclause is the date on
which the individual applies for benefits under this title
or, if later, the date on which the individual (or the spouse
of the individual) disposes of resources for less than fair
market value.
``(iii) The date described in this clause is the first day
of the first month in or after which resources were disposed
of for less than fair market value and which does not occur
in any other period of ineligibility under this paragraph.
``(iv) The number of months calculated under this clause
shall be equal to--
``(I) the total, cumulative uncompensated value of all
resources so disposed of by the individual (or the spouse of
the individual) on or after the look-back date described in
clause (ii)(I); divided by
``(II) the amount of the maximum monthly benefit payable
under section 1611(b), plus the amount (if any) of the
maximum State supplementary payment corresponding to the
State's payment level applicable to the individual's living
arrangement and eligibility category that would otherwise be
payable to the individual by the Commissioner pursuant to an
agreement under section 1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b)
of Public Law 93-66, for the month in which occurs the date
described in clause (ii)(II),
rounded, in the case of any fraction, to the nearest whole
number, but shall not in any case exceed 36 months.
``(B)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), this subsection
shall not apply to a transfer of a resource to a trust if the
portion of the trust attributable to the resource is
considered a resource available to the individual pursuant to
subsection (e)(3) (or would be so considered but for the
application of subsection (e)(4)).
``(ii) In the case of a trust established by an individual
or an individual's spouse (within the meaning of subsection
(e)), if from such portion of the trust, if any, that is
considered a resource available to the individual pursuant to
subsection (e)(3) (or would be so considered but for the
application of subsection (e)(4)) or the residue of the
portion on the termination of the trust--
``(I) there is made a payment other than to or for the
benefit of the individual; or
``(II) no payment could under any circumstance be made to
the individual,
then, for purposes of this subsection, the payment described
in clause (I) or the foreclosure of payment described in
clause (II) shall be considered a transfer of resources by
the individual or the individual's spouse as of the date of
the payment or foreclosure, as the case may be.
``(C) An individual shall not be ineligible for benefits
under this title by reason of the application of this
paragraph to a disposal of resources by the individual or the
spouse of the individual, to the extent that--
``(i) the resources are a home and title to the home was
transferred to--
``(I) the spouse of the transferor;
``(II) a child of the transferor who has not attained 21
years of age, or is blind or disabled;
``(III) a sibling of the transferor who has an equity
interest in such home and who was residing in the
transferor's home for a period of at least 1 year immediately
before the date the transferor becomes an institutionalized
individual; or
``(IV) a son or daughter of the transferor (other than a
child described in subclause (II)) who was residing in the
transferor's home for a period of at least 2 years
immediately before the date the transferor becomes an
institutionalized individual, and who provided care to the
transferor which permitted the transferor to reside at home
rather than in such an institution or facility;
``(ii) the resources--
``(I) were transferred to the transferor's spouse or to
another for the sole benefit of the transferor's spouse;
``(II) were transferred from the transferor's spouse to
another for the sole benefit of the transferor's spouse;
``(III) were transferred to, or to a trust (including a
trust described in section 1917(d)(4)) established solely for
the benefit of, the transferor's child who is blind or
disabled; or
``(IV) were transferred to a trust (including a trust
described in section 1917(d)(4)) established solely for the
benefit of an individual who has not attained 65 years of age
and who is disabled;
``(iii) a satisfactory showing is made to the Commissioner
of Social Security (in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Commissioner) that--
``(I) the individual who disposed of the resources intended
to dispose of the resources either at fair market value, or
for other valuable consideration;
``(II) the resources were transferred exclusively for a
purpose other than to qualify for benefits under this title;
or
``(III) all resources transferred for less than fair market
value have been returned to the transferor; or
``(iv) the Commissioner determines, under procedures
established by the Commissioner, that the denial of
eligibility would work an undue hardship as determined on the
basis of criteria established by the Commissioner.
``(D) For purposes of this subsection, in the case of a
resource held by an individual in common with another person
or persons in a joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or similar
arrangement, the resource (or the affected portion of such
resource) shall be considered to be disposed of by the
individual when any action is taken, either by the individual
or by any other person, that reduces or eliminates the
individual's ownership or control of such resource.
``(E) In the case of a transfer by the spouse of an
individual that results in a period of ineligibility for the
individual under this subsection, the Commissioner shall
apportion the period (or any portion of the period) among the
individual and the individual's spouse if the spouse becomes
eligible for benefits under this title.
``(F) For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `benefits under this title' includes
payments of the type described in section 1616(a) of this Act
and of the type described in section 212(b) of Public Law 93-
66;
``(ii) the term `institutionalized individual' has the
meaning given such term in section 1917(e)(3); and
``(iii) the term `trust' has the meaning given such term in
subsection (e)(6)(A) of this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)), as amended by
section 206(c) of this Act, is amended by striking ``section
1613(e)'' and inserting ``subsections (c) and (e) of section
1613''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to disposals made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 208. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR
FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 1129 the following new section:
[[Page S8118]]
``SEC. 1129A. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES
FOR FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--Any person who makes, or causes to be
made, a statement or representation of a material fact for
use in determining any initial or continuing right to or the
amount of--
``(1) monthly insurance benefits under title II; or
``(2) benefits or payments under title XVI,
that the person knows or should know is false or misleading
or knows or should know omits a material fact or makes such a
statement with knowing disregard for the truth shall be
subject to, in addition to any other penalties that may be
prescribed by law, a penalty described in subsection (b) to
be imposed by the Commissioner of Social Security.
``(b) Penalty.--The penalty described in this subsection
is--
``(1) nonpayment of benefits under title II that would
otherwise be payable to the person; and
``(2) ineligibility for cash benefits under title XVI,
for each month that begins during the applicable period
described in subsection (c).
``(c) Duration of Penalty.--The duration of the applicable
period, with respect to a determination by the Commissioner
under subsection (a) that a person has engaged in conduct
described in subsection (a), shall be--
``(1) 6 consecutive months, in the case of a first such
determination with respect to the person;
``(2) 12 consecutive months, in the case of a second such
determination with respect to the person; and
``(3) 24 consecutive months, in the case of a third or
subsequent such determination with respect to the person.
``(d) Effect on Other Assistance.--A person subject to a
period of nonpayment of benefits under title II or
ineligibility for title XVI benefits by reason of this
section nevertheless shall be considered to be eligible for
and receiving such benefits, to the extent that the person
would be receiving or eligible for such benefits but for the
imposition of the penalty, for purposes of--
``(1) determination of the eligibility of the person for
benefits under titles XVIII and XIX; and
``(2) determination of the eligibility or amount of
benefits payable under title II or XVI to another person.
``(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `benefits
under title XVI' includes State supplementary payments made
by the Commissioner pursuant to an agreement under section
1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66.
``(f) Consultations.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall consult with the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration regarding initiating actions under
this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment Precluding Delayed Retirement
Credit for any Month to Which a Nonpayment of Benefits
Penalty Applies.--Section 202(w)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
402(w)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``, and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) such individual was not subject to a penalty
imposed under section 1129A.''.
(c) Elimination of Redundant Provision.--Section 1611(e) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (4);
(2) in paragraph (6)(A)(i), by striking ``(5)'' and
inserting ``(4)''; and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively.
(d) Regulations.--Within 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security
shall develop regulations that prescribe the administrative
process for making determinations under section 1129A of the
Social Security Act (including when the applicable period in
subsection (c) of such section shall commence), and shall
provide guidance on the exercise of discretion as to whether
the penalty should be imposed in particular cases.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to statements and representations made on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 209. EXCLUSION OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS FROM
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301-1320b-17) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``exclusion of representatives and health care providers convicted of
violations from participation in social security programs
``Sec. 1148. (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Social
Security shall exclude from participation in the social
security programs any representative or health care
provider--
``(1) who is convicted of a violation of section 208 or
1632 of this Act,
``(2) who is convicted of any violation under title 18,
United States Code, relating to an initial application for or
continuing entitlement to, or amount of, benefits under title
II of this Act, or an initial application for or continuing
eligibility for, or amount of, benefits under title XVI of
this Act, or
``(3) who the Commissioner determines has committed an
offense described in section 1129(a)(1) of this Act.
``(b) Notice, Effective Date, and Period of Exclusion.--(1)
An exclusion under this section shall be effective at such
time, for such period, and upon such reasonable notice to the
public and to the individual excluded as may be specified in
regulations consistent with paragraph (2).
``(2) Such an exclusion shall be effective with respect to
services furnished to any individual on or after the
effective date of the exclusion. Nothing in this section may
be construed to preclude, in determining disability under
title II or title XVI, consideration of any medical evidence
derived from services provided by a health care provider
before the effective date of the exclusion of the health care
provider under this section.
``(3)(A) The Commissioner shall specify, in the notice of
exclusion under paragraph (1), the period of the exclusion.
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), in the case of an
exclusion under subsection (a), the minimum period of
exclusion shall be five years, except that the Commissioner
may waive the exclusion in the case of an individual who is
the sole source of essential services in a community. The
Commissioner's decision whether to waive the exclusion shall
not be reviewable.
``(C) In the case of an exclusion of an individual under
subsection (a) based on a conviction or a determination
described in subsection (a)(3) occurring on or after the date
of the enactment of this section, if the individual has
(before, on, or after such date of enactment) been convicted,
or if such a determination has been made with respect to the
individual--
``(i) on one previous occasion of one or more offenses for
which an exclusion may be effected under such subsection, the
period of the exclusion shall be not less than 10 years, or
``(ii) on 2 or more previous occasions of one or more
offenses for which an exclusion may be effected under such
subsection, the period of the exclusion shall be permanent.
``(c) Notice to State Agencies.--The Commissioner shall
promptly notify each appropriate State agency employed for
the purpose of making disability determinations under section
221 or 1633(a)--
``(1) of the fact and circumstances of each exclusion
effected against an individual under this section, and
``(2) of the period (described in subsection (b)(3)) for
which the State agency is directed to exclude the individual
from participation in the activities of the State agency in
the course of its employment.
``(d) Notice to State Licensing Agencies.--The Commissioner
shall--
``(1) promptly notify the appropriate State or local agency
or authority having responsibility for the licensing or
certification of an individual excluded from participation
under this section of the fact and circumstances of the
exclusion,
``(2) request that appropriate investigations be made and
sanctions invoked in accordance with applicable State law and
policy, and
``(3) request that the State or local agency or authority
keep the Commissioner and the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration fully and currently informed with
respect to any actions taken in response to the request.
``(e) Notice, Hearing, and Judicial Review.--(1) Any
individual who is excluded (or directed to be excluded) from
participation under this section is entitled to reasonable
notice and opportunity for a hearing thereon by the
Commissioner to the same extent as is provided in section
205(b), and to judicial review of the Commissioner's final
decision after such hearing as is provided in section 205(g).
``(2) The provisions of section 205(h) shall apply with
respect to this section to the same extent as it is
applicable with respect to title II.
``(f) Application for Termination of Exclusion.--(1) An
individual excluded from participation under this section may
apply to the Commissioner, in the manner specified by the
Commissioner in regulations and at the end of the minimum
period of exclusion provided under subsection (b)(3) and at
such other times as the Commissioner may provide, for
termination of the exclusion effected under this section.
``(2) The Commissioner may terminate the exclusion if the
Commissioner determines, on the basis of the conduct of the
applicant which occurred after the date of the notice of
exclusion or which was unknown to the Commissioner at the
time of the exclusion, that--
``(A) there is no basis under subsection (a) for a
continuation of the exclusion, and
``(B) there are reasonable assurances that the types of
actions which formed the basis for the original exclusion
have not recurred and will not recur.
``(3) The Commissioner shall promptly notify each State
agency employed for the purpose of making disability
determinations under section 221 or 1633(a) of the fact and
circumstances of each termination of exclusion made under
this subsection.
``(g) Availability of Records of Excluded Representatives
and Health Care Providers.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to have the effect of limiting access by any
applicant or beneficiary under title II or XVI, any State
agency acting
[[Page S8119]]
under section 221 or 1633(a), or the Commissioner to records
maintained by any representative or health care provider in
connection with services provided to the applicant or
beneficiary prior to the exclusion of such representative or
health care provider under this section.
``(h) Reporting Requirement.--Any representative or health
care provider participating in, or seeking to participate in,
a social security program shall inform the Commissioner, in
such form and manner as the Commissioner shall prescribe by
regulation, whether such representative or health care
provider has been convicted of a violation described in
subsection (a).
``(i) Delegation of Authority.--The Commissioner may
delegate authority granted by this section to the Inspector
General.
``(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Exclude.--The term `exclude' from participation
means--
``(A) in connection with a representative, to prohibit from
engaging in representation of an applicant for, or recipient
of, benefits, as a representative payee under section 205(j)
or 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii), or otherwise as a representative, in
any hearing or other proceeding relating to entitlement to
benefits, and
``(B) in connection with a health care provider, to
prohibit from providing items or services to an applicant
for, or recipient of, benefits for the purpose of assisting
such applicant or recipient in demonstrating disability.
``(2) Social security program.--The term `social security
programs' means the program providing for monthly insurance
benefits under title II, and the program providing for
monthly supplemental security income benefits to individuals
under title XVI (including State supplementary payments made
by the Commissioner pursuant to an agreement under section
1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66).
``(3) Convicted.--An individual is considered to have been
`convicted' of a violation--
``(A) when a judgment of conviction has been entered
against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court,
except if the judgment of conviction has been set aside or
expunged;
``(B) when there has been a finding of guilt against the
individual by a Federal, State, or local court;
``(C) when a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the
individual has been accepted by a Federal, State, or local
court; or
``(D) when the individual has entered into participation in
a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement
or program where judgment of conviction has been withheld.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to convictions of violations
described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1148(a) of the
Social Security Act and determinations described in paragraph
(3) of such section occurring on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 210. STATE DATA EXCHANGES.
Whenever the Commissioner of Social Security requests
information from a State for the purpose of ascertaining an
individual's eligibility for benefits (or the correct amount
of such benefits) under title II or XVI of the Social
Security Act, the standards of the Commissioner promulgated
pursuant to section 1106 of such Act or any other Federal law
for the use, safeguarding, and disclosure of information are
deemed to meet any standards of the State that would
otherwise apply to the disclosure of information by the State
to the Commissioner.
SEC. 211. STUDY ON POSSIBLE MEASURES TO IMPROVE FRAUD
PREVENTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING.
(a) Study.--As soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security,
in consultation with the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration and the Attorney General, shall
conduct a study of possible measures to improve--
(1) prevention of fraud on the part of individuals entitled
to disability benefits under section 223 of the Social
Security Act or benefits under section 202 of such Act based
on the beneficiary's disability, individuals eligible for
supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of such
Act, and applicants for any such benefits; and
(2) timely processing of reported income changes by
individuals receiving such benefits.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a written report
that contains the results of the Commissioner's study under
subsection (a). The report shall contain such recommendations
for legislative and administrative changes as the
Commissioner considers appropriate.
SEC. 212. ANNUAL REPORT ON AMOUNTS NECESSARY TO COMBAT FRAUD.
(a) In General.--Section 704(b)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(b)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) The Commissioner shall include in the annual budget
prepared pursuant to subparagraph (A) an itemization of the
amount of funds required by the Social Security
Administration for the fiscal year covered by the budget to
support efforts to combat fraud committed by applicants and
beneficiaries.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to annual budgets prepared for
fiscal years after fiscal year 1999.
SEC. 213. COMPUTER MATCHES WITH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
INSTITUTIONALIZATION DATA.
(a) In General.--Section 1611(e)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)), as amended by section 205(b)(2)
of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(K) For the purpose of carrying out this paragraph, the
Commissioner of Social Security shall conduct periodic
computer matches with data maintained by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services under title XVIII or XIX. The
Secretary shall furnish to the Commissioner, in such form and
manner and under such terms as the Commissioner and the
Secretary shall mutually agree, such information as the
Commissioner may request for this purpose. Information
obtained pursuant to such a match may be substituted for the
physician's certification otherwise required under
subparagraph (G)(i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1611(e)(1)(G) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(G)) is amended by striking
``subparagraph (H)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (H) or
(K)''.
SEC. 214. ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.
Section 1631(e)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1383(e)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(B) The'' and inserting ``(B)(i) The'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii)(I) The Commissioner of Social Security may require
each applicant for, or recipient of, benefits under this
title to provide authorization by the applicant or recipient
(or by any other person whose income or resources are
material to the determination of the eligibility of the
applicant or recipient for such benefits) for the
Commissioner to obtain (subject to the cost reimbursement
requirements of section 1115(a) of the Right to Financial
Privacy Act) from any financial institution (within the
meaning of section 1101(1) of such Act) any financial record
(within the meaning of section 1101(2) of such Act) held by
the institution with respect to the applicant or recipient
(or any such other person) whenever the Commissioner
determines the record is needed in connection with a
determination with respect to such eligibility or the amount
of such benefits.
``(II) Notwithstanding section 1104(a)(1) of the Right to
Financial Privacy Act, an authorization provided by an
applicant or recipient (or any other person whose income or
resources are material to the determination of the
eligibility of the applicant or recipient) pursuant to
subclause (I) of this clause shall remain effective until the
earliest of--
``(aa) the rendering of a final adverse decision on the
applicant's application for eligibility for benefits under
this title;
``(bb) the cessation of the recipient's eligibility for
benefits under this title; or
``(cc) the express revocation by the applicant or recipient
(or such other person referred to in subclause (I)) of the
authorization, in a written notification to the Commissioner.
``(III)(aa) An authorization obtained by the Commissioner
of Social Security pursuant to this clause shall be
considered to meet the requirements of the Right to Financial
Privacy Act for purposes of section 1103(a) of such Act, and
need not be furnished to the financial institution,
notwithstanding section 1104(a) of such Act.
``(bb) The certification requirements of section 1103(b) of
the Right to Financial Privacy Act shall not apply to
requests by the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to
an authorization provided under this clause.
``(cc) A request by the Commissioner pursuant to an
authorization provided under this clause is deemed to meet
the requirements of section 1104(a)(3) of the Right to
Financial Privacy Act and the flush language of section 1102
of such Act.
``(IV) The Commissioner shall inform any person who
provides authorization pursuant to this clause of the
duration and scope of the authorization.
``(V) If an applicant for, or recipient of, benefits under
this title (or any such other person referred to in subclause
(I)) refuses to provide, or revokes, any authorization made
by the applicant or recipient for the Commissioner of Social
Security to obtain from any financial institution any
financial record, the Commissioner may, on that basis,
determine that the applicant or recipient is ineligible for
benefits under this title.''.
Subtitle B--Benefits for Certain Veterans of World War II
SEC. 251. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM OF SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR
CERTAIN WORLD WAR II VETERANS.
(a) In General.--The Social Security Act is amended by
inserting after title VII the following:
``TITLE VIII--SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN WORLD WAR II VETERANS
``Table of Contents
``Sec. 801. Basic entitlement to benefits.
``Sec. 802. Qualified individuals.
``Sec. 803. Residence outside the United States.
[[Page S8120]]
``Sec. 804. Disqualifications.
``Sec. 805. Benefit amount.
``Sec. 806. Applications and furnishing of information.
``Sec. 807. Representative payees.
``Sec. 808. Overpayments and underpayments.
``Sec. 809. Hearings and review.
``Sec. 810. Other administrative provisions.
``Sec. 811. Penalties for fraud.
``Sec. 812. Definitions.
``Sec. 813. Appropriations.
``SEC. 801. BASIC ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS.
``Every individual who is a qualified individual under
section 802 shall, in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of this title, be entitled to a monthly benefit
paid by the Commissioner of Social Security for each month
after September 2000 (or such earlier month, if the
Commissioner determines is administratively feasible) the
individual resides outside the United States.
``SEC. 802. QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS.
``Except as otherwise provided in this title, an
individual--
``(1) who has attained the age of 65 on or before the date
of the enactment of this title;
``(2) who is a World War II veteran;
``(3) who is eligible for a supplemental security income
benefit under title XVI for--
``(A) the month in which this title is enacted; and
``(B) the month in which the individual files an
application for benefits under this title;
``(4) whose total benefit income is less than 75 percent of
the Federal benefit rate under title XVI;
``(5) who has filed an application for benefits under this
title; and
``(6) who is in compliance with all requirements imposed by
the Commissioner of Social Security under this title,
shall be a qualified individual for purposes of this title.
``SEC. 803. RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
For purposes of section 801, with respect to any month, an
individual shall be regarded as residing outside the United
States if, on the first day of the month, the individual so
resides outside the United States.
``SEC. 804. DISQUALIFICATIONS.
``Notwithstanding section 802, an individual may not be a
qualified individual for any month--
``(1) that begins after the month in which the Commissioner
of Social Security is notified by the Attorney General that
the individual has been removed from the United States
pursuant to section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act and before the month in which the Commissioner of Social
Security is notified by the Attorney General that the
individual is lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence;
``(2) during any part of which the individual is outside
the United States due to flight to avoid prosecution, or
custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of
the United States or the jurisdiction within the United
States from which the person has fled, for a crime, or an
attempt to commit a crime, that is a felony under the laws of
the place from which the individual has fled, or which, in
the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor
under the laws of such State;
``(3) during any part of which the individual violates a
condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or
State law; or
``(4) during any part of which the individual is confined
in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional
facility pursuant to a conviction of an offense.
``SEC. 805. BENEFIT AMOUNT.
``The benefit under this title payable to a qualified
individual for any month shall be in an amount equal to 75
percent of the Federal benefit rate under title XVI for the
month, reduced by the amount of the qualified individual's
benefit income for the month.
``SEC. 806. APPLICATIONS AND FURNISHING OF INFORMATION.
``(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall, subject to subsection (b), prescribe such requirements
with respect to the filing of applications, the furnishing of
information and other material, and the reporting of events
and changes in circumstances, as may be necessary for the
effective and efficient administration of this title.
``(b) Verification Requirement.--The requirements
prescribed by the Commissioner of Social Security under
subsection (a) shall preclude any determination of
entitlement to benefits under this title solely on the basis
of declarations by the individual concerning qualifications
or other material facts, and shall provide for verification
of material information from independent or collateral
sources, and the procurement of additional information as
necessary in order to ensure that the benefits are provided
only to qualified individuals (or their representative
payees) in correct amounts.
``SEC. 807. REPRESENTATIVE PAYEES.
``(a) In General.--If the Commissioner of Social Security
determines that the interest of any qualified individual
under this title would be served thereby, payment of the
qualified individual's benefit under this title may be made,
regardless of the legal competency or incompetency of the
qualified individual, either directly to the qualified
individual, or for his or her benefit, to another person (the
meaning of which term, for purposes of this section, includes
an organization) with respect to whom the requirements of
subsection (b) have been met (in this section referred to as
the qualified individual's 'representative payee'). If the
Commissioner of Social Security determines that a
representative payee has misused any benefit paid to the
representative payee pursuant to this section, section
205(j), or section 1631(a)(2), the Commissioner of Social
Security shall promptly revoke the person's designation as
the qualified individual's representative payee under this
subsection, and shall make payment to an alternative
representative payee or, if the interest of the qualified
individual under this title would be served thereby, to the
qualified individual.
``(b) Examination of Fitness of Prospective Representative
Payee.--
``(1) Any determination under subsection (a) to pay the
benefits of a qualified individual to a representative payee
shall be made on the basis of--
``(A) an investigation by the Commissioner of Social
Security of the person to serve as representative payee,
which shall be conducted in advance of the determination and
shall, to the extent practicable, include a face-to-face
interview with the person (or, in the case of an
organization, a representative of the organization); and
``(B) adequate evidence that the arrangement is in the
interest of the qualified individual.
``(2) As part of the investigation referred to in paragraph
(1), the Commissioner of Social Security shall--
``(A) require the person being investigated to submit
documented proof of the identity of the person;
``(B) in the case of a person who has a social security
account number issued for purposes of the program under title
II or an employer identification number issued for purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, verify the number;
``(C) determine whether the person has been convicted of a
violation of section 208, 811, or 1632; and
``(D) determine whether payment of benefits to the person
in the capacity as representative payee has been revoked or
terminated pursuant to this section, section 205(j), or
section 1631(a)(2)(A)(iii) by reason of misuse of funds paid
as benefits under this title, title II, or title XVI,
respectively.
``(c) Requirement for Centralized File.--The Commissioner
of Social Security shall establish and maintain a centralized
file, which shall be updated periodically and which shall be
in a form that renders it readily retrievable by each
servicing office of the Social Security Administration. The
file shall consist of--
``(1) a list of the names and social security account
numbers or employer identification numbers (if issued) of all
persons with respect to whom, in the capacity of
representative payee, the payment of benefits has been
revoked or terminated under this section, section 205(j), or
section 1631(a)(2)(A)(iii) by reason of misuse of funds paid
as benefits under this title, title II, or title XVI,
respectively; and
``(2) a list of the names and social security account
numbers or employer identification numbers (if issued) of all
persons who have been convicted of a violation of section
208, 811, or 1632.
``(d) Persons Ineligible To Serve as Representative
Payees.--
``(1) In general.--The benefits of a qualified individual
may not be paid to any other person pursuant to this section
if--
``(A) the person has been convicted of a violation of
section 208, 811, or 1632;
``(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), payment of
benefits to the person in the capacity of representative
payee has been revoked or terminated under this section,
section 205(j), or section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii) by reason of
misuse of funds paid as benefits under this title, title II,
or title XVI, respectively; or
``(C) except as provided in paragraph (2)(B), the person is
a creditor of the qualified individual and provides the
qualified individual with goods or services for
consideration.
``(2) Exemptions.--
``(A) The Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe
circumstances under which the Commissioner of Social Security
may grant an exemption from paragraph (1) to any person on a
case-by-case basis if the exemption is in the best interest
of the qualified individual whose benefits would be paid to
the person pursuant to this section.
``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply with respect to any
person who is a creditor referred to in such paragraph if the
creditor is--
``(i) a relative of the qualified individual and the
relative resides in the same household as the qualified
individual;
``(ii) a legal guardian or legal representative of the
individual;
``(iii) a facility that is licensed or certified as a care
facility under the law of the political jurisdiction in which
the qualified individual resides;
``(iv) a person who is an administrator, owner, or employee
of a facility referred to in clause (iii), if the qualified
individual resides in the facility, and the payment to the
facility or the person is made only after the Commissioner of
Social Security has made a good faith effort to locate an
alternative representative payee to whom payment would serve
the best interests of the qualified individual; or
[[Page S8121]]
``(v) a person who is determined by the Commissioner of
Social Security, on the basis of written findings and
pursuant to procedures prescribed by the Commissioner of
Social Security, to be acceptable to serve as a
representative payee.
``(C) The procedures referred to in subparagraph (B)(v)
shall require the person who will serve as representative
payee to establish, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner
of Social Security, that--
``(i) the person poses no risk to the qualified individual;
``(ii) the financial relationship of the person to the
qualified individual poses no substantial conflict of
interest; and
``(iii) no other more suitable representative payee can be
found.
``(e) Deferral of Payment Pending Appointment of
Representative Payee.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the
Commissioner of Social Security makes a determination
described in the first sentence of subsection (a) with
respect to any qualified individual's benefit and determines
that direct payment of the benefit to the qualified
individual would cause substantial harm to the qualified
individual, the Commissioner of Social Security may defer (in
the case of initial entitlement) or suspend (in the case of
existing entitlement) direct payment of the benefit to the
qualified individual, until such time as the selection of a
representative payee is made pursuant to this section.
``(2) Time limitation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
any deferral or suspension of direct payment of a benefit
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be for a period of not more
than 1 month.
``(B) Exception in the case of incompetency.--Subparagraph
(A) shall not apply in any case in which the qualified
individual is, as of the date of the Commissioner of Social
Security's determination, legally incompetent under the laws
of the jurisdiction in which the individual resides.
``(3) Payment of retroactive benefits.--Payment of any
benefits which are deferred or suspended pending the
selection of a representative payee shall be made to the
qualified individual or the representative payee as a single
sum or over such period of time as the Commissioner of Social
Security determines is in the best interest of the qualified
individual.
``(f) Hearing.--Any qualified individual who is
dissatisfied with a determination by the Commissioner of
Social Security to make payment of the qualified individual's
benefit to a representative payee under subsection (a) of
this section or with the designation of a particular person
to serve as representative payee shall be entitled to a
hearing by the Commissioner of Social Security to the same
extent as is provided in section 809(a), and to judicial
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final
decision as is provided in section 809(b).
``(g) Notice Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--In advance of the payment of a qualified
individual's benefit to a representative payee under
subsection (a), the Commissioner of Social Security shall
provide written notice of the Commissioner's initial
determination to so make the payment. The notice shall be
provided to the qualified individual, except that, if the
qualified individual is legally incompetent, then the notice
shall be provided solely to the legal guardian or legal
representative of the qualified individual.
``(2) Specific requirements.--Any notice required by
paragraph (1) shall be clearly written in language that is
easily understandable to the reader, shall identify the
person to be designated as the qualified individual's
representative payee, and shall explain to the reader the
right under subsection (f) of the qualified individual or of
the qualified individual's legal guardian or legal
representative--
``(A) to appeal a determination that a representative payee
is necessary for the qualified individual;
``(B) to appeal the designation of a particular person to
serve as the representative payee of qualified individual;
and
``(C) to review the evidence upon which the designation is
based and to submit additional evidence.
``(h) Accountability Monitoring.--
``(1) In any case where payment under this title is made to
a person other than the qualified individual entitled to the
payment, the Commissioner of Social Security shall establish
a system of accountability monitoring under which the person
shall report not less often than annually with respect to the
use of the payments. The Commissioner of Social Security
shall establish and implement statistically valid procedures
for reviewing the reports in order to identify instances in
which persons are not properly using the payments.
``(2) Special reports.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Commissioner of Social Security may require a report at any
time from any person receiving payments on behalf of a
qualified individual, if the Commissioner of Social Security
has reason to believe that the person receiving the payments
is misusing the payments.
``(3) Centralized file.--The Commissioner of Social
Security shall maintain a centralized file, which shall be
updated periodically and which shall be in a form that is
readily retrievable, of--
``(A) the name, address, and (if issued) the social
security account number or employer identification number of
each representative payee who is receiving benefit payments
pursuant to this section, section 205(j), or section
1631(a)(2); and
``(B) the name, address, and social security account number
of each individual for whom each representative payee is
reported to be providing services as representative payee
pursuant to this section, section 205(j), or section
1631(a)(2).
``(4) The Commissioner of Social Security shall maintain a
list, which shall be updated periodically, of public agencies
and community-based nonprofit social service agencies which
are qualified to serve as representative payees pursuant to
this section and which are located in the jurisdiction in
which any qualified individual resides.
``(i) Restitution.--In any case where the negligent failure
of the Commissioner of Social Security to investigate or
monitor a representative payee results in misuse of benefits
by the representative payee, the Commissioner of Social
Security shall make payment to the qualified individual or
the individual's alternative representative payee of an
amount equal to the misused benefits. The Commissioner of
Social Security shall make a good faith effort to obtain
restitution from the terminated representative payee.
``SEC. 808. OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS.
``(a) In General.--Whenever the Commissioner of Social
Security finds that more or less than the correct amount of
payment has been made to any person under this title, proper
adjustment or recovery shall be made, as follows:
``(1) With respect to payment to a person of more than the
correct amount, the Commissioner of Social Security shall
decrease any payment under this title to which the overpaid
person (if a qualified individual) is entitled, or shall
require the overpaid person or his or her estate to refund
the amount in excess of the correct amount, or, if recovery
is not obtained under these two methods, shall seek or pursue
recovery by means of reduction in tax refunds based on notice
to the Secretary of the Treasury, as authorized under section
3720A of title 31, United States Code.
``(2) With respect to payment of less than the correct
amount to a qualified individual who, at the time the
Commissioner of Social Security is prepared to take action
with respect to the underpayment--
``(A) is living, the Commissioner of Social Security shall
make payment to the qualified individual (or the qualified
individual's representative payee designated under section
807) of the balance of the amount due the underpaid qualified
individual; or
``(B) is deceased, the balance of the amount due shall
revert to the general fund of the Treasury.
``(b) Waiver of Recovery of Overpayment.--In any case in
which more than the correct amount of payment has been made,
there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by
the United States from, any person who is without fault if
the Commissioner of Social Security determines that the
adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this title
or would be against equity and good conscience.
``(c) Limited Immunity for Disbursing Officers.--A
disbursing officer may not be held liable for any amount paid
by the officer if the adjustment or recovery of the amount is
waived under subsection (b), or adjustment under subsection
(a) is not completed before the death of the qualified
individual against whose benefits deductions are authorized.
``(d) Authorized Collection Practices.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to any delinquent amount,
the Commissioner of Social Security may use the collection
practices described in sections 3711(e), 3716, and 3718 of
title 31, United States Code, as in effect on October 1,
1994.
``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
`delinquent amount' means an amount--
``(A) in excess of the correct amount of the payment under
this title; and
``(B) determined by the Commissioner of Social Security to
be otherwise unrecoverable under this section from a person
who is not a qualified individual under this title.
``SEC. 809. HEARINGS AND REVIEW.
``(a) Hearings.--
``(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security
shall make findings of fact and decisions as to the rights of
any individual applying for payment under this title. The
Commissioner of Social Security shall provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for a hearing to any individual who is
or claims to be a qualified individual and is in disagreement
with any determination under this title with respect to
entitlement to, or the amount of, benefits under this title,
if the individual requests a hearing on the matter in
disagreement within 60 days after notice of the determination
is received, and, if a hearing is held, shall, on the basis
of evidence adduced at the hearing affirm, modify, or reverse
the Commissioner of Social Security's findings of fact and
the decision. The Commissioner of Social Security may, on the
Commissioner of Social Security's own motion, hold such
hearings and to conduct such investigations and other
proceedings as the Commissioner of Social Security deems
necessary or proper for the administration of this title. In
the course of any hearing, investigation, or other
proceeding, the Commissioner may administer oaths and
affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence.
Evidence may be received at any
[[Page S8122]]
hearing before the Commissioner of Social Security even
though inadmissible under the rules of evidence applicable to
court procedure. The Commissioner of Social Security shall
specifically take into account any physical, mental,
educational, or linguistic limitation of the individual
(including any lack of facility with the English language) in
determining, with respect to the entitlement of the
individual for benefits under this title, whether the
individual acted in good faith or was at fault, and in
determining fraud, deception, or intent.
``(2) Effect of failure to timely request review.--A
failure to timely request review of an initial adverse
determination with respect to an application for any payment
under this title or an adverse determination on
reconsideration of such an initial determination shall not
serve as a basis for denial of a subsequent application for
any payment under this title if the applicant demonstrates
that the applicant failed to so request such a review acting
in good faith reliance upon incorrect, incomplete, or
misleading information, relating to the consequences of
reapplying for payments in lieu of seeking review of an
adverse determination, provided by any officer or employee of
the Social Security Administration.
``(3) Notice requirements.--In any notice of an adverse
determination with respect to which a review may be requested
under paragraph (1), the Commissioner of Social Security
shall describe in clear and specific language the effect on
possible entitlement to benefits under this title of choosing
to reapply in lieu of requesting review of the determination.
``(b) Judicial Review.--The final determination of the
Commissioner of Social Security after a hearing under
subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to judicial review as
provided in section 205(g) to the same extent as the
Commissioner of Social Security's final determinations under
section 205.
``SEC. 810. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
``(a) Regulations and Administrative Arrangements.--The
Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe such
regulations, and make such administrative and other
arrangements, as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this title.
``(b) Payment of Benefits.--Benefits under this title shall
be paid at such time or times and in such installments as the
Commissioner of Social Security determines are in the
interests of economy and efficiency.
``(c) Entitlement Redeterminations.--An individual's
entitlement to benefits under this title, and the amount of
the benefits, may be redetermined at such time or times as
the Commissioner of Social Security determines to be
appropriate.
``(d) Suspension of Benefits.--Regulations prescribed by
the Commissioner of Social Security under subsection (a) may
provide for the temporary suspension of entitlement to
benefits under this title as the Commissioner determines is
appropriate.
``SEC. 811. PENALTIES FOR FRAUD.
``(a) In General.--Whoever--
``(1) knowingly and willfully makes or causes to be made
any false statement or representation of a material fact in
an application for benefits under this title;
``(2) at any time knowingly and willfully makes or causes
to be made any false statement or representation of a
material fact for use in determining any right to the
benefits;
``(3) having knowledge of the occurrence of any event
affecting--
``(A) his or her initial or continued right to the
benefits; or
``(B) the initial or continued right to the benefits of any
other individual in whose behalf he or she has applied for or
is receiving the benefit,
conceals or fails to disclose the event with an intent
fraudulently to secure the benefit either in a greater amount
or quantity than is due or when no such benefit is
authorized; or
``(4) having made application to receive any such benefit
for the use and benefit of another and having received it,
knowingly and willfully converts the benefit or any part
thereof to a use other than for the use and benefit of the
other individual,
shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both.
``(b) Restitution by Representative Payee.--If a person or
organization violates subsection (a) in the person's or
organization's role as, or in applying to become, a
representative payee under section 807 on behalf of a
qualified individual, and the violation includes a willful
misuse of funds by the person or entity, the court may also
require that full or partial restitution of funds be made to
the qualified individual.
``SEC. 812. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) World war ii veteran.--The term `World War II
veteran' means a person who served during World War II--
``(A) in the active military, naval, or air service of the
United States during World War II, and who was discharged or
released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable
after service of 90 days or more; or
``(B) in the organized military forces of the Government of
the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while the forces were in
the service of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant
to the military order of the President dated July 26, 1941,
including among the military forces organized guerrilla
forces under commanders appointed, designated, or
subsequently recognized by the Commander in Chief, Southwest
Pacific Area, or other competent authority in the Army of the
United States, in any case in which the service was rendered
before December 31, 1946.
``(2) World war ii.--The term `World War II' means the
period beginning on September 16, 1940, and ending on July
24, 1947.
``(3) Supplemental security income benefit under title
xvi.--The term `supplemental security income benefit under
title XVI', except as otherwise provided, includes State
supplementary payments which are paid by the Commissioner of
Social Security pursuant to an agreement under section
1616(a) of this Act or section 212(b) of Public Law 93-66.
``(4) Federal benefit rate under title xvi.--The term
`Federal benefit rate under title XVI' means, with respect to
any month, the amount of the supplemental security income
cash benefit (not including any State supplementary payment
which is paid by the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant
to an agreement under section 1616(a) of this Act or section
212(b) of Public Law 93-66) payable under title XVI for the
month to an eligible individual with no income.
``(5) United states.--The term `United States' means,
notwithstanding section 1101(a)(1), only the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
``(6) Benefit income.--The term `benefit income' means any
recurring payment received by a qualified individual as an
annuity, pension, retirement, or disability benefit
(including any veterans' compensation or pension, workmen's
compensation payment, old-age, survivors, or disability
insurance benefit, railroad retirement annuity or pension,
and unemployment insurance benefit), but only if a similar
payment was received by the individual from the same (or a
related) source during the 12-month period preceding the
month in which the individual files an application for
benefits under this title.
``SEC. 813. APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2001 and
subsequent fiscal years such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Social security trust funds lae account.--Section
201(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 401(g)) is amended--
(A) in the fourth sentence of paragraph (1)(A), by
inserting after ``this title,'' the following: ``title
VIII,'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(B)(i)(I), by inserting after ``this
title,'' the following: ``title VIII,''; and
(C) in paragraph (1)(C)(i), by inserting after ``this
title,'' the following: ``title VIII,''.
(2) Representative payee provisions of title ii.--Section
205(j) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``807 or'' before
``1631(a)(2)'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I), by inserting ``, title
VIII,'' before ``or title XVI'';
(C) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(III), by inserting ``, 811,''
before ``or 1632'';
(D) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(IV)--
(i) by inserting ``, the designation of such person as a
representative payee has been revoked pursuant to section
807(a),'' before ``or payment of benefits''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, title VIII,'' before ``or title
XVI'';
(E) in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)(I)--
(i) by inserting ``whose designation as a representative
payee has been revoked pursuant to section 807(a),'' before
``or with respect to whom''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, title VIII,'' before ``or title
XVI'';
(F) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(II), by inserting ``, 811,''
before ``or 1632'';
(G) in paragraph (2)(C)(i)(II) by inserting ``, the
designation of such person as a representative payee has been
revoked pursuant to section 807(a),'' before ``or payment of
benefits'';
(H) in each of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E), by
inserting ``, section 807,'' before ``or section
1631(a)(2)'';
(I) in paragraph (3)(F), by inserting ``807 or'' before
``1631(a)(2)''; and
(J) in paragraph (4)(B)(i), by inserting ``807 or'' before
``1631(a)(2)''.
(3) Withholding for child support and alimony
obligations.--Section 459(h)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
659(h)(1)(A)) is amended--
(A) at the end of clause (iii), by striking ``and'';
(B) at the end of clause (iv), by striking ``but'' and
inserting ``and''; and
(C) by adding at the end a new clause as follows:
``(v) special benefits for certain World War II veterans
payable under title VIII; but''.
(4) Social security advisory board.--Section 703(b) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 903(b)) is amended by striking ``title II''
and inserting ``title II, the program of special benefits for
certain World War II veterans under title VIII,''.
(5) Delivery of checks.--Section 708 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
908) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``title II'' and
inserting ``title II, title VIII,''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``title II'' and
inserting ``title II, title VIII,''.
(6) Civil monetary penalties.--Section 1129 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1320a-8) is amended--
(A) in the title, by striking ``II'' and inserting ``II,
VIII'';
[[Page S8123]]
(B) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) benefits or payments under title VIII, or'';
(C) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``or title VIII,''
after ``title II'';
(D) in subsection (e)(1)(C)--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
(ii) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(iii) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) by decrease of any payment under title VIII to which
the person is entitled, or'';
(E) in subsection (e)(2)(B), by striking ``title XVI'' and
inserting ``title VIII or XVI''; and
(F) in subsection (l), by striking ``title XVI'' and
inserting ``title VIII or XVI''.
(7) Recovery of ssi overpayments.--Section 1147 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320b-17) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by inserting ``or VIII'' after ``title II'' the first
place it appears; and
(ii) by striking ``title II'' the second place it appears
and inserting ``such title''; and
(B) in the title, by striking ``social security'' and
inserting ``other''.
(8) Representative payee provisions of title xvi.--Section
1631(a)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by inserting ``or 807'' after
``205(j)(1)'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii)(I), by inserting ``, title
VIII,'' before ``or this title'';
(C) in subparagraph (B)(ii)(III), by inserting ``, 811,''
before ``or 1632'';
(D) in subparagraph (B)(ii)(IV)--
(i) by inserting ``whether the designation of such person
as a representative payee has been revoked pursuant to
section 807(a),'' before ``and whether certification''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, title VIII,'' before ``or this
title'';
(E) in subparagraph (B)(iii)(II), by inserting ``the
designation of such person as a representative payee has been
revoked pursuant to section 807(a),'' before ``or
certification''; and
(F) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II)(aa), by inserting ``or
807'' after ``205(j)(4)''.
(9) Administrative offset.--Section 3716(c)(3)(C) of title
31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``sections 205(b)(1)'' and inserting
``sections 205(b)(1), 809(a)(1),''; and
(B) by striking ``either title II'' and inserting ``title
II, VIII,''.
TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT
SEC. 301. ELIMINATION OF ENHANCED MATCHING FOR LABORATORY
COSTS FOR PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 455(a)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 655(a)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph
(C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall be effective with respect to calendar quarters
beginning on or after October 1, 1999.
SEC. 302. ELIMINATION OF HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION FOR STATE
SHARE OF DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTED CHILD
SUPPORT.
(a) In General.--Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 657) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subsections (e) and
(f)'' and inserting ``subsections (d) and (e)'';
(2) by striking subsection (d);
(3) in subsection (e), by striking the 2nd sentence; and
(4) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to calendar quarters
beginning on or after October 1, 1999.
TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
SEC. 401. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RELATING TO AMENDMENTS MADE
BY THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK
OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996.
(a) Section 402(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``Act'' and
inserting ``section''.
(b) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)(II)) is amended by striking
``part'' and inserting ``section''.
(c) Section 413(g)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
613(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``Act'' and inserting
``section''.
(d) Section 413(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
613(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``part'' and inserting
``section''.
(e) Section 416 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 616)
is amended by striking ``Opportunity Act'' and inserting
``Opportunity Reconciliation Act'' each place such term
appears.
(f) Section 431(a)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
629a(a)(6))) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, as in effect before August 22, 1986''
after ``482(i)(5)''; and
(2) by inserting ``, as so in effect'' after
``482(i)(7)(A)''.
(g) Sections 452(a)(7) and 466(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(7) and 666(c)(2)(A)(i)) are
each amended by striking ``Social Security'' and inserting
``social security''.
(h) Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``, or'' at the end of each of paragraphs
(6)(E)(i) and (19)(B)(i) and inserting ``; or'';
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end of
each of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C) and inserting a
semicolon; and
(3) by striking ``, and'' at the end of each of paragraphs
(19)(A) and (24)(A) and inserting ``; and''.
(i) Section 454(24)(B) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 654(24)(B)) is amended by striking ``Opportunity Act''
and inserting ``Opportunity Reconciliation Act''.
(j) Section 344(b)(1)(A) of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 2236)
is amended to read as follows:
``(A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following new subparagraph:
`(B) equal to the percent specified in paragraph (3) of the
sums expended during such quarter that are attributable to
the planning, design, development, installation or
enhancement of an automatic data processing and information
retrieval system (including in such sums the full cost of the
hardware components of such system); and'; and''.
(k) Section 457(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 657(a)(2)(B)(i)(I)) is amended by striking ``Act
Reconciliation'' and inserting ``Reconciliation Act''.
(l) Section 457 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657)
is amended by striking ``Opportunity Act'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Opportunity Reconciliation Act''.
(m) Section 466(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
666(a)(7)) is amended by striking ``1681a(f))'' and inserting
``1681a(f)))''.
(n) Section 466(b)(6)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 666(b)(6)(A)) is amended by striking ``state'' and
inserting ``State''.
(o) Section 471(a)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``(including activities
under part F)''.
(p) Section 1137(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320b-7(a)(3)) is amended by striking
``453A(a)(2)(B)(iii))'' and inserting
``453A(a)(2)(B)(ii)))''.
(q) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996.
____
Foster Care Independence Act of 1999--Fact Sheet
Federal Independent Living Programs (ILP) are designed to
assist some of our Nation's most vulnerable children as they
make the transition from foster children to independent
adults. Under current law, teens are ``out of the system''
and completely on their own immediately when they turn 18.
Many teens need help to make a successful transition to self-
sufficiency, especially teens who have spent years in foster
care. Programs must be designed to be consistent with the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, namely that safety
and health of the child are paramount. Studies of adolescents
who leave foster care have found that these children have a
significantly higher than normal rate of school drop out,
out-of-wedlock childbearing, homelessness, health and mental
health problems, and poverty.
The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 is designed to
help teens aging out of foster care make a more successful
transition to adulthood. It addresses safety by allowing for
ILP funds to be used to ensure that the basic needs of
housing and food can be provided to these youth. It addresses
health by ensuring that teens who are aging out of or adopted
out of foster care to continue to receive crucial health, and
mental health, care benefits to the age of 21. Key provisions
of the Act include:
Strong Medicaid coverage: Requires states that receiving
new ILP monies continue to provide health care, including
coverage for mental health needs to foster, or adopted (whose
adoptive placements began on or after their 16th birthdays),
children up to their 21st birthday.
Funding for Independent Living services: Doubles the
funding--up to $140 million--for Independent Living services
to enable states to cover teens from 18 to 21, with support
services and housing assistance, with language to promote
continuing education and/or job training. The bill also
insures that ILP are supervised and includes a broad array of
services based on young people's developmental and self-
sufficiency needs.
Avoids disincentives for adoption of teens: Consistent with
the priorities established in the Adoption and Safe Families
Act, this bill promotes permanence by allowing teens adopted
after 16 to retain eligibility for Independent Living
programs, including vital access to health coverage from ages
18-21. This clarifies that Independent Living programs are
not a substitute for permanency for foster care teens, rather
support services to ease the transition for teens who have
faced challenges. This provision allows Independent Living
Program services to be concurrent with continued reasonable
efforts to locate and achieve placement in adoptive families
or other planned permanent settings as required under ASFA.
Quality data, evaluation and outcome measures: Insures that
quality data is collected and evaluated, to enhance programs
are effective, and seeks to coordinate with the data
collection efforts required under the Adoption and Safe
Families Act.
Updated funding formula: Funding formula provides that
every state can quality for new
[[Page S8124]]
Independent Living incentives to serve teens aging out of
foster care from 18 to 21.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Chafee
and a bipartisan group in the introduction of the Foster Care
Independence Act of 1999. I would like to thank Senator Chafee for his
leadership on behalf of vulnerable young people, including our
bipartisan work on this legislation. I also wish to thank the other co-
sponsors of this legislation--Senators Reed, Bond, Landrieu, Moynihan,
Breaux, Kerrey, Mikulski, and Jeffords. Work on this legislation is
based on the foundation created by the bipartisan 1997 Adoption and
Safe Families Act.
Our First Lady, Mrs. Clinton, has also been a special leader on
behalf of vulnerable children. In 1997, she helped focus the national
spotlight on the need to promote adoption. This year, she has helped to
focus much needed attention on the challenges facing teenagers who age
out of foster care, and has challenged us to improve the system for
such teens by expanding the Independent Living program.
In 1997, a unique bipartisan Senate coalition formed to promote
adoption and find ways to help our most vulnerable children, those
subjected to abuse and neglected. After months of hard work, we forged
consensus on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). This
law, for the first time ever, establishes that a child's health and
safety are paramount when any decisions are made regarding children in
the abuse and neglect system. The law also stressed the importance of
permanency to a child, and it imposed new time frames as goals for
permanency. While this law was the most sweeping and comprehensive
piece of child welfare legislation passed in over a decade, more work
and resources will be crucial to truly achieve the goals of safety,
stability and permanence for all abused and neglected children.
We have been pleased to learn that one of the desired outcomes of the
Adoption Act, moving children more swiftly from foster care into
permanent homes, has begun to become a reality. Adoptions throughout
the country are up dramatically, far exceeding expectations. Yet, at
the same time, we find that there continue to be approximately 20,000
young people each year who turn 18 and ``age out'' of the foster care
system with no home, no family, no medical coverage and no system of
support in place. In my own state of West Virginia, over 1000 of our
foster children are over the age of 16. 185 of these children, in the
last year, received services through the state's Independent Living
program.
How do such teens in West Virginia and throughout the country fare? A
Wisconsin study shows us that 18 months after leaving foster care, over
one-third had not graduated from high school, half were unemployed,
nearly half had no access to or coverage for health care, and many were
homeless or victims or perpetrators of crimes. These are not just
numbers, each of these statistics represents a real person, like Wendy
or James:
Wendy had been in foster care since the age of 6. She had been moved
again and again, and at the age of 14 was placed in a Wilderness
Program for teens with challenging behaviors. At 16 she was moved to a
locked residential facility. Her 18th birthday, in December, was a cold
day in more ways than one. Early in the morning, a knock came on her
door and she was told to get dressed and gather her things, as she was
moving. This was not unusual for her, so she did as she was told. She
went, with her meager possessions, to the front desk and asked, ``Where
am I going?'' The staff person jingled the large key ring, opened the
front door, looked out into the snowy day and said, ``Anywhere you
want--you are 18 and you are on your own.'' One year later, Wendy was
addicted to drugs, homeless and pregnant. She had no access to health
care until she became pregnant--Her baby was now her ticket to care.
James had been in foster care since the age of 10. He had been moved
``only'' five or six times and when he turned 18, all services stopped.
The foster family he had been living with could not afford to care for
him any longer, but they agreed to allow him to sleep in their garage.
He had to drop out of school in order to work full time at a pizza
restaurant and attempt to support himself. When he turned 19, he had an
opportunity to be adopted with some of his younger siblings. He
immediately said, ``Yes!'' and when asked by the judge why he would
want to be adopted at his age, he replied, ``I will always need a
family, and someday, I hope my children will be able to have
grandparents.'' James was able to re-enroll in school, graduate with a
trade and is now a self-supporting married man. Oh, and his 3 children
do have grandparents.
This legislation will provide resources and incentives to states so
that more of our young people will have stories that end like James,
and fewer that end like Wendy's.
One of the most significant provisions of ASFA was the assurance of
ongoing health care coverage for all children with special needs who
move from foster care to adoption. The Foster Care Independence Act is
an essential next step in this ongoing process. This important
legislation will ensure that health care coverage for our foster care
youths does not end when they turn 18. All states who wish to receive
the new Independent Living Program money must provide assurance that
they will provide health care coverage to these young people through to
the age of 21. Young people who have survived the many traumas that led
to their placement in foster care, and their journey through the foster
care system often have special health care needs, especially in the
area of mental health. Providing transitional health coverage at this
crucial juncture in their lives can make the difference between
successfully moving on to accomplish their goals, or becoming stuck in
an unsatisfying and unhealthy way of life.
Another key focus of ASFA is on moving children from foster care to
permanent homes, and when possible adoption. Older teens in foster care
have a great need for a permanent family. Although we propose to
improve the Independent Living program and increase eligibility for
services to the age of 21, it does end at that time. And yet a youth's
need for a family does not end at any particular age. Each of us can
clearly recall times when we have had to turn to our own families for
advice, comfort or support long after our 18th or 21st birthdays. Many
of us are still in the role of providing such support to our own
children who are in their late teens or 20s. Therefore, an important
provision in this Senate version of the Foster Care Independence Act
states that Independent Living (IL) programs are not alternatives to
permanency planning--young people of all ages need and deserve every
possible effort made towards permanence, including adoption. It would
be counterproductive to create any disincentive for adoption of
teenagers. Therefore, our legislation would allow any enhanced
independent living services, particularly health care, to continue
until age 21 for those teens who are lucky enough to become adopted
after 16 years old.
Independent Living programs were designed to provide young people
with training, skill-development and support as they make the
transition from foster care to self-sufficiency. In some states, with
creativity and innovation, these programs have seen remarkable success
in that effort. In other localities, the programs have provided minimal
support, and young people have faced an array of challenging life
decisions and choices without the skills or supports to make them
successfully. This bill requires that states improve their Independent
Living programs, by requiring youth involvement at every level,
requiring youths to participate in on-going education and career
development activities, and requiring that those youths for whom room
and board services are provided also have adult supervision and
support.
In short, this bill assists a very vulnerable group of young
Americans by ensuring that they have access to: Health Care up to the
age of 21; continued efforts to locate a permanent family; a quality
Independent Living program providing a broad array of skills, resources
and services; and a program that focuses on critical outcomes,
especially in the areas of education, career development, and positive
lifestyle choices.
These will be valuable steps in our efforts to be more able to
effectively address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable young
people, on the brink of adulthood. I urge my colleagues to
[[Page S8125]]
join us in co-sponsoring and passing this bill.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators
Chafee, Rockefeller, Reed, Moynihan, Breaux, Conrad, Jeffords,
Mikulski, and Landrieu to introduce the Foster Care Independence Living
Act of 1999. This important piece of legislation will provide
transitional assistance for the estimated 20,000 youths in the United
States who ``age out'' of the foster care system at the age of 18
without a permanent family.
This legislation builds on the Promotion of Adoption, Safety, and
Support for Abused and Neglected Children (PASS) Act that I co-
sponsored in 1997. The Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999
increases the funding for the independent living program in order to
provide basic living needs, such as housing and food. Additionally, the
increased funding provides states the option to grant Medicaid for
health care, including mental health needs, to former foster children
up to their 21st birthdays as a condition of receiving the increased
funding.
This legislation also guarantees that state programs are well
supervised and provides a wide range of support which focuses on
health, safety, and permanency goals. In addition, the bill allows
children who receive aid under the independent living program to have
assets or resources totaling $10,000, in contrast to the old
requirement of $1,000, which deterred foster children from saving money
for a sound future.
Mr. President, at age 18 foster care children are suddenly expected
to be adults, able to take care of themselves. That is not a reasonable
expectation, especially for kids deprived of a nurturing parent or
other caring adult. As these youths age out of foster care without a
permanent family or a structure of continued support, many lack a high
school education, have difficulty maintaining employment, and often
experience high levels of depression and discouragement. Research has
proven that a significant number of homeless shelters users had
recently been discharged from foster care. Other studies found that
former foster care youth 2\1/2\ to 4 years after they ``aged out'' of
foster care found that 46% of the youths had not completed high school,
approximately 40% were dependent on public assistance or Medicaid and
42% had given birth or fathered a child.
Mr. President, I know first hand how this legislation can impact our
nation's foster care children. In my home state of Missouri, Epworth
Children and Family Services, in St. Louis, provides resources needed
to help people who fall through the cracks of a system that is not
strong enough to help build a future for foster care children ``aging
out'' of foster care. Robin, an 18-year-old foster care youth, was all
alone in the world when she entered Epworth's Independent Living
Program. Her father was never a part of her life and her mother was
serving time in jail. Motivated by the desire to regain custody of her
two-year-old baby boy, Robin started the program with high hopes.
However Robin struggled as she worked with the caring staff at Epworth.
Despite attempts by the professional at Epworth to stretch limited
resources to address Robin's ongoing needs, their system failed Robin.
She was removed from Epworth by the Missouri Division of Family
Services. Robin needed more support, more staff interaction and more
resources than the Epworth program could provide.
Mr. President, the Foster Care Independence Living Act of 1999
provides significant assistance to assure that these foster care youth
who ``age out'' of the system are provided with the assistance needed
to transition out of foster care into independence. The provisions in
this bill will assist these youth to begin a supervised and nurtured
life outside of the foster care system. They will be given the time and
resources they need to enter adulthood prepared. This independent
living initiative would give many ``Robins'' the change to be self-
sufficient and to contribute to her community. This means a better life
for all of our children.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to co-sponsor the
Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, introduced by my good friend and
colleague Senator Chafee. We are joined by a group of our colleagues,
including Senator Rockefeller, Bond, Reed.
This legislation will help a group of our children in dire
circumstances--foster children who reach age 18 still in the custody of
the state. They were victims of abuse and neglect and their families
proved to be beyond repair. About 20,000 children a year ``age out'' of
the foster care system. They reach 18 and we, in large part, abandon
them to the world. Many make their way successfully. But far too many,
alas, do not, and these children are more likely to become homeless or
end up on public assistance.
More than a decade ago, we recognized that these children needed
additional help in preparing for life on their own. I am proud to have
helped create the Independent Living program, which provided Federal
support for efforts that prepare teenager for the transition from
foster care to independence.
Today we are working on a bipartisan basis to build on this program.
The bill we are introducing will double funding for the Independent
Living program and increase the use of the funds to assist former
foster care children until they reach 21, including, for the first
time, help with room and board. As any parent knows, many 19 and 20-
year olds remain in need of family support from time to time. For
children who have ``aged out'' of foster care by turning 18, the
government is, in effect, their parent and we should do more to help
them become independent and self-sufficient, just as other parents do.
The legislation also contains important provisions encouraging states
to continue Medicaid coverage for these children so that health care
remains available to them.
Mr. President, this legislation has widespread support, including
from the Administration and key members of both parties. I would like
to particularly thank the First Lady for her leadership in working on
behalf of these children. I thank Senator Chafee for offering it and
look forward to working with him and many others to see that it becomes
law.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Cleland and Mr. Burns):
S. 1328. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit
the disclosure of certain tax information by the Secretary of the
Treasury to facilitate combined Federal and State employment tax
reporting, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Single Point Tax Filing Act of 1999
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is no shortage of ideological ferment
over the issue of taxes--from IRS Reform to discussion after discussion
of tax cuts, we have gone back and forth over these questions and we've
worked, as much as possible, to find a bipartisan consensus. Today I am
joined by my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus to
introduce legislation about which I would think every member of this
body would be able to agree--legislation that makes tax filing simpler
and easier for the small businesses that constitute 98 percent of all
businesses in America, employ nearly 60 percent of the workforce, and
which, having created close to two-thirds of America's net new jobs
since the 1970s, continue to serve as the wellspring for our Nation's
technological innovation and productivity growth.
Mr. President, America's small businesses are today drowning in tax
paperwork. The nation's 6.7 million employers are responsible for
filing federal and state employment taxes and wage reports, as well as
unemployment insurance reports. Under current law, employers file tax
and unemployment insurance reports with federal and state agencies
throughout the year, reports which obligate employers to understand and
comply with diverse and often conflicting state and federal laws. Just
to keep up with these requirements, employers must maintain separate
wage records for federal income tax withholding, state income tax
withholding, FICA, FUTA, and SUI. In many cases, employers must report
this information to government agencies at different times and in
different forms. The reporting burden is only compounded when employers
do business in more than one state, many of which do not have the same
legal or procedural requirements. Just consider the financial burden--
essentially a tax
[[Page S8126]]
on taxes--associated with employer tax, wage, and unemployment
insurance reporting is estimated at $16.2 billion for Fiscal Year 1999.
The federal portion of this employer burden is $9.8 billion, the state
portion relatively little less at $6.4 billion.
Given what we know about the role small businesses play as the engine
of our economy, and given all the expectations we share in terms of the
potential for these businesses to push the boundaries of economic
growth out even further in the new economy, I think we would all agree
that we ought to do something to relieve some of the tax filing burdens
on these employers, to give them more time and, I think it follows,
more capital to focus on job creation in our workforce, not,
respectfully, job creation over at the IRS and in the accounting
industry.
Let me just read to you what David A. Lifson, speaking on behalf of
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, said in his
testimony before the Ways and Means Committee, Oversight Subcommittee
on ``The Impact of Complexity of the Tax Code on Individual Taxpayers
and Small Businesses'' May 25, 1999:
``Significant problems arise from the increasing complexity of the
tax law. For example: a growing number of taxpayers perceive the tax
law to be unfair; it becomes increasingly more difficult for the
Internal Revenue Service to administer the tax law; the cost of
compliance for all taxpayers is increasing (of particular concern are
the many taxpayers with unsophisticated financial affairs who are
forced to seek professional tax return preparation assistance); and,
complexity interferes with economic decision making. The end result is
erosion of voluntary compliance. By and large, our citizens obey the
law, but it is only human to disobey a law if you do not or can not
understand the rules. In a recent Associated Press (AP) poll, 66
percent of the respondents said that the federal tax system is too
complicated. Three years ago, just under one-half of respondents in a
similar AP poll said that the tax system was too complicated. The poll
also showed that more than half of those surveyed, 56 percent, now pay
someone else to prepare their tax returns. This is a serious indictment
of our tax system. When over half our individual taxpayers have so
little comprehension of (or faith in) their tax system that they have
to hire another party to prepare their returns, something is not
right.''
Now, Mr. President, I applaud David Lifson's candor in speaking out
for tax simplification. The truth is, when the one industry--
accounting--which depends financially on the very complexity and
unwieldiness of our tax filing process and the tax code itself, is
saying--honestly--that the system is too complex, we know--
unequivocally--that we need to do something to make the tax filing
process work for taxpayers. The burden of tax code complexity is taking
a heavy toll. At an April hearing before the Senate Small Business
Committee, the General Accounting Office identified more than 200
different federal tax code requirements that potentially apply to small
businesses. Today, when a business hires an employee, the business
becomes responsible for collecting and paying three federal taxes
(income tax withholding, FICA, and FUTA). It also becomes liable for
state and local employment taxes: in most states, these include a state
income tax and a state unemployment tax. For businesses, each tax
presents its own set of rules and regulations. For the small business
owner just starting up, these employment tax rules make compliance
difficult and confusing--and in too many instances the cumbersome
nature of the tax filing process is a disincentive in itself for small
businesses to grow.
We need to reverse that course, and, Mr. President, we can do just
that today--we can simplify the tax filing process for employers by
allowing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and State agencies to
combine, on one form, both State and Federal employment tax returns.
As we all know, traditionally, federal tax forms are filed with the
federal government and state tax forms are filed with individual
states. This necessitates duplication of items common to both returns.
Several States have been working creatively with the IRS to implement
combined State and Federal reporting of employment taxes, on one form,
as a way of reducing the administrative burden on taxpayers. The
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized a demonstration project to
assess the feasibility and desirability of expanding combined
reporting. The pilot project was: (1) limited to the State of Montana,
(2) limited to employment tax reporting, (3) limited to disclosure of
the name, address, taxpayer identification number, and signature of the
taxpayer, and (4) limited to a period of five years. On March 29, 1999,
the IRS announced the successful testing of the Single-Point Filing
Initiative. Several States are currently considering agreements with
the IRS to initiate joint-filing of employment taxes. Those States
include Maine, Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Ohio, and Massachusetts.
My colleague Senator Baucus knows just how popular this experiment has
been in Montana. He'll tell you that by permitting the IRS to share a
limited amount of basic taxpayer identity information--information
which States already collect separately at an added expense to
themselves and the taxpayer, the Single-Point Tax Filing Act we are
introducing today will allow the IRS to expand joint-filing beyond its
current pilot project.
Implementation of combined State-Federal employment tax reporting--a
good idea, a common-sense idea long in the making--has been hindered
because the tax code applies restrictions on disclosure of information
common to both the State and Federal portions of the combined form. Our
bill will waive those restrictions, and allow us to take a common-sense
step forward for small businesses in the United States, a step forward
for single-point tax filing.
Mr. President, this is one of the obligations the American people--
regardless of party or politics, expect us to take seriously--to
protect them as taxpayers. And I believe that this is one tax
provision, one measure of simplification, on which we can all agree--
and we can make it law at no additional cost to taxpayers. I am pleased
to introduce the Single Point Tax Filing legislation today, I thank the
distinguished members of the Finance Committee Charles Grassley and Max
Baucus who join me today in offering this legislation, and I ask for
your support of this important measure.
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:
Single-Point Tax Filing Act of 1999
Purpose
To simplify the tax filing process for employers by
allowing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and State
agencies to combine, on one form, both State and Federal
employment tax returns.
Summary
Traditionally, Federal tax forms are filed with the Federal
government and State tax forms are filed with individual
States. This necessitates duplication of items common to both
returns. Several States have been working with the IRS to
implement combined State and Federal reporting of employment
taxes, on one form, as a way of reducing the administrative
burden on taxpayers. By permitting the IRS to share a limited
amount of basic taxpayer identity information--information
which States already collect separately at an added expense
to themselves and the taxpayer, the Single-Point Tax Filing
Act will allow the IRS to expand joint-filing beyond its
current pilot project.
Background
The tax code prohibits disclosure of tax returns and return
information, except to the extent specifically authorized by
law. Unauthorized disclosure is a felony punishable by a fine
not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than five
years, or both. An action for civil damages also may be
brought for unauthorized disclosure. No tax information may
be furnished by the IRS to another agency unless the other
agency establishes procedures satisfactory to the IRS for
safeguarding the tax information it receives.
Implementation of combined State-Federal employment tax
reporting has been hindered because the tax code applies
restrictions on disclosure of information common to both the
State and Federal portions of the combined form.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 authorized a demonstration
project to assess the feasibility and desirability of
expanding combined reporting. The pilot project was: (1)
limited to the State of Montana, (2) limited to employment
tax reporting, (3) limited to disclosure of the name,
address, taxpayer identification number, and signature of the
taxpayer, and (4) limited to a period of five
[[Page S8127]]
years. On March 29, 1999, the IRS announced the successful
testing of the Single-Point Filing Initiative.
Several States are currently considering agreements with
the IRS to initiate joint-filing of employment taxes. Those
States include Maine, Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Ohio,
and Massachusetts.
Legislation
Before additional joint-filing projects may move forward,
the IRS must receive legislative authority to share basic
information with State agencies. By providing the necessary
statutory waiver, the Single-Point Tax Filing Act will permit
the IRS to extend joint-filing beyond its current pilot
project. The waiver would only pertain to employment tax
reporting and would only permit the disclosure of the
taxpayer's name, mailing address, taxpayer identification
number, and signature (i.e., taxpayer identity information).
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to add my strong support to the
Single-Point Tax Filing Act of 1999 introduced by my colleagues
Senators Kerry and Grassley. As a result of language I had included in
the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act, Montana is the only state in the nation
currently testing a Single-Point Tax Filing system, also known as the
Simplified Tax and Wage Reporting System, or STAWRS.
The STAWRS pilot project in Montana has been a tremendous success.
Earlier this year, the State of Montana and its Department of Revenue
received a Regulatory Innovation Award from the Small Business
Administration, the Commissioner's Award from the Internal Revenue
Service, and the ``Hammer'' Award by the National Performance Review.
These awards were all given in recognition of the pilot project's
achievement in dramatically reducing paperwork and cutting red tape for
small businesses. I was also honored to receive SBA's Special Advocacy
Award for my efforts to have legislation enacted that allowed the pilot
project to go forward.
The STAWRS program is designed to help businesses file their
paperwork with one office, instead of wading through a blizzard of
paper. It's one-stop shopping and will go a long way toward
streamlining payroll information, making filing faster and easier.
Right now, businesses find themselves reporting the same exact
information, on wide variety of forms, to a range of state and federal
agencies. This takes time and effort, both of which small business
owners could put to much better use running their businesses. The
STAWRS project is intended to eventually make it possible for employers
to file a single, one-page report that is then shared by the
appropriate revenue agencies. The governments will do the work and
extract the information they need rather than the employer.
Small businesses are the engine for economic growth in this country.
They have created close to two-thirds of America's net new jobs since
the 1970's, helping drive our unprecedented economic growth and
prosperity. All of this growth has been achieved despite the crushing
paperwork requirements that small business owners face. The Single-
Point Tax Filing Act gives us an opportunity to reduce this paperwork
burden at no cost to the government. I am proud that Montana has taken
the lead in reducing paperwork for small business, and strongly believe
it should be made available to small businesses in every state, and on
a permanent basis.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 1329. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain land to Nye County, Nevada, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
conveyance of land to nye county, nevada
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
authorize Nye County, Nevada to acquire approximately 800 acres of
public land. This conveyance will facilitate the development of both
the Nevada Science and Technology Center and the Amargosa Valley
Science and Technology Park, part of a larger proposed Nevada Science
and Technology Corridor.
The Nevada Science and Technology Center is a proposed interactive
science center and museum, highlighting the environment, industries,
and technological developments associated with the region. This state
of the art facility will have the potential to draw visitors from the
Las Vegas Valley, 80 miles to the southeast, and the 1.3 million
tourists who visit nearby Death Valley on an annual basis. The Center
will appeal to people of all ages and backgrounds because it will
provide a unique, fun, hands-on experience. Planning for this project
is ongoing under the direction of a Nevada registered non-profit
organization.
The Amargosa Valley Science and Technology Park is a proposed
research and development business park designed to support Department
of Energy contractors and suppliers associated with the Nevada Test
Site, located immediately to the north of this site. Nye County
currently has a $1.5 million grant from the Economic Development
Administration in the final stages of review at that agency's regional
office. Once finalized, this grant will provide the funding for water
and infrastructure development in support of both the science center
and the research and development park.
The lands proposed for conveyance have been identified for disposal
under the Bureau of Land Management's October 1998 Las Vegas Resource
Management Plan. Due to the non-profit nature of the Science Center,
this portion of land, approximately 450 acres, would be conveyed at no
cost. Because the research and industrial park will house commercial
operations, the County would be required to pay fair market value for
these lands, approximately 350 acres. The legislation contains
provisions for the no-cost land to revert to the federal government
should it be used for purposes other than the science center and
related facilities.
This legislation will provide the impetus for future development in
this area, providing the opportunity for economic growth in Nye County.
I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1329
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO NYE COUNTY, NEVADA.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) County.--The term ``County'' means Nye County, Nevada.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(b) Parcels Conveyed for Use of the Nevada Science and
Technology Center.--
(1) In general.--For no consideration and at no other cost
to the County, the Secretary shall convey to the County,
subject to valid existing rights, all right, title, and
interest in and to the parcels of public land described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land referred
to in paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) The portion of Sec. 13 north of United States Route 95,
T. 15 S. R. 49 E, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada.
(B) In Sec. 18, T. 15 S., R. 50 E., Mount Diablo Meridian,
Nevada:
(i) W \1/2\ W \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
(ii) The portion of the W \1/2\ W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of
United States Route 95.
(3) Use.--
(A) In general.--The parcels described in paragraph (2)
shall be used for the construction and operation of the
Nevada Science and Technology Center as a nonprofit museum
and exposition center, and related facilities and activities.
(B) Reversion.--The conveyance of any parcel described in
paragraph (2) shall be subject to reversion to the United
States, at the discretion of Secretary, if the parcel is used
for a purpose other than that specified in subparagraph (A).
(b) Parcels Conveyed for Other Use for a commercial
purpose.--
(1) Right to purchase.--For a period of 5 years beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act, the County shall have
the exclusive right to purchase the parcels of public land
described in paragraph (2) for the fair market value of the
parcels, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land referred
to in paragraph (1) are the following parcels in Sec. 18, T.
15 S., R. 50 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
(A) E \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
(B) E \1/2\ W \1/2\ NW \1/4\.
(C) The portion of the E \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of United
States Route 95.
(D) The portion of the E \1/2\ W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ north of
United States Route 95.
(E) The portion of the SE \1/4\ north of United States
Route 95.
(3) Use of proceeds.--Proceeds of a sale of a parcel
described in paragraph (2)--
(A) shall be deposited in the special account established
under section 4(e)(1)(C) of
[[Page S8128]]
the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112
Stat. 2345); and
(B) shall be available to the Secretary as provided in
section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 Stat. 2346).
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 1330. A bill to give the city of Mesquite, Nevada, the right to
purchase at fair market value certain parcels of public land in the
city; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
conveyance of land to the city of mesquite, nevada
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
authorize the city of Mesquite, Nevada, to acquire approximately 7,690
acres of public land necessary to provide for urban and economic growth
and development of a new commercial airport. This legislation will
amend existing public law and allow for the continued expansion of this
growing community.
Mesquite is the one of the fastest growing cities in the fastest
growing State in the Nation According to figures released by the U.S.
Census Bureau, Mesquite grew by 441% between 1990 and 1998, increasing
in population from 1,871 to over 10,000. This phenomenal growth rate is
being fueled by a variety of factors, including the development of new
destination resorts and the ``discovery'' of other recreational
opportunities in the tri-state region of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. As
the tourism industry in the area continues to grow and prosper, a
greater capacity for air carrier service will be required to meet the
needs of the region. In addition, the city of Mesquite is land locked
by public lands. While some relief has been provided via the existing
public law, this growth is exceeding demand and the city expects to be
out of room within a couple of years. This bill is designed to help
with both growth related and air service issues.
Although the existing Mesquite Airport is adequate for general
aviation service, terrain precludes the expansion necessary for
commercial and cargo service. A new commercial airport is needed to
meet the future regional demands. The proposed airport site identified
in this bill is a result of an approved Site Selection Study conducted
for the Clark County Department of Aviation. This study was funded
through, and approved by, the Federal Aviation Administration. Of
course, no airport construction activities will begin without
completion of a comprehensive Airport Master Plan and environmental
review. Once these steps are completed, airport construction will be
financed by the City of Mesquite and its business community.
Existing state law requires that the airport site be contiguous with
the city limits in order to be annexed. The legislation I introduce
today will authorize the city to purchase 5,400 acres of public land to
meet this connectivity requirement. As some of this land has
development potential, the city will be required to pay fair market
value for this acreage. The actual airport site of 2,560 acres would be
acquired by the city pursuant to existing land acquisition statues
related to transportation and airport development.
Mr. President, I request that this legislation be given prompt
consideration.
Mr. President, I also 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. 1330
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA.
Section 3 of Public Law 99-548 (100 Stat. 3061; 110 Stat.
3009-202) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Fifth Area.--
``(1) Right to purchase.--For a period of 12 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the city of Mesquite,
Nevada, shall have the exclusive right to purchase the
parcels of public land described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Land description.--The parcels of public land
referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:
``(A) In T. 13 S., R. 70 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) The portion of sec. 27 north of Interstate Route 15.
``(ii) Sec. 28: NE \1/4\, S \1/2\ (except the Interstate
Route 15 right-of-way).
``(iii) Sec. 29: E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SE \1/
4\.
``(iv) The portion of sec. 30 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(v) The portion of sec. 31 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(vi) Sec. 32: NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ (except the Interstate
Route 15 right-of-way), the portion of NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\
south of Interstate Route 15, and the portion of W \1/2\
south of Interstate Route 15.
``(vii) The portion of sec. 33 north of Interstate Route
15.
``(B) In T. 14 S., R. 70 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) Sec. 5: NW \1/4\.
``(ii) Sec. 6: N \1/2\.
``(C) In T. 13 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) The portion of sec. 25 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(ii) The portion of sec. 26 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(iii) The portion of sec. 27 south of Interstate Route
15.
``(iv) Sec. 28: SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\.
``(v) Sec. 33: E \1/2\.
``(vi) Sec. 34.
``(vii) Sec. 35.
``(viii) Sec. 36.
``(3) Notification.--Not later than 10 years after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the city shall notify the
Secretary which of the parcels of public land described in
paragraph (2) the city intends to purchase.
``(4) Conveyance.--Not later than 1 year after receiving
notification from the city under paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall convey to the city the land selected for purchase.
``(5) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until
the date that is 12 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the parcels of public land described in paragraph
(2) are withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining laws, and
from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.
``(6) Use of proceeds.--The proceeds of the sale of each
parcel--
``(A) shall be deposited in the special account established
under section 4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345); and
``(B) shall be disposed of by the Secretary as provided in
section 4(e)(3) of that Act (112 Stat. 2346).
``(f) Sixth Area.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall convey to
the city of Mesquite, Nevada, in accordance with section
47125 of title 49, United States Code, up to 2,560 acres of
public land to be selected by the city from among the parcels
of land described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
paragraph (1) are as follows:
``(A) In T. 13 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) The portion of sec. 28 south of Interstate Route 15
(except S \1/2\ SE \1/4\).
``(ii) The portion of sec. 29 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(iii) The portion of sec. 30 south of Interstate Route
15.
``(iv) The portion of sec. 31 south of Interstate Route 15.
``(v) Sec. 32.
``(vi) Sec. 33: W \1/2\.
``(B) In T. 14 S., R. 69 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) Sec. 4.
``(ii) Sec. 5.
``(iii) Sec. 6.
``(iv) Sec. 8.
``(C) In T. 14 S., R. 68 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
``(i) Sec. 1.
``(ii) Sec. 12.
``(3) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until
the date that is 12 years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the parcels of public land described in paragraph
(2) are withdrawn from all forms of entry and appropriation
under the public land laws, including the mining laws, and
from operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing
laws.''.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 1331. A bill to give Lincoln County, Nevada, the right to purchase
at fair market value certain public land in the county; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
lincoln county lands act of 1999
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
provide Lincoln County, Nevada with the exclusive right to purchase
approximately 4,800 acres of public land near Mesquite, Nevada. This
legislation, to be known as the Lincoln County Lands Act of 1999, will
facilitate economic growth and development in one of the most
economically distressed counties in the Silver State.
Lincoln County encompasses an area of 10,132 square miles, which is
larger than several of the New England states combined. Approximately
98% of the County is owned by the federal government and property tax
revenues amount to only $1,106,558 annually. As a result, Lincoln
County is hard pressed to provide basic services to its citizens and
the County school district in facing a critical situation as its
schools are literally crumbling because of a lack of funds to maintain
them.
[[Page S8129]]
The Lincoln County Lands Act will allow the County to address these
economic problems in a positive way.
By allowing Lincoln County to purchase 4,800 acres of public land
(less than 1/10th of 1% of the land in the County) at fair market
value, this legislation will result in the County's property tax
revenues increasing by over $12.9 million annually--an increase of more
than 1000%. While this may seem extraordinary, it is a result of land
being situated immediately adjacent to the rapidly growing City of
Mesquite which is located just over the County line in Clark County,
Nevada. Mesquite's growth has created a huge demand for more housing
and commercial development that can be best met by allowing Lincoln
County to purchase this public land and develop it in a prudent manner.
Under this scenario everyone involved is a winner. Lincoln County will
gain badly needed property tax revenue, Mesquite gains room for
expansion and growth, and the federal government will be fairly
compensated for the sale of public lands.
Another important aspect of this legislation is that it allows for
the proceeds of any sale of land pursuant to the Act to be utilized by
the Bureau of Land Management to acquire or otherwise protect
environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada, to defray the administrative
costs that BLM will incur in processing this land sale, and to develop
a multi-species habitat plan for all of Lincoln County. These
provisions, similar to those contained in the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act enacted in 1998, will help ensure that a mechanism
exists to fund the conservation and protection of Nevada's natural
resources.
Mr. President, the Lincoln County Lands Act is modeled after other
legislation that I have successfully sponsored, such as the Mesquite
Lands Act of 1986 and the previously mentioned Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act. These laws have provided a framework for creating
economic growth while protecting the environment and the taxpayer. I am
very pleased to be able to build upon these achievements by assisting
Lincoln County in a similar manner. I look forward to prompt
consideration of this important piece of legislation.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1331
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 ``Lincoln County Land Act of
1999''.
SEC. 2. SALE OF PUBLIC LAND.
(a) Right To Purchase.--For a period of 10 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, Lincoln County, Nevada, shall
have the exclusive right to purchase the parcels of public
land described in subsection (b).
(b) Land Description.--The parcels of public land referred
to in subsection (a) are the following parcels in T. 12 S.,
R. 71 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada:
(1) Sec. 16: NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\, S \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SE \1/4\.
(2) Sec. 17: SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\.
(3) Sec. 18: SE \1/4\.
(4) Sec. 19: E \1/2\.
(5) Sec. 20.
(6) Sec. 21: W \1/2\.
(7) Sec. 28: W \1/2\.
(8) Sec. 29.
(9) Sec. 30: E \1/2\.
(10) Sec. 31: E \1/2\.
(11) Sec. 32.
(12) Sec. 33: W \1/2\, SE \1/4\.
(13) Sec. 34: S \1/2\.
(c) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, Lincoln County, Nevada, shall
notify the Secretary of the Interior which of the parcels of
public land described in subsection (b) the county intends to
purchase.
(d) Terms and Conditions of Sale.--All sales of public land
under this section--
(1) shall be subject to valid existing rights; and
(2) shall be made for fair market value, as determined by
the Secretary.
(e) Conveyance.--Not later than 1 year after receiving
notification by Lincoln County that the county wishes to
proceed with a purchase under subsection (a), the Secretary
of the Interior shall convey to Lincoln County the parcels of
land selected for purchase.
(f) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, until
the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the public land described in subsection (b) is withdrawn
from all forms of entry and appropriation under the public
land laws, including the mining laws, and from operation of
the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws.
SEC. 3. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.
(a) Land Sales.--Of the gross proceeds of sales of land
under this Act in a fiscal year--
(1) 5 percent shall be paid directly to the State of Nevada
for use in the general education program of the State;
(2) 10 percent shall be returned to Lincoln County for use
as determined through normal county budgeting procedures,
with emphasis given to support of schools, of which no amount
may be used in support of litigation against the Federal
Government; and
(3) the remainder shall be deposited in a special account
in the Treasury of the United States (referred to in this
section as the ``special account'') for use as provided in
subsection (b).
(b) Availability of Special Account.--
(1) In general.--Amounts in the special account (including
amounts earned as interest under paragraph (3)) shall be
available to the Secretary of the Interior, without further
Act of appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended, for--
(A) the cost of acquisition of environmentally sensitive
land or interests in such land in the State of Nevada, with
priority given to land outside Clark County;
(B) development of a multispecies habitat conservation plan
in Lincoln County, Nevada; and
(C) reimbursement of costs incurred by the Bureau of Land
Management in preparing sales under this Act, or other
authorized land sales or exchanges within Lincoln County,
Nevada, including the costs of land boundary surveys,
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), appraisals, environmental and
cultural clearances, and any public notice.
(2) Acquisition from willing sellers.--An acquisition under
paragraph (1)(A) shall be made only from a willing seller and
after consultation with the State of Nevada and units of
local government under the jurisdiction of which the
environmentally sensitive land is located.
(3) Interest.--Amounts in the special account shall earn
interest in the amount determined by the Secretary of
Treasury on the basis of current average market yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of
comparable maturities.
______
By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Voinovich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Kerrey, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 1332. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on
behalf of Congress to Father Theodore M. Hesburg, in recognition of his
outstanding and enduring contributions to civil rights, higher
education, the Catholic Church, the Nation, and the global community;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
congressional gold medal in honor of reverend theodore hesburgh
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and
colleague from Indiana, Senator Richard Lugar, to introduce legislation
awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Reverend Theodore
Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame.
This bipartisan effort recognizes Father Hesburgh for his outstanding
contributions to the civil rights movement and to improving higher
education. His efforts have provided benefits not only to the people of
the United States but to the global community as well.
Over the years, Father Hesburgh has held 15 presidential appointments
and remains a national leader in the fields of education, civil rights
and development of the world's poorest nations. Most notable among
Father Hesburgh's many previous awards is the Medal of Freedom, the
nation's highest civilian honor, bestowed on him by President Johnson
in 1964.
Mr. President, Father Hesburgh has been a champion of the civil
rights movement for more than forty years. He was a charter member of
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1957, and served as Chairman of
the commission from 1969-72. His relentless pursuit of justice, peace
and equality continue to inspire people around the world.
Despite Father Hesburgh's commitment and obligations to Notre Dame
and the various commissions he served, he still managed to give a
sufficient amount of time and attention to global problems. Father
Hesburgh served four Popes in many capacities, including as the
permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna from 1956-1970. In 1971, he joined the board of
Overseas Developing Council, a private organization supporting
interests of the underdeveloped world, and chaired it until
[[Page S8130]]
1982. During this time, he led fund-raising efforts that averted mass
starvation in Cambodia in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge.
Notre Dame is perhaps most celebrated for its athletic prowess, but
these on-the-field achievements should not overshadow Notre Dame's
place as a world class institution of learning and scholarship. When
Father Hesburgh stepped down as head of Notre Dame in 1987, he ended
the longest tenure among active presidents of American institutions of
higher learning. The accomplishments made during Father Hesburgh's
tenure are perhaps best reflected in the significant gains made from
the time he took over as the 15th president of Notre Dame in 1952, up
until his departure. By the time Father Hesburgh left Notre Dame,
enrollment had doubled, the number of faculty had tripled, and the
number of degrees offered by the school had grown to over 2,500.
Most strikingly, Father Hesburgh was responsible for making dramatic
changes to the University's composition by admitting women to Notre
Dame. He also established several of Notre Dame's prestigious
institutions, both the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
and the Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
Today, even in retirement, Father Hesburgh continues to be a leading
educator and humanitarian, inspiring generations of students and
citizens, while generously sharing his wisdom in the struggle for the
rights of man.
That is why we rise today to introduce legislation in the Senate
honoring this man with a Congressional Gold Medal for his outstanding
contributions to the University of Notre Dame, our country and the
global community.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Bayh in
introducing legislation to bestow a Congressional Gold Medal on
Reverend Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., president emeritus of the
University of Notre Dame.
In 1952, at the age of 35, Father Hesburgh became the fifteenth
president of the University of Notre Dame. He served in that position
for a remarkable 35 years. At the time of his retirement in 1987, he
had the longest tenure among active American university presidents.
Father Hesburgh's leadership and vision, together with the hard work of
faculty, staff, alumni, and students, built Notre Dame into one of the
premier universities in the United States.
In you ask any Golden-domer, they will tell you that Father
Hesburgh's contributions to the University of Notre Dame are as big as
the 13-floor library that bears his name. Notre Dame grew exponentially
in research funding and in endowment during Father Hesburgh's
presidency. When he assumed the office in 1952, Notre Dame served fewer
than 5,000 students. Today it is an internationally recognized
university of nearly 10,000 students engaged in every imaginable
academic discipline.
More importantly, through his example and direction, Father Hesburgh
inspired the university community to pursue not only academic
excellence and international prominence, but also justice and spiritual
meaning. Few universities have succeeded at creating an environment so
committed to public service and so rich in its dialogue between the
intellectual and the spiritual.
As Father Hesburgh worked to build the University of Notre Dame into
what it is today, he simultaneously answered the call to serve his
nation and the world. His career has embodied the principle of public
service that he espoused at Notre Dame.
Father Hesburgh has held a remarkable 15 Presidential appointments
over the years, covering such diverse topics as the peaceful uses of
atomic energy and campus unrest. He was a charter member of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957, and he chaired the
commission from 1969-1972.
All the while he remained a national leader in education, serving on
many commissions and study groups. He chaired the International
Federation of Catholic Universities from 1963 to 1970. In this position
and through his writings, he was instrumental in redefining the
importance of international studies in higher education and the nature
and mission of a contemporary Catholic university. Father Hesburgh also
served four Popes as a Vatican representative to the International
Atomic Energy Agency and other international assemblies.
The problems of underdeveloped nations have been a special interest
of Father Hesburgh. He joined the board of the Overseas Development
Council in 1971. His fund-raising work as Chairman helped avert mass
starvation in Cambodia in 1979 and 1980. He also chaired the Select
Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy between 1979 and 1981. The
recommendations of the Commission became the basis of legislation five
years later.
Father Hesburgh's lengthy list of awards include the Medal of
Freedom, bestowed by President Johnson in 1964. He is also the
recipient of 135 honorary degrees, the most ever awarded to an
American.
In retirement, Father Hesburgh has become a best-selling author. He
still plays a major role in the development of higher education through
the institutes he was instrumental in founding at Notre Dame, including
the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and the Kellogg
Institute for International Studies. Father Hesburgh chairs the
advisory committee for both institutes.
Despite his innumerable accomplishments, Father Hesburgh has always
remained grounded in the campus life of Notre Dame University. He
continues to frequently lecture and preside at mass. He talks with
everyone who approaches him and still loves having lunch with students
daily to discuss their views on the courses and programs he has been so
instrumental in advancing.
Mr. President, Father Hesburgh's life stands as an example of the
type of service, dedication, and faith that the Congressional Gold
Medal was meant to commemorate. I encourage my colleagues to join
Senator Bayh and myself in supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Bennett):
S. 1333. A bill to expand homeownership in the United States; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
promoting housing affordability for working families act of 1999
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many Americans are benefiting from
today's robust economy--unemployment is down, the stock market is up
and homeownership is at record levels.
Sounds good. But while homeownership levels are up for some, for
others, the idea of owning a home is about as realistic as winning the
lottery.
For millions of working families, paying for the house of their
dreams too often turns into a financial nightmare. Homeownership should
not be reserved for the wealthiest in our society, but should be within
the grasp of every working man and woman.
Families with incomes below $25,000 generally cannot afford rent--
much less monthly mortgage payments on most homes. Some of these are
the people who keep our streets safe, fight fires and teach our
children, people who play vital roles in our community. They deserve to
own their own homes in the communities they know so well and work so
hard to improve.
Working families should be able to invest in themselves and in their
families rather than put their hard-earned income every month into rent
paid to someone else. Houses do more than provide shelter. Houses
become homes. They allow adults a chance to become established. They
give children a sense of security. They allow small towns to function
and big cities to endure.
It is no wonder then that we value homeownership in this country.
Owning a home is a part of our culture, it's what we call ``the
American dream.'' Still, this dream is out of the reach of many
Americans. In Oregon, where more than 75 percent of jobs do not pay a
living wage for a single parent, housing costs have skyrocketed,
forcing nearly half of Oregon renters to spend more than 30 percent of
their income on housing and utilities. According to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's guidelines, if someone is spending more
than 30 percent of his or her income on housing, they start cutting
into other basic needs such as putting food on the table, taking
elderly parents to the doctor or clothing kids for school.
[[Page S8131]]
People should not have to choose between feeding their kids or
keeping a roof over their heads. The bill that I am introducing, ``The
Promoting Housing Affordability for Working Families Act of 1999,''
will help communities remove the barriers to affordable housing, so
working families will not have to make this choice. Many factors, such
as excessive rules and regulations, add to the price of a house. Cities
and states must work together to remove these barriers. By working
together, they can free up rental housing for those who cannot afford
to buy a home while making the purchase of a first home easier for
folks who have been previously denied the opportunity.
This bill addresses the problem on three fronts. First, it brings
communities together to form ``barrier removal councils'' so they can
identify problems to housing affordability and begin implementing
solutions.
Second, the bill requires Federal agencies to examine the impact of
their regulations on the cost of housing. Determining this information
through a ``housing impact analysis'' at the outset will save states,
communities and, ultimately, families a lot of hassle down the road.
Third, it makes homeownership possible for people who help our
communities thrive--teachers, police officers, fire fighters and other
public employees. Through incentives such as downpayment assistance and
closing cost flexibility this bill helps people live in the communities
they serve.
Many working families are ready for their first home. They are
starting to raise families, move up the ladder at work and are prepared
to take on the responsibilities of homeownership. But when they get to
the front door, they cannot step over the threshold because they are
tied up in unnecessary regulation that drives up home prices. The
``Promoting Housing Affordability for Working Families Act of 1999''
will help these families untangle this regulatory knot and unlock the
door to their first home.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Frist, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1334. A bill to amend chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code,
to increase the amount of leave time available to a Federal employee in
any year in connection with serving as an organ donor, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
organ donor leave act
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Organ
Donor Leave Act. This bill would extend the amount of leave in each
calendar year available to federal workers who serve as living organ
donors from 7 days to 30 days. It is a straight forward way to ensure
that federal employees who serve as an organ donor have sufficient time
to recover from an organ transplant operation.
I am delighted to be joined by Senator Frist, one of the nation's
leading transplant surgeons and the only active surgeon in Congress, as
well as Senators Edwards, Stevens, Levin, Sarbanes, and Durbin. The
bill we offer is a companion bill to H.R. 457, introduced by
Representative Elijah Cummings and marked out of the House Government
Reform Committee. Last year, an identical bill passed the House, but
not the Senate. It is my hope that, with such a distinguished list of
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, the Senate will quickly enact
this important legislation.
In most instances, an organ transplant operation and post-operative
recovery time for a living donor is generally six to eight weeks. In
order to address the disparity between the available leave a federal
employee may take for an organ donation and the average recovery time,
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) assisted in the drafting of this legislation
to increase the amount of time that may be used for organ donation to
30 days. The amount of leave for a bone marrow donation would remain at
seven days because experience shows that a week is considered adequate
recovery time form bone marrow donations.
Since 1954, when the first kidney transplant was performed, there
have been hundreds of patients who have received successful transplants
from living donors. Unfortunately, there are not enough organs
available and over 55,000 Americans currently wait for a life-saving
organ. There are certain organs, such as a single kidney, a lobe of a
lung, a segment of the liver, or a portion of the pancreas, which may
be transplanted from a living donor. These operations can reduce the
mortality of small children needing liver transplants, help another
person breathe, or free a dialysis patient from daily treatment.
According to the University of Southern California Liver Transplant
Program, ``With living donors, liver transplants can be performed
electively and before patients get extremely ill, thus leading to
better outcomes. Another advantage to this approach is the emotional
satisfaction donors share with recipients when a life is saved.''
Our bill has the strong support of the American Transplantation
Society, the nation's largest professional transplant organization,
representing over 1,400 physicians, surgeons, and scientists. In a
letter expressing support of the Organ Donor Leave Act, the AST noted:
``. . . a lack of leave time has served as a significant impediment and
disincentive for individuals willing to share the gift-of-life. This
important initiative addresses the disparities between leave time and
recovery time.'' According to AST, the bill would give ``. . . donors
the added assurance that they will be granted an adequate amount of
time to recuperate from the life-saving process that they undertake
voluntarily.''
Mr. President, this bill has already been passed by the House once,
and appears to be on the same course in the 106th Congress. I hope the
Senate will agree with the other chamber, and I urge my colleagues to
support moving this life-saving legislation as soon as possible. I ask
unanimous consent that a letter from the American Society of
Transplantation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
American Society
of Transplantation,
Thorofare, NJ, June 29, 1999.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: The American Society of Transplantation
(AST) commends you for your continuing efforts to improve our
nation's system for organ donation and transplantation. The
AST is the largest professional transplant organization in
the United States and represents over 1,400 physicians,
surgeons and scientists. During the last few years, the
Society has greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with
Congressional Members and staff in addressing many important
organ transplantation issues.
The AST applauds you most recent efforts to improve organ
donation by introducing the Senate companion legislation to
H.R. 457 which seeks to amend the United States Code, to
increase the amount of leave time available to a Federal
employee in any year in connection with serving as an organ
donor. Through this legislation, the Federal Government will
become a leader in encouraging individuals to perform the
valuable public service of donating organs.
In the past, a lack of leave time has served as a
significant impediment and disincentive for individuals
willing to share the gift-of-life. This important initiative
address disparities between leave time and recovery time.
This legislation gives donors the added assurance that they
will be granted an adequate amount of time to recuperate from
the life saving process that they undertake voluntarily.
As we have discussed in the past, the problems that our
nation faces in the allocation of organs and tissues for
transplantation, a precious and scarce resource, are complex,
and continue to evolve from both a medical and policy
perspective. However, the real answer to dealing with the
dilemma of allocating and distributing an inadequate supply
of organs is through efforts such as yours to increase
donation.
On behalf of the thousands of U.S. patients currently
awaiting organ transplants, we commend you for your
leadership in this area. In addition, we look forward to
continuing to work with you in the future to improve the
field of transplantation medicine.
Sincerely,
John R. Lake,
President.
John F. Neylan,
Chair, Public Policy Committee.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Edwards):
S. 1336. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit to promote home ownership among
[[Page S8132]]
low-income individuals; to the Committee on Finance.
home ownership tax credit act of 1999
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the state of home
ownership in the U.S., in addition to legislation I am introducing with
Senator Schumer and Senator Edwards to enable more families to achieve
the American dream of home ownership.
Today, we have many reasons to celebrate. Indeed, the national home
ownership rate has soared to an all-time high of almost 67 percent,
which is up from 64 percent in 1993. Of further significance, this
increase has, in large measure, been fueled by the growth in home
ownership among minority households. In fact, minorities were
responsible for 42 percent of the increase in home ownership between
1994 and 1997, although they only account for 17 percent of the home
owner population.
Despite these positive developments, a number of distressing trends
should give us cause for concern. For example, minority home ownership
rates still lag significantly behind those of non-minority households:
45 percent for minorities versus 72 percent for white households. In
addition, only 45 percent of low-income households live in owner-
occupied homes, as compared to 86 percent of high-income households.
These alarming disparities have broad societal implications because
of the tremendous benefits associated with home ownership.
Historically, home ownership has been the key to wealth creation in
this country, and wealth in the form of home equity has enabled
families to start businesses, finance their children's education, and
cover unexpected expenses. Consequently, unequal home ownership rates
lead to wealth disparities. In fact, the median wealth of non-elderly
low income home owners is 12 times greater than the median wealth of
non-elderly renters of the same income.
In addition to wealth-building, home ownership has a positive effect
on families and on our communities. Indeed, research has found that
children of homeowners are less likely to become involved in the
justice system, drop out of school, or have children out of wedlock.
Moreover, home ownership is correlated with membership in community
organizations and voting, as well as participation in neighborhood
enhancing activities.
In view of the substantial benefits associated with home ownership,
the Federal Government has actively worked to increase the home
ownership rate. The primary tools in this effort have been the mortgage
interest and the real estate tax deductions. Although these tax
deductions have reduced the costs of home ownership for many, they are
of little use to low-income households because their itemized tax
deductions generally do not exceed the standard deduction. As such,
over 90 percent of the total benefits of the mortgage interest
deduction accrue to home buyers with incomes greater than $40,000, and
because of the progressive nature of federal income tax rates, even if
lower-income households do itemize their deductions, they receive a
smaller deduction as a percentage of income than more affluent buyers.
To attack the home ownership disparity between low- and upper-income
households, the Federal Government has relied on the Mortgage Revenue
Bond (MRB) program, the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program, and,
to a limited extent, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.
Under these programs, the Federal Government subsidizes interest rates
to reduce monthly mortgage costs for low-income home owners.
While these programs have been successful, their effects have been
limited. Indeed, the size of these programs, as measured by their
annual cost--$2.2 billion--pales in comparison to the annual cost of
the mortgage and real estate tax deductions--$58 billion.
Also, while attacking the income constraints that prevent many low-
income families from being able to afford monthly mortgage costs, these
programs do not address wealth constraints such as a lack of savings
for a down payment and closing costs, that keep many low-income
families from becoming home owners.
During these times of economic prosperity, we have a rare opportunity
to close the home ownership gap that exists between low-income and
upper-income families. To this end, I am introducing legislation to
establish a Home Ownership Tax Credit targeted to low-income families.
This legislation, which has been developed in conjunction with
Harvard's Joint Center on Housing Studies, the Brookings Institution,
and Self-Help Community Development Corporation, would attack the
wealth and income constraints that prevent many low-income families
from becoming home owners.
Under this legislation, the Federal Government would issue tax
credits to participating lenders who would then be obligated to extend
either low-interest or zero-interest second mortgages to low-income
families. These second mortgages would effectively be used to cover the
downpayment and closing costs, although a prospective home buyer would
still be required to make a small contribution toward the purchase.
Families could defer repayment on the second mortgage for 25 years, at
which point a balloon payment would come due, or they could repay the
second mortgage over 30-years, concurrent with the repayment of their
first mortgage. In either event, the interest rate on the second
mortgage would be subsidized, which would lower families' monthly
mortgage costs. Also, these second mortgages would eliminate the need
for private mortgage insurance, providing additional savings of roughly
$60 per month. Under this proposal, families earning as little as
$14,500 would, for the first time, have the opportunity of realizing
the American dream of home ownership.
Mr. President, I believe this legislation represents a common-sense
approach to addressing the home ownership disparity which exists and I
would hope my colleagues can be supportive.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1336
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Home
Ownership Tax Credit Act of 1999''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Home ownership is of primary importance in building
wealth in low-income families.
(2) 67 percent of the wealth that is owned by non-elderly
low-income households consists of the equity in their
residences and the median wealth of such non-elderly low-
income households is 12 times greater than the median wealth
for non-elderly renters with the same level of income.
(3) Only 45 percent of low-income households live in owner-
occupied homes, as compared to 66 percent of all households,
and 86 percent of high-income households.
(4) According to the Bureau of the Census, in 1993, 88
percent of all renters and 93 percent of renters earning less
than $20,000 could not afford a house selling for half of the
regional median house price.
(5) There is a 23 percentage point difference in home
ownership rates between central cities and suburban cities
which is largely the result of the concentration of low-
income households in central cities.
(6) The cost of the largest Federal tax incentives for home
ownership, the mortgage interest deduction and the real
estate tax deduction, is equal to approximately twice the
amount of Federal expenditures for direct Federal housing
assistance which benefits low-income households.
(7) The mortgage interest deduction and the real estate tax
deduction have little value to low-income households because
the itemized tax deductions of low-income households
generally do not exceed the standard deduction.
(8) Over 90 percent of the total benefits of the mortgage
interest deduction accrue to home buyers with incomes greater
than $40,000.
(9) Current provisions in the Federal tax code to promote
home ownership among low-income households, such as the
mortgage revenue bond program, the mortgage credit
certificate program, and the low-income housing credit, fail
to simultaneously attack the twin constraints of lack of
wealth and low income that prevent many low-income households
from becoming homeowners.
(c) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish a decentralized, market-driven approach to
increasing home ownership among low-income households,
(2) to enable low-income households to overcome the wealth
and income constraints that frequently prevent such
households from becoming homeowners, and
(3) to reduce the disparities in home ownership between
low-income households and higher-income households and
between central cities and suburban cities.
[[Page S8133]]
SEC. 2. HOME OWNERSHIP TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 45D. HOME OWNERSHIP TAX CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, the amount
of the home ownership tax credit determined under this
section for any taxable year in the credit period shall be an
amount equal to the applicable percentage of the home
ownership tax credit amount allocated such taxpayer by a
State housing finance agency in the credit allocation year
under subsection (b).
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this section,
the Secretary shall prescribe the applicable percentage for
any year in which the taxpayer is a qualified lender. Such
percentage with respect to any month in the credit period
with respect to such taxpayer shall be percentages which will
yield over such period amounts of credit under paragraph (1)
which have a present value equal to 100 percent of the home
ownership tax credit amount allocated such taxpayer under
subsection (b).
``(3) Method of discounting.--The present value under
paragraph (2) shall be determined in the same manner as the
low-income housing credit under section 42(b)(2)(C).
``(b) Allocation of Home Ownership Tax Credit Amounts.--
``(1) Amount of credit.--Each qualified State shall receive
a home ownership tax credit dollar amount for each calendar
year in an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) an amount equal to--
``(i) 40 cents multiplied by the State population,
multiplied by
``(ii) 10, plus
``(B) the unused home ownership tax credit dollar amount
(if any) of such State for the preceding year.
``(2) Qualified state.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified State' means a State
with an approved allocation plan to allocate home ownership
tax credits to qualified lenders through the State housing
finance agency.
``(B) Approved allocation plan.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `approved allocation plan' means a
written plan, certified by the Secretary, which includes--
``(i) selection criteria for the allocation of credits to
qualified lenders--
``(I) based on a process in which lenders submit bids for
the value of the credit, and
``(II) which gives priority to qualified lenders with
qualified home ownership tax credit loans which are prepaid
during a calendar year, for credit allocations in the
succeeding calendar year,
``(ii) an assurance that the State will not allocate in
excess of 10 percent of the home ownership tax credit amount
for the calendar year for qualified home ownership tax credit
loans which are neighborhood revitalization project loans,
``(iii) a procedure that the agency (or an agent or other
private contractor of such agency) will follow in monitoring
for noncompliance with the provisions of this section and in
notifying the Internal Revenue Service of such noncompliance
with respect to which such agency becomes aware, and
``(iv) such other assurances as the Secretary may require.
``(3) Qualified lender.--For purposes of this section, the
term `qualified lender' means a lender which--
``(A) is an insured depository institution (as defined in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), insured
credit union (as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit
Union Act), community development financial institution (as
defined in section 103 of the Community Development Banking
and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702)), or
nonprofit community development corporation (as defined in
section 613 of the Community Economic Development Act of 1981
(42 U.S.C. 9802)),
``(B) makes available, through such lender or the lender's
designee, pre-purchase homeownership counseling for
mortgagors, and
``(C) during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the
credit allocation, originates not less than 100 qualified
home ownership tax credit loans in an aggregate amount not
less than the amount of the bid of such lender for such
credit allocation.
``(4) Carryover of credit.--A home ownership tax credit
amount received by a State for any calendar year and not
allocated in such year shall remain available to be allocated
in the succeeding calendar year.
``(5) Population.--For purposes of this section, population
shall be determined in accordance with section 146(j).
``(6) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after
2000, the 40 cent amount contained in paragraph (1)(A)(i)
shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 1999' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under
subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of 5 cents, such amount
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of 5 cents.
``(c) Qualified Home Ownership Tax Credit Loan Defined.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified home ownership tax
credit loan' means a loan originated and funded by a
qualified lender which is secured by a second lien on a
residence, but only if--
``(A) the requirements of subsections (d), (e), and (f) are
met,
``(B) subject to subparagraphs (F), (H), and (I), the
proceeds from such loan are applied exclusively--
``(i) to acquire such residence, or
``(ii) to substantially improve such residence in
connection with a neighborhood revitalization project,
``(C) the principal amount of the loan is equal to an
amount which is--
``(i) not less than 18 percent of the purchase price of the
residence securing the loan, and
``(ii) not more than the lesser of--
``(I) 22 percent of such purchase price, or
``(II) $25,000,
``(D) in the case of a neighborhood revitalization project
loan, subparagraph (C) is applied by substituting--
``(i) `purchase price or appraised value' for `purchase
price', and
``(ii) `$40,000' for `$25,000',
``(E) the loan is--
``(i) amortized over a period of not more than 30 years (or
any lesser period of time as determined by the lender or the
State housing finance agency (as applicable)), or
``(ii) described in paragraph (2),
``(F) the proceeds of such loan are not used for settlement
or other closing costs of the transaction in an amount in
excess of 4 percent of the purchase price of the residence
securing the loan,
``(G) the rate of interest of the loan does not exceed the
greater of--
``(i) the excess of--
``(I) the prime lending rate in effect as of the date on
which the loan is originated, over
``(II) 5.5 percent, or
``(ii) 3 percent,
``(H) the origination fee paid with respect to the loan
does not cause the aggregate amount of origination fees paid
with respect to any loans secured by the residence--
``(i) in the case of a neighborhood revitalization project
loan, to exceed 1 percent of the appraised value of the
residence which secures the loan, and
``(ii) in the case of any other loan, to exceed 2 percent
of the appraised value of such residence, and
``(I) the servicing fees of such loan--
``(i) are allocated from interest payments made with
respect to the loan, and
``(ii) may not--
``(I) in the case of a neighborhood revitalization project
loan, exceed a total of 38 basis points, and
``(II) in the case of any other loan, when added to such
fees of any other loan secured by the residence, exceed a
total of 63 basis points.
``(2) Balloon payment loan.--
``(A) In general.--A loan is described in this paragraph if
such loan--
``(i) meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C),
``(ii) is for a period of 25 years and, except as provided
in clause (iv), no payment is due on such loan until the
sooner of--
``(I) the end of such period, or
``(II) the date on which the residence which secures the
loan is disposed of,
``(iii) does not prohibit early repayment of such loan, and
``(iv) requires payment on such loan if the mortgagor
receives any portion of the equity of such residence as part
of a refinancing of any loan secured by such residence.
``(B) Interest.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(G), the rate
of interest of the loan is zero percent.
``(C) Servicing fees.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(I),
there shall be no servicing fees in connection with the loan.
``(3) Index of amount.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after
2000, the amounts under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of
paragraph (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the housing price adjustment for such calendar year.
``(B) Housing price adjustment.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the housing price adjustment for any
calendar year is the percentage (if any) by which--
``(i) the housing price index for the preceding calendar
year, exceeds
``(ii) the housing price index for calendar year 2000.
``(C) Housing price index.--For purposes of subparagraph
(B), the housing price index means the housing price index
published by the Federal Housing Finance Board (as
established in section 2A of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act
(12 U.S.C. 1422a)) for the calendar year.
``(d) Mortgagor.--
``(1) In general.--A loan meets the requirements of this
subsection if it is made to a mortgagor--
``(A) whose family income for the year in which the
mortgagor applies for the loan is 80 percent or less of the
area median gross income for the area in which the residence
which secures the mortgage is located,
``(B) for whom the loan would not result in a housing debt-
to-income ratio, with respect to the residence securing the
loan, or total debt-to-income ratio which is greater than the
guidelines set by the Federal Housing
[[Page S8134]]
Administration (or any other ratio as determined by the State
housing finance agency or lender if such ratio is less than
such guidelines), and
``(C) who attends pre-purchase homeownership counseling
provided by the qualified lender or the lender's designee.
``(2) Determination of family income.--For purposes of this
subsection and subsection (h), the family income of a
mortgagor and area median gross income shall be determined in
accordance with section 143(f)(2).
``(e) Residence Requirements.--A loan meets the
requirements of this subsection if it is secured by a
residence that is--
``(1) a single-family residence (including a manufactured
home (within the meaning of section 25(e)(10))) which is the
principal residence (within the meaning of section 121) of
the mortgagor, or can reasonably be expected to become the
principal residence of the mortgagor within a reasonable time
after the financing is provided,
``(2) purchased by the mortgagor with a down payment in an
amount not less than the lesser of--
``(A) 2 percent of the purchase price, or
``(B) $1,000, and
``(3) in the case of a mortgagor with a family income
greater than 50 percent of the area median gross income, as
determined under subsection (d)(1)(A), not financed in
connection with a qualified mortgage issued under section
143.
``(f) Definition and Special Rules Relating to Credit
Period.--
``(1) Credit period defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term `credit period' means the period of 10 taxable years
beginning with the taxable year in which a home ownership tax
credit amount is allocated to the taxpayer.
``(2) Special rule for 1st year of credit period.--
``(A) In general.--The credit allowable under subsection
(a) with respect to any taxpayer for the 1st taxable year of
the credit period shall be determined by substituting for the
applicable percentage under subsection (a)(2) the fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the sum of the applicable
percentages determined under subsection (a)(2) as of the
close of each full month of such year, during which the
taxpayer was a qualified lender, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is 12.
``(B) Disallowed 1st year credit allowed in 11th year.--Any
reduction by reason of subparagraph (A) in the credit
allowable (without regard to subparagraph (A)) for the 1st
taxable year of the credit period shall be allowable under
subsection (a) for the 1st taxable year following the credit
period.
``(3) Disposition of home ownership tax credit loans.--If a
qualified home ownership tax credit loan is disposed of
during any year for which a credit is allowable under
subsection (a), such credit shall be allocated between the
parties on the basis of the number of days during such year
the mortgage was held by each and the portion of the total
credit allocated to the qualified lender which is
attributable to such mortgage.
``(g) Loss of Credit.--If, during the taxable year, a
qualified home ownership tax credit loan is repaid prior to
the expiration of the credit period with respect to such
loan, the amount of the home ownership tax credit
attributable to such loan is no longer available under
subsection (a). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
tax credit is allowable for the portion of the year in which
such repayment occurs for which the loan is outstanding,
determined in the same manner as provided in subsection
(f)(2)(A).
``(h) Recapture of Portion of Federal Subsidy From Home-
Owner.--
``(1) In general.--If, during the taxable year, any
taxpayer described in paragraph (3) disposes of an interest
in a residence with respect to which a home ownership tax
credit amount applies, then the taxpayer's tax imposed by
this chapter for such taxable year shall be increased by 50
percent of the gain (if any) on the disposition of such
interest.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
disposition--
``(A) by reason of death,
``(B) which is made on a date that is more than 10 years
after the date on which the qualified home ownership tax
credit loan secured by such residence was made, or
``(C) in which the purchaser of the residence assumes the
qualified home ownership tax credit loan secured by the
residence.
``(3) Income limitation.--A taxpayer is described in this
paragraph if, on the date of the disposition, the family
income of the mortgagor is 115 percent or more of the area
median gross income as determined under subsection (d)(1)(A)
for the year in which the disposition occurs.
``(4) Special rules relating to limitation on recapture
amount based on gain realized.--For purposes of this
subsection, rules similar to the rules of section 143(m)(6)
shall apply.
``(5) Lender to inform mortgagor of potential recapture.--
The qualified lender which makes a qualified home ownership
tax credit loan to a mortgagor shall, at the time of
settlement, provide a written statement informing the
mortgagor of the potential recapture under this subsection.
``(6) Special rules.--For purposes of this subsection,
rules similar to the rules of section 143(m)(8) shall apply.
``(i) Other Definitions.--
``(1) Neighborhood revitalization project loan.--
``(A) In general.--The term `neighborhood revitalization
project loan' means a loan secured by a second lien on a
residence, the proceeds of which are used to substantially
improve such residence in connection with a neighborhood
revitalization project.
``(B) Neighborhood revitalization project.--The term
`neighborhood revitalization project' means a project of
sufficient size and scope to alleviate physical deterioration
and stimulate investment in--
``(i) a geographic location within the jurisdiction of a
unit of local government (but not the entire jurisdiction)
designated in comprehensive plans, ordinances, or other
documents as a neighborhood, village, or similar geographic
designation, or
``(ii) the entire jurisdiction of a unit of local
government if the population of such jurisdiction is not in
excess of 25,000.
``(2) State.--The term `State' includes a possession of the
United States.
``(3) State housing finance agency.--The term `State
housing finance agency' means the public agency, authority,
corporation, or other instrumentality of a State that has the
authority to provide residential mortgage loan financing
throughout the State.
``(j) Certification and Other Reports to the Secretary.--
``(1) Certification with respect to State allocation of
home ownership tax credits.--The Secretary may, upon a
finding of noncompliance, revoke the certification of a
qualified State and revoke any qualified home ownership tax
credit amounts allocated to such State or allocated by such
State to a qualified lender.
``(2) Annual report from housing finance agencies.--Each
State housing finance agency which allocates any home
ownership tax credit amount to any qualified lender for any
calendar year shall submit to the Secretary (at such time and
in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) an annual
report specifying--
``(A) the home ownership tax credit amount allocated to
each qualified lender for such year, and
``(B) with respect to each qualified lender--
``(i) the principal amount of the aggregate qualified home
ownership tax credit loans made by such lender in such year
and the outstanding amount of such loans in such year, and
``(ii) the number of qualified home ownership tax credit
loans made by such lender in such year.
The penalty under section 6652(j) shall apply to any failure
to submit the report required by this paragraph on the date
prescribed therefore.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section.''
(b) Limitation on Carryback of Unused Credit.--Subsection
(d) of section 39 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to carryback and carryforward of unused credits) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) No carryback of home ownership tax credits before
effective date.--No portion of the unused business credit for
any taxable year which is attributable to the home ownership
tax credit determined under section 45D may be carried back
to a taxable year ending before the date of the enactment of
section 45D.''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(A) by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11),
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12),
and inserting ``, plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the home ownership tax credit determined under
section 45D.''
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 45D. Home ownership tax credit.''
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to calendar years after 1999.
____
Summary of the Home Ownership Tax Credit Act
Bill Summary: Under this legislation, each year the federal
government would issue home ownership tax credits to state
housing finance agencies (HFAs). State HFAs would then
auction these credits off to lenders such as banks, thrifts,
community development financial institutions, and community
development corporations. Lenders purchasing the tax credits
would commit to extending either: 1) zero-interest balloon
second mortgages that are due in 25 years or upon the sale of
the home, or 2) very low-interest rate second mortgages that
amortize in 30 years. These second mortgages would reduce the
size of the first mortgage and ultimately reduce monthly
mortgage costs. The aggregate principal amount of second
mortgages made by each lender would be equal to the price the
lender paid for the tax credits. Also, the lender would
commit to making at least 100 home ownership tax credit
loans.
The lender would receive the tax credit annually for 10
years or until the loan was paid off, whichever occurred
earlier. If a home ownership tax credit mortgage was prepaid
during the 10-year tax credit period, the lender would have
priority in the issuance of tax credits in the subsequent
year.
The lender would get its principal back when the second
mortgage amortized, balloon payment came due, or the house
was
[[Page S8135]]
sold. Lenders also would be able to sell the tax credit
mortgages on the secondary market with the tax credits being
transferred to secondary market investors.
Only borrowers earning up to 80 percent of the area median
income would qualify to take advantage of the home ownership
tax credit program. These second mortgages could be between
18 and 22 percent of the purchase price of the home, up to
$25,000. The second mortgage could be up to $40,000 if used
in areas formally targeted for neighborhood revitalization.
Under this proposal, families earning at little at $14,500
would be able to become home owners.
Example: The following example indicates how this proposal
would work:
A low-income family identifies a $100,000 home that it
wants to purchase. The potential home buyers would visit a
lender participating in the tax credit program. Let's assume
that the lender would agree to extend a $81,000 first
mortgage to the home buyer. Under the tax credit program, the
home buyer would only be required to make a $1,000 down
payment. Assuming that the home buyer met the eligibility
requirements of the home ownership tax credit program, the
lender would also agree to extend an $18,000 second mortgage
(In the alternative, the home buyer could get the first and
second mortgages from different lenders). Closing costs of up
to $4,000 could be financed into the second mortgage,
increasing the second mortgage amount to $22,000.
If the second mortgage was a zero-interest 25-year balloon,
the home buyer would only pay principal, interest, taxes, and
insurance on the $81,000 first mortgage for 25 years, or
until sale of the home (approximately $540/month at 7 percent
interest, plus taxes and insurance). Assuming that the home
buyer stayed in the home, at the end of 25 years, he/she
could refinance using his/her accumulated equity to repay
most or all of the $22,000 they owed on the balloon mortgage.
In sum, this proposal will allow a low-income family to
purchase a $100,000 home with a $1000 down payment and a
monthly mortgage payment of $540 (plus taxes and insurance)
throughout most of the life of the first mortgage.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 1337. A bill to provide for the placement of anti-drug messages on
appropriate Internet sites controlled by NASA; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
anti-drug messages on nasa internet controlled sites
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation
along with Senator Sessions and Senator Kyl to help in sending our
young people a no-use message on drugs. This parallels efforts in the
House by Congressman Matt Salmon and it is supported by NASA.
The average age of our young people who first use illegal drugs is 16
and the age of first use is dropping. We need to reverse this trend and
prevent drug use among young people. An easy way of contacting them is
at our finger tips. NASA's web sites are among the most visited
government sites. Thousands of schools have programs that include
NASA's web sites in their curriculum. I believe it is important to
reach out to those young people. Here is a chance to reach millions of
young people at no added expense to the taxpayer.
In this bill the NASA administration must work with the Office of
National Drug Control Policy to add anti-drug messages on NASA's web
sites. With our young people being bombarded by images of violence and
drugs from films and TV, this is a way to get the anti-drug message to
our children at a young age through a location that we know a large
number will see. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort and
support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1337
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ANTI-DRUG MESSAGES ON INTERNET SITES.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, shall place anti-drug
messages on appropriate Internet sites controlled by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (by request):
S. 1338. A bill entitled the ``Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
1999''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
military lands withdrawal act of 1999
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1999. I am introducing this legislation on behalf of
the Administration. At this point I am neither prepared to support nor
object to any of the specific provisions contained within this
legislative proposal. It is my intention however, to hold hearings on
this important legislation and the withdrawal renewals contained within
it. After those hearings have been held and we have had the benefit of
input from the parties most effected by the withdrawals, I am prepared
to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which makes such
needed changes as are identified during the hearing process.
This legislation renews the withdrawals contained within P.L. 99-606,
enacted by Congress in 1986. This Congressional action withdrew 7.2
million acres of public land for use by the Department of Defense at
six installations. The affected bases are the Barry M. Goldwater Air
Force Range in Arizona, Nellis Air Force Base and Naval Air Station
Fallon in Nevada, the McGregor Army Range in New Mexico, and Fort
Wainwright and Fort Greely in my home state of Alaska. These
withdrawals were for a period of 15 years and expire in 2001.
I have a deep abiding recognition of the unique and critical role all
of these military bases play in our national defense strategy and on
the economies of the states within which they are located. However, I
also understand that the issues surrounding the renewal of these
withdrawals are complex and varied. Congress's ability to resolve these
issues will ultimately define success or failure for this entire round
of withdrawals. What we do here will have a lasting impact on these
bases military mission, their local economies, and the environmental
protection of the public lands. It is my firm belief that only through
the Congressional hearing process can the concerns of all affected
parties be recorded and factored into the renewal of these base
withdrawals.
I am committed to the prompt consideration of this legislation.
However, taking into consideration the fact that these withdrawals do
not expire until 2001, I believe it is prudent that we move this
legislation at a pace which allows both the public and our colleagues
the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way and in the proper
forum.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1339. A bill to provide for the debarment or suspension from
Federal procurement and nonprocurement activities of persons that
violate certain labor and safety laws; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
federal procurement and assistance integrity act
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce
legislation to improve the efficiency and protect the integrity of
Federal procurement and assistance programs, by ensuring that the
Federal Government does business with responsible contractors and
participants
The United States General Accounting Office [GAO] has found that
billions of dollars in Federal procurement contracts and assistance are
going to individuals and corporations which are violating our nation's
labor and employment laws. In 1995, the GAO reported that more than $23
billion in Federal contracts were awarded in fiscal year 1993 to
contractors who violated labor laws. That is 13 percent of the $182
billion in Federal contracts awarded that year. Part of the reason for
this, the GAO found, is that the National Labor Relations Board, which
enforces our nation's labor laws, does not know whether violators of
the law are receiving Federal contracts. And the General Services
Administration, which oversees Federal procurement, does not know the
labor relations records of Federal contractors.
In 1996, the GAO reported that $38 billion in Federal contracts in
fiscal year 1994 were awarded to contractors who had violated workplace
health and safety laws. That is 22 percent of the $176 billion in
Federal contracts of $25,000 or more which were awarded that year. The
GAO found that 35 people died and 55 more people were hospitalized in
fiscal year 1994 as a result of injuries at the workplaces of federal
contractors who violated health and
[[Page S8136]]
safety laws. These contractors were assessed a total of $10.9 million
in penalties in fiscal year 1994--while being awarded $38 billion in
Federal contracts.
The GAO concluded that, although federal agencies have the authority
to deny contracts and federal assistance to companies that violate
Federal laws, this authority is rarely used in the case of safety and
health violations. The GAO found that federal agencies do not normally
collect or receive information about which contractors are violating
health and safety laws--even when contractors have been assessed large
penalties for egregious or repeat violations.
The Federal Government should not ignore the health and safety
records of companies that apply for federal contracts and assistance. A
report published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine
concludes that job-related injuries and illnesses in the United States
are more common than previously thought, costing the nation more than
AIDS, Alzheimer's, cancer or heart disease. The report, which analyzed
national estimates of job-related illnesses and injuries in 1992,
states that more than 13 million Americans were injured from job-
related causes in just one year--more than four times the number of
people who live in the City of Chicago. The report concluded that the
cost to our country from workplace injuries and illnesses was $171
billion in 1992.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to taxpayers, working
Americans and law-abiding businesses, to ensure that federal tax
dollars do not go to individuals and corporations that violate safety
and health, labor and veterans' employment preference laws. About 26
million Americans are employed by federal contractors and
subcontractors. They deserve to know that their Government is not
rewarding employers who violate the laws that protect American workers
and veterans. The legislation I am introducing today will improve the
enforcement of our nation's health and safety, labor and veterans'
employment laws, and provide an incentive to contractors to comply with
the law. This legislation will allow the Secretary of Labor to debar or
suspend a person from receiving Federal contracts or assistance for
violating the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act or the disabled and
Vietnam-era veterans hiring preference law. It will require the
Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to develop
procedures to determine whether a violation of law is serious enough to
warrant debarment or suspension. And, as recommended by the GAO, this
legislation will require ongoing exchanges of information among Federal
agencies to improve their ability to enforce our nation's laws. This
legislation is identical to a bill introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressman Lane Evans of Illinois, and it is
similar to legislation introduced in previous years by former Senator
Paul Simon.
Mr. President, it is important to note that the vast majority of
Federal contractors obey the law. This legislation is only directed at
those who are violating the law. It will deny Federal contracts and
assistance to individuals and companies that violate the law and ensure
that Federal contracts are awarded to companies that respect the law.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
S. 1339
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Procurement and
Assistance Integrity Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness and protect the integrity of the Federal
procurement and assistance systems by ensuring that the
Federal Government does business with responsible contractors
and participants.
SEC. 3. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATORS OF CERTAIN
LABOR AND SAFETY LAWS.
(a) Debarment and Suspension.--The Secretary of Labor may
debar or suspend a person from procurement activities or
nonprocurement activities upon a finding, in accordance with
procedures developed under this section, that the person
violated any of the following laws:
(1) The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.).
(2) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.).
(3) The Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.).
(4) Section 4212(a) of title 38, United States Code.
(b) Procedures.--The Secretary of Labor and the National
Labor Relations Board shall jointly develop procedures to
determine whether a violation of a law listed in subsection
(a) is serious enough to warrant debarment or suspension
under that subsection. The procedures shall provide for an
assessment of the nature and extent of compliance with such
laws, including whether there are or were single or multiple
violations of those laws or other labor or safety laws and
whether the violations occur or have occurred at one
facility, several facilities, or throughout the company
concerned. In developing the procedures, the Secretary and
the Board shall consult with departments and agencies of the
Federal Government and provide, to the extent feasible, for
ongoing exchanges of information between the departments and
agencies and the Department of Labor and the Board in order
to accurately carry out such assessments.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Debar.--The term ``debar'' means to exclude, pursuant
to established administrative procedures, from Federal
Government contracting and subcontracting, or from
participation in nonprocurement activities, for a specified
period of time commensurate with the seriousness of the
failure or offense or the inadequacy of performance.
(2) Nonprocurement activities.--The term ``nonprocurement
activities'' means all programs and activities involving
Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits,
as covered by Executive Order No. 12549 and the Office of
Management and Budget guidelines implementing that order.
(3) Procurement activities.--The term ``procurement
activities'' means all acquisition programs and activities of
the Federal Government, as defined in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation.
(4) Suspend.--The term ``suspend'' means to disqualify,
pursuant to established administrative procedures, from
Federal Government contracting and subcontracting, or from
participation in nonprocurement activities, for a temporary
period of time because an entity or individual is suspected
of engaging in criminal, fraudulent, or seriously improper
conduct.
(d) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on October
1, 1999.
(e) Regulations.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation and
the regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12549
shall be revised to include provisions to carry out this Act.
(f) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor and the
National Labor Relations Board shall jointly submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of this Act.
______
By Mrs. LINCOLN:
S. 1340. A bill to redesignate the ``Stuttgart National Aquaculture
Research Center'' as the ``Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National
Aquaculture Research Center''; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
harry k. dupree stuttgart national aquaculture research center
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I offer for the Senate's consideration,
a bill to rename the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center
after a man that has been essential to the success of the aquaculture
industry in Arkansas: Dr. Harry K. Dupree.
Dr. Dupree has devoted his entire career to the progress of the
warmwater fish industry. In Arkansas, aquaculture production has taken
great strides in recent years. The catfish industry in the state has
grown rapidly and Arkansas currently ranks second nationally in acreage
and production of catfish. The baitfish industry is not far behind,
selling more than 15 million pounds of fish annually. Much of this
success is due to the ongoing efforts of Dr. Harry Dupree.
The early years of Dr. Dupree's career were spent in Alabama. Harry
received his master's in fisheries management from Auburn University in
1956 and his Ph.D. in Zoology in 1960. From 1960 to 1974, Harry served
as both a Research Biologist and Laboratory Director at the
Southeastern Fish Cultural Laboratory in Marion, Alabama. There, Dr.
Dupree focused his efforts on catfish research and established the
major elements required for a manufactured feed for channel catfish.
His research activities led to the formulation of pelleted feed for
catfish production and made it possible for catfish production to move
from a small, labor intensive industry of local interest to a
streamlined industry with potential for expansion on the national and
international level.
[[Page S8137]]
Arkansas was fortunate enough to lure Dr. Dupree to the Fish Farming
Experimental Laboratory in Stuttgart, Arkansas, during 1974 where he
served as Scientific Director for the next 18 years. His efforts,
dating back to before 1985, resulted in funding for design and
construction of the new laboratories and offices for the facilities on
the campus of the Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. These
facilities were constructed in 1992 and Dr. Dupree has served as the
Laboratory Director for the center ever since.
I first met Harry during my tenure as Representative of the First
Congressional District of Arkansas. I'll never forget the enthusiasm
and genuine interest Harry displayed as he showed me around the
research center that he had worked so hard to establish. I, and many
others, share many fond memories and great gratitude for the wonderful
friendship and great work of Dr. Harry Dupree. The pride that he has
exhibited and has instilled in all Arkansans for the science industry
of Aquaculture has been tremendous.
Dr. Dupree is a great man with a huge heart. I urge my colleagues to
act promptly on this legislation so that Dr. Harry K. Dupree will
receive the recognition that he truly deserves.
Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent that letters of
support for this bill be included in the Record from constituents and
aquaculture associations across Arkansas.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Senate,
State of Arkansas,
June 22, 1999.
Hon. Blanche Lambert Lincoln,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: I am writing to submit my letter of
support for proposed legislation naming the USDA Fish Farming
Laboratory in Stuttgart after Dr. Harry Dupree.
As you know, you and I have served together with Dr. Dupree
on the Arkansas Delta Council and Foundation. Dr. Dupree has
served Delta Council since its formation in 1990, and more
recently as Treasurer. More importantly, Dr. Dupree has been
the central figure in the development of the Fish Farming
Laboratory since the beginning. When I was an aide to Senator
Bumpers, I recall meeting Dr. Dupree for the first time at
the annual U.S. Senate Catfish Fry in the Russell Senate
Office Building. He was busy telling everyone he could find
about the importance of the mission for the fish lab, and why
it needed more funding. Years later, Harry and I became close
friends when I moved to Stuttgart, and I witnessed his many
efforts as the chief champion of a new lab and mission at
USDA. Everything that is associated with the fish lab is due
at one level or another to the efforts of Dr. Harry Dupree.
Therefore, I can speak with complete authority when I say
that our constituents here in Arkansas County, and in the
aquaculture field, fully support the naming of this facility
after Dr. Dupree. I can think of no more fitting name for
this lab. Indeed, it is every bit as much an honor for USDA,
this center and for Arkansas County to have this named after
Dr. Dupree as it is an honor for Dr. Dupree.
Finally, I would ask that these comments, along with the
other comments you are receiving about Dr. Dupree, be listed
in the Congressional Record. I believe it would be a fitting
tribute for him, his wife Ruth, and for his hard work and
dedicated public service.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I
trust that all is well with you in Washington.
Sincerely,
Kevin A. Smith.
____
ADFA,
June 23, 1999.
Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: I want to express my full support for
legislation that would change the name of the Stuttgart
National Aquaculture Research Center to the Harry K. Dupree
Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center.
Dr. Harry K. Dupree has devoted his professional career to
the advancement of warmwater fish culture; first as a
research scientist in fish nutrition and later in
administration of research while continuing with research.
Early in his career his research established the major
elements required for a manufactured feed for channel
catfish. This work included the establishment of amino acid
requirements of channel catfish, highlighting those that are
considered ``essential'', and testing many types of proteins
for their usefulness as primary amino acid sources. Dr.
Dupree contributed to the establishment of the vitamin
requirements of channel catfish, working specifically with
vitamin E, vitamin A, and beta carotene. Research on sources
of oil for formulating channel catfish diets led to the
understanding of the lipid requirements for commercial
production.
Dr. Dupree's research helped establish the form and
formulation of manufactured feed most readily accepted by
channel catfish. With his studies of the feeding habits of
cultured catfish, helped determine the quality of feed needed
at different stages of development, the digestibility of
feeds of different compositions, and the quantity and timing
of feeding for maximum pond production. His research
activities led to the formulation of pelleted feed for
catfish production and made it possible for catfish
production to move from a small, labor intensive industry of
local interest to a streamlined industry with potential for
expansion on the national and international level. Dr. Dupree
has written extensively on the subject of fish nutrition and
is a recognized authority on warmwater fish nutrition.
Dr. Dupree's research in other areas of fish biology
illustrates the breadth of his interest and abilities. His
work on immunity and with the immune response of paddlefish,
gar, and channel catfish lead to a better understanding of
basic systems of immunity. His research on hormone induction
of ovulation of goldfish led to modern day standard
procedures now employed in spawning these and other species
of fish. Other research has included pesticide analysis of
Channel catfish and work with karyology of grass carp that
led to modern methods for determining the difference between
diploids and triploids.
In 1984, Dr. Dupree was responsible for editing ``The Third
Report to the Fish Farmer'' and for revising or writing a
large part of the publication. ``The Third Report'' is a
comprehensive review of most aspects of warmwater aquaculture
and is one of the most popular publications released by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 17,500 copies have been
printed and most have been distributed to satisfy or through
GPO sales.
Dr. Dupree is largely responsible for the laboratories,
offices and research buildings that are now at the Stuttgart
National Aquaculture Research Center. His efforts, dating
back to before 1985, resulted in funding for design and
construction of the new laboratories and offices and it is
because of his efforts that the laboratory exists today. His
efforts are continuing as he expands the facilities available
for the growing research staff that he has fought to gain
funding for.
I have been involved with aquaculture for 30 years, first
as a fish farmer and for the last 8 years as the State
Aquaculture Coordinator. I don't know of anyone who has
contributed as much to the aquaculture industry as Dr. Harry
Dupree.
I have talked to people in many states that are very
supportive of this name change and feel that Dr. Dupree is
very worthy of the honor.
Sincerely,
Ted McNulty,
State Aquaculture Coordinator, ADFA.
____
University of Arkansas,
Division of Agriculture,
June 30, 1999.
Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
United States Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lincoln: It is an honor and a pleasure to
support renaming of the Stuttgart National Aquaculture
Research Center in Stuttgart, Arkansas the Harry K. Dupree--
Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. It is a
fitting tribute to a man who had a vision for what the Center
could be and then devoted his professional career to making
it a reality for the benefit of fish farmers and the fish
industry throughout the country.
If ever a person personifies dedication, it is Dr. Dupree.
He takes tremendous pride in the people, facilities, and
programs that make up the Stuttgart Center. For nearly forty
years, the Stuttgart Center has guided and championed the
warmwater aquaculture industry. For twenty-five of those
years, Dr. Dupree has been at the helm. Today thriving,
vibrant industry is a legacy of both the Center and the
leadership and devotion provided by Dr. Dupree.
I am proud to call Harry Dupree a friend and express my
deep gratitude for being given this opportunity to honor our
friendship and his career.
Sincerely,
Milo J. Shult,
Vice President for Agriculture.
____
Keo Fish Farm, Inc.,
Keo, AR, June 21, 1999.
Sen. Blanch Lincoln,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lincoln: As I discussed earlier with you, Keo
Fish Farm, Inc. would consider it most appropriate for the
Stuttgart Fish Farming Experiment Station to be re-named
after its long-time Director, Dr. Harry K. Dupree. I believe
you will find widespread support among Arkansas' fish farmers
for such action.
Sincerely,
Mike Freeze.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Nickles,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Craig, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Edwards,
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Leahy):
[[Page S8138]]
S. 1341. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the applicability of section 179 which permits the expensing of certain
depreciable assets; to the Committee on Finance.
main street business incentive act of 1999
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Lott,
Daschle, Nickles, Reid, Murkowski, and twenty-one other distinguished
colleagues in introducing the ``Main Street Business Incentive Act of
1999,'' which addresses a gap in the current law that is impeding the
improvement of many of our small town Main Street businesses.
Specifically, the bill would raise the income tax expensing provision
for small businesses in current law from $19,000 to $25,000 this year.
The bill also would expand the provision to cover investments in
commercial buildings and structural improvements.
Mr. President, small businesses are the economic anchors of Main
Streets in small and large communities throughout our country. They
provide jobs, sponsor local charities and little league teams, and
enable people to purchase their daily necessities without driving long
distances. Without small businesses, we wouldn't have communities,
which is why Congress has adjusted the tax laws in numerous ways over
the years to encourage investments that enable them to grow and thrive.
For example, many businesses have to depreciate the cost of new
equipment purchases--which is to say, they deduct these costs over a
long period of years. Small businesses, by contrast, can ``expense'' up
to $19,000 in purchases of such assets. They deduct the cost entirely
in the first year. That maximum amount will increase to $25,000 in year
2003. This tax provision is helpful to many small businesses because it
enables them to write off the investment immediately and so bolsters
their cash flow.
However, this expensing provision is not as helpful as it could be
and needs to be. Specifically, it does not include investments that
small businesses make in improving the store front or the building in
which they conduct their business. In many small towns, the local drug
store, shoe store or grocery store doesn't have much need of new
equipment. But it does need to improve the store front or the interior,
and generally spruce things up.
Such investments are good for our Main Streets. They improve the
appearance of both the business and the town. Yet under today's tax
law, if a small business owner improves his storefront, he has to
spread the cost of the investments for tax purposes over 39 years,
which is the depreciation schedule for commercial real estate. The
result is a large economic hurdle for many of these small businesses.
There are Main Streets all across our country that were built or
refurbished thirty, forty or fifty years ago and now need investment
and improvement. The Tax Code should encourage this. A simple way to
accomplish it is to allow the expensing of up to $25,000, not only for
equipment and machinery, but also for small business investments in
store fronts and business locations. The motel, the gas station, the
hardware store or barber shop ought to be able to ``expense'' that
amount of investment in their property. That's what my legislation
provides.
This would be a significant benefit to America's small business and I
think would result in a significant improvement in America's
communities and main streets. This legislation is supported by a number
of small business-oriented trade groups including the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), NFIB-North Dakota, the Small
Business Legislative Council, the North Dakota Association of Realtors
and National Association of Realtors.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed
legislation.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 1342. A bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the
tax on generation-skipping transfers; to the Committee on Finance.
legislation to repeal the federal death tax
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to repeal the federal death tax, otherwise known as the estate and gift
tax. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in
the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Colorado Senate Joint
Memorial 99-004, approved by the Colorado Legislature be printed in the
Record. This memorial resolution urges the immediate repeal of the
Federal estate and gift tax. Finally, I ask that an article I recently
wrote on this topic be printed in the Record.
The material follows:
S. 1342
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF FEDERAL TRANSFER TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts and
generation-skipping transfers made, after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Technical and Conforming Changes.--The Secretary of the
Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall, as soon as
practicable but in any event not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Finance of the Senate a draft of any technical
and conforming changes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
which are necessary to reflect throughout such Code the
changes in the substantive provisions of law made by this
Act.
____
Time to End the Estate tax
(By Senator Wayne Allard)
As we approach the new millennium a consensus has emerged
in favor of significant tax reform. While some prefer the
flat tax, others advocate the sales tax. A third camp argues
that Congress should avoid a complete overhaul and instead
work to improve the existing system. Whatever path is chosen,
it should include elimination of the federal estate and gift
tax. Repeal of the estate tax is the first step toward a
fairer and flatter tax system.
Congress has levied estate taxes at various times
throughout U.S. history, particularly during war. The current
estate tax dates back to 1916, a time when many in Congress
were looking for ways to redistribute some of the wealth held
by a small number of super-rich families. This first
permanent estate tax had a top rate of only 10 percent, and
the threshold was high enough to ensure that the tax effected
only a tiny fraction of the population.
Like the rest of our tax code, it did not take long for
this limited tax to evolve into a more substantial burden. In
only the second year of the tax, the top rate was increased
to 25 percent. By 1935 the top rate was 70 percent and in
1941 it reached an all time high of 77 percent.
While income tax rates have declined in recent decades,
estate taxes have remained high. Today, the top estate tax
rate is 55 percent (a top marginal rate of 60 percent is paid
by some estates), and the tax is imposed on amounts above the
1999 exemption level of $650,000 (value above $650,000 is
taxed at an initial rate of 37%).
Generally, the value of all assets held at death is
included in the estate for purposes of assessing the tax--
this includes residences, business assets, stocks, bonds,
savings, personal property, etc. Estate tax returns are due
within nine months of the decedent's death (a six-month
extension is available) and with the exception of certain
closely held businesses, the tax is due when the return is
filed. The tax is paid by the estate rather than by the
beneficiary (in contrast to an inheritance tax).
The 1997 tax bill increased the unified estate and gift tax
exemption from $600,000 to $1 million. However, this is done
very gradually and does not reach the $1 million level until
2006. The bill also increased the exemption amount for a
qualified family owned business to $1.3 million. While both
actions are a good first step, they barely compensate for the
effects of inflation. The $600,000 exemption level was last
set in 1987, just to keep pace with inflation the exemption
should have risen to $850,000 by 1997. Incremental
improvements help, but we need more substantial reform.
The United States retains among the highest estate taxes in
the world. Among industrial nations, only Japan has a higher
top rate than the U.S. But Japan's 70 percent applies to
an inheritance of $16 million or more. The U.S. top rate
of 55% kicks in on estates of $3 million or more. France,
the United Kingdom, and Ireland all have top rates of 40%,
and the average top rate of OECD countries is only 29%.
Australia, Canada, and Mexico presently have no estate
taxes.
The strongest argument that supporters of the estate tax
make is that most American families will never have to pay an
estate tax. While this is true, it does not justify retention
of a tax that causes great harm to family businesses and
farms, often constitutes double taxation, limits economic
growth, consumes significant resources in unproductive tax
compliance activities, and raises only a tiny portion of
federal tax revenues. In other words, the estate tax is not
worth all the trouble.
The estate tax can destroy a family business. This is the
most disturbing aspect of the tax. No American family should
lose its business or farm because of the estate tax. Current
estimates are that more than 70 percent of family businesses
do not survive the
[[Page S8139]]
second generation, and 87 percent do not survive the third
generation. While there are many reasons for these high
numbers, the estate tax is certainly one of them. The estate
tax fails to distinguish between cash and non-liquid assets,
and since family businesses are often asset-rich and cash
poor, they can be forced to sell assets in order to pay the
tax. This practice can destroy the business outright, or
leave it so strapped for capital that long-term survival is
jeopardized. Similarly, more and more large ranches and farms
are facing the prospect of break-up and sale to developers in
order to pay the estate tax. In addition to destroying a
family business, this harms the environment.
Recently, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse calculated
the taxable components of 1995 estates. While 21 percent of
assets were corporate stock and bonds, and another 21 percent
were mutual fund assets, fully 32 percent of gross estates
consisted of ``business assets'' such as stock in closely
held businesses, interests in non-corporate businesses and
farms, and interests in limited partnerships. In larger
estates this portion rose to 55 percent. Clearly, a
substantial portion of taxable estates consist of family
businesses.
The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that a 1995
survey by Travis Research Associates found that 51 percent of
family businesses would have significant difficulty surviving
the estate tax, and 30 percent of respondents said they would
have to sell part or all of their business. This is supported
by a 1995 Family Business Survey conducted by Matthew
Greenwald and Associates which found that 33 percent of
family businesses anticipate having to liquidate or sell part
of their business to pay the estate tax.
While some businesses are destroyed by the estate tax, many
more expend substantial resources in tax planning and
compliance. Those that survive the estate tax often do so by
purchasing expensive insurance. A 1995 Gallup survey of
family firms found that 23 percent of the owners of companies
valued at over $10 million pay $50,000 or more per year in
insurance premiums on policies designed to help them pay the
eventual tax bill. The same survey found that family firms
estimated they had spent on average over $33,000 on
lawyers, accountants and financial planners over a period
of 6.5 years in order to prepare for the estate tax.
In fact, one of the great ironies of the estate tax is that
an extensive amount of tax planning can very nearly eliminate
the tax. This results in a situation where the very wealthy
can end up paying less estate tax than those of more modest
means. As noted above, life insurance can play a big role in
estate planning, but there are also mechanisms such as
qualified personal residence trusts, charitable remainder
trusts, charitable lead trusts, generation-skipping trusts,
and the effective use of annual gifts. While these mechanisms
may reduce the tax, they waste resources that could be put to
much better use growing businesses and creating jobs.
One of the tenets of a fair tax system is that income is
taxed only once. Income should be taxed when it is first
earned or realized, it should not be repeatedly re-taxed by
government. The estate tax violates this tenet. At the time
of a person's death, much of their savings, business assets,
or farm assets have already been subjected to federal, state,
and local tax. These same assets are then taxed again under
the estate tax. Price Waterhouse has calculated that those
families that will be liable for the estate tax face the
prospect of nearly 73 percent of every dollar being taxed
away.
Repeal of the estate tax would benefit the economy. Without
the estate tax, greater business resources could be put
toward productive economic activities. Recently, the Center
for the Study of Taxation commissioned George Mason
University Professor Richard Wagner to estimate the economic
impact of a phase-out of the estate tax. He estimated that if
the tax is phased out over 5 years beginning in 1999, that
the economy would create 189,895 more jobs and would grow by
an additional $509 billion over a ten year period. Similarly,
a recent Heritage Foundation study simulated the results of
an estate tax repeal under two respected economic models, the
Washington University Macro Model, and the Wharton
Econometric Model. Under the models, a repeal of the tax is
forecast to increase jobs and GDP, as well as reduce the cost
of capital.
One might expect that with all the economic dislocation
associated with the estate tax that it raises a significant
amount of revenue or accomplishes a redistributionist social
policy. In fact, the revenue take is quite modest--
approximately 1 percent of federal revenue, or $14.7 billion
in 1995. And as for social policy, the ability of the federal
government to equalize wealth through the estate tax may be
quite limited. A 1995 study published by the Rand Corporation
found that for the very wealthiest Americans, only 7.5
percent of their wealth is attributable to inheritance--the
other 92.5 percent is from earnings.
America is a nation of tremendous economic opportunity.
Success is determined principally through hard work and
individual initiative. Our tax policy should focus on
encouraging greater initiative rather than on attempts to
limit inherited wealth. The estate tax is a relic. It damages
family businesses, harms the economy, and constitutes double
taxation. It is time for the estate tax to go.
____
Senate Joint Memorial 99-004
Whereas, The Federal Unified Gift and Estate Tax, or
``Death Tax'', generates a minimal amount of federal revenue,
especially considering the high cost of collection and
compliance and in fact has been shown to decrease federal
revenues from what they might otherwise have been; and
Whereas, This federal Death Tax has been identified as
destructive to job opportunity and expansion, especially to
minority entrepreneurs and family farmers; and
Whereas, This federal Death Tax causes severe hardship to
growing family businesses and family farming operations,
often to the point of partial or complete forced liquidation;
and
Whereas, Critical state and local leadership assets are
unnecessarily destroyed and forever lost to the future
detriment of their communities through relocation or
liquidation; and
Whereas, Local and state schools, churches, and numerous
charitable organizations would greatly benefit from the
increased employment and continued family business leadership
that would result from the repeal of the federal Death Tax;
now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-second General
Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of
Representatives concurring herein: That the Congress of the
United States is hereby memoralized to immediately repeal the
Federal Unified Gift and Estate Tax.
Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Memorial
be sent to the President of the United States, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, the President of
the United States Senate, and each member of the Colorado
congressional delegation.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 1343. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
certain National Forest land to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use
as a cemetery, to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
conveyance of national forest land to elko county, nevada
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, without
consideration, two acres of land to Elko County, NV, for use as a
cemetery. This proposal should not be controversial, and I urge my
colleagues to act upon this quickly.
Jarbidge, NV, is a small town located in the remote wilderness of
Elko County in northern Nevada. Surrounded by the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest, this community is representative of many of the small,
rural communities of Nevada. Its residents have worked hard to earn a
living off the land and many of its families have deep roots in Nevada
established decades ago by early pioneers to the Silver State. Since
the 1900's, the people there have buried their dead in a small parcel
of national forest land.
The people of Jarbidge now have an opportunity to establish a
permanent trust for the maintenance of this historic cemetery. The
establishment of the trust is dependent on county ownership of the
land, however. The Forest Service has stated that they cannot and will
not give the land to the County, and insist that the land be paid for--
either in cash or via a land exchange. While I agree that in the vast
majority of instances this is the correct stance, in this case the
Forest Service is just plain wrong.
We should do the right thing and give this land to the county to
honor the families whose loved ones rest in that small cemetery. The
bill I introduce today is companion legislation to a House bill
introduced by my fellow Nevada legislator Jim Gibbons--a bill which is
making its way through the House. I hope my colleagues in the Senate
will act quickly so that the residents of Jarbidge will know the entire
U.S. Congress supports their efforts to honor the memory of deceased
residents whose graves occupy this tiny plot of land.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1343
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NATIONAL FOREST LAND TO ELKO COUNTY,
NEVADA, FOR USE AS CEMETERY.
(a) Requirement To Convey.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall convey, without consideration, to Elko County, Nevada,
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the parcel of real property described in subsection (b), for
use as a cemetery.
(b) Description of Property.--
(1) In general.--The property referred to in subsection (a)
is a parcel of National Forest land (including any
improvements on the
[[Page S8140]]
land) in Elko County, Nevada, known as ``Jarbidge Cemetery'',
consisting of approximately 2 acres and described as the
NE\1/4\SW1\1/4\NW\1/4\ of Section 9 T 46 N, R 58 E, MDB&M.
(2) Survey.--
(A) In general.--The exact acreage and legal description of
the property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
(B) Cost.--As a condition of any conveyance under this
section, the County shall pay the cost of the survey.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions with respect to
the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
____________________