[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.

                          ____________________