[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8952-S8957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1406. A bill to combat hate crimes.


                         combating hate crimes

  Mr. HATCH: Mr. President, in the face of some of the hate crimes that 
have riveted public attention--and have unfortunately made the name 
Benjamin Nathaniel Smith synonymous with the recent spate of shootings 
in Illinois; the names James Byrd synonymous with Jasper, Texas; and 
the name Matthew Shepard synonymous with Laramie, Wyoming--I am 
committed in my view that the Senate must lead and speak against hate 
crimes.
  During and just preceding this past generation, Congress has been the 
engine of progress in securing America's civil rights achievements and 
in driving us as a society increasingly closer to the goal of equal 
rights for all under the law.
  Historians will conclude, I have little doubt, that many of America's 
greatest strides in civil rights progress took place just before this 
present moment on history's grand time line: Congress protected 
Americans from employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 
color, religion, and national origin with the passage of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964; Congress protected Americans from gender-based 
discrimination in rates of pay for equal work with the Equal Pay Act of 
1963; and from age discrimination with the passage of the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Congress extended protections 
to immigration status with the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 
1986, and to the disabled with the passage of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act in 1990. And the list continues on and on.
  Yet while America's elected officials have striven mightily through 
the passage of such measures to stop discrimination in the workplace, 
or at the hands of government actors, what remains tragically 
unaddressed in large part is discrimination against peoples' own 
security--that most fundamental right to be free from physical harm.
  Despite our best efforts, discrimination continues to persist in many 
forms in this country, but most sadly in the rudimentary and malicious 
form of violence against individuals because of their identities.
  A fair question for this Congress is what it will do to stem this 
ugly form of hatred and to counter hate crime as boldly as this 
Congress has attempted to redress workplace bias and governmental 
discrimination. Will we continue to advance boldly in this latest civil 
rights frontier by furthering Congress' proud legacy, or will we demur 
on the ground that this is not now a battle for our waging?
  Let me state, unequivocally, that this is America's fight. As much as 
we condemn all crime, hate crime can be more sinister that non-hate 
crime.
  A crime committed not just to harm an individual, but out of the 
motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire community--
oftentimes a community defined on the basis of immutable traits--is 
appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different manner, than 
other crimes.
  This is in keeping with the long-standing principle of criminal 
justice--as recognized recently by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 
unanimous decision upholding Wisconsin's sentencing enhancement for 
hate crimes--that the worse a criminal defendant's motive, the worse 
the crime. (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993)
  Moreover, hate crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes; 
they inflict deep, lasting, and distinct injuries--some of which never 
heal--on victims and their family members; they incite community 
unrest; and, ultimately, they are downright un-American.
  The melting pot of America is, worldwide, the most successful multi-
ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-faith country in all recorded history. 
This is something to ponder as we consider the atrocities so routinely 
sanctioned in other countries--like Serbia so recently--committed 
against persons entirely on the basis of their racial, ethnic, or 
religious identity.
  I am resolute in my view that the federal government can play a 
valuable role in responding to hate crime. One example here is my 
sponsorship of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, a law which 
instituted a data collection system to assess the extent of hate crime 
activity, and which now has thousands of voluntary law enforcement 
agency participants.
  Another, more recent example, is the passage in 1996 of the Church 
Arson Protection Act, which, among other things, criminalized the 
destruction of any church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of 
religious worship because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics 
of an individual associated with that property.
  To be sure, however, any federal response--to be a meaningful one--
must abide by the constitutional limitations imposed on Congress, and 
be cognizant of the limitations on Congress' enumerated powers that are 
routinely enforced by the courts.
  This is more true today than it would have been even a mere decade 
ago, given the significant revival by the U.S. Supreme Court of the 
federalism doctrine in a string of decisions beginning in 1992. Those 
decisions must make us particularly vigilant in respecting the courts' 
restrictions on Congress' powers to legislate under section 5 of the 
14th amendment, and under the commerce clause. [City of Boerne 
(invalidating Religious Freedom Restoration Act under 14th amendment); 
Lopez (invalidating Gun-Free School Zones Act under commerce clause); 
Brzondala (4th circuit decision

[[Page S8953]]

invalidating one section of the Violence Against Women Act on both 
grounds).]
  We therefore need to arrive at a federal response to hate crimes that 
is not only as effective as possible, but that carefully navigates the 
rocky shoals of these court decisions. To that end, I have prepared an 
approach that I believe will be not only an effective one, but one that 
would avoid altogether the constitutional risks that attach to other 
possible federal responses that have been raised.
  Indeed, just a couple months ago, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that states and 
localities should continue to be responsible for prosecuting the 
overwhelming majority of hate crimes, and that no legislation is 
worthwhile if it is invalidated as unconstitutional.
  There are four principal components to my approach:
  First, it creates a meaningful partnership between the federal 
government and the states in combating hate crime, by establishing 
within the Justice Department a fund to assist state and local 
authorities in investigating and prosecuting hate crime.
  Much of the cited justification given by those who advocate broad 
federal jurisdiction over hate crimes is a lack of adequate resources 
at the state and local level.
  Accordingly, before we take the step of making every criminal offense 
motivated by a hatred of someone's immutable traits a federal offense, 
it is imperative that we equip states and localities with the resources 
necessary so that they can undertake these criminal investigations and 
prosecutions on their own.

  Second, my approach undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the raw 
data that has been collected pursuant to the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics 
Act, including a comparison of the records of different jurisdictions--
some with hate crime law, others without--to determine whether there 
is, in fact, a problem in certain states' prosecution of those criminal 
acts constituting hate crimes.
  Third, my approach directs an appropriate, neutral forum to develop a 
model hate crimes statute that would enable states to evaluate their 
own laws, and adopt--in whole or in part from the model statute--hate 
crime legislation at the state level.
  One of the arguments cited for a federalization of enforcement is the 
varying scope and punitive force of state laws. Yet there are many 
areas of grave national concern--such as drunk driving, by way of 
example--that are appropriately left to the states for criminal 
enforcement and punishment.
  Before we make all hate crimes federal offenses, I believe we should 
pursue avenues that advance consistency among the states through the 
voluntary efforts of their legislatures. Perhaps, upon completion of 
this model hate crime law, Congress will review its recommendation and 
consider additional ways to promote uniformity among the states.
  Fourth, my proposal makes a long-overdue modification of our existing 
federal hate crime law (passed in 1969) to allow for the prosecution by 
federal authorities of those hate crimes that are classically within 
federal jurisdication--that is, hate crimes in which state lines have 
been crossed.
  Mr. President, I believe that passage of this comprehensive measure 
will prove a strong antidote to the scourge of hate crimes.
  It is no answer for the Senate to sit by silently while these crimes 
are being committed. The ugly, bigoted, and violent underside of some 
in our country that is reflected by the commission of hate crimes must 
be combated at all levels of government.
  For some, federal leadership necessitates federal control. I do not 
subscribe to this view, especially when it comes to this problem. It 
has been proposed by some that to combat hate crime Congress should 
enact a new tier of far-reaching federal criminal legislation. That 
approach strays from the foundations of our constitutional structure--
namely, the first principles of federalism that for more than two 
centuries have vested states with primary responsibility for 
prosecuting crimes committed within their boundaries.
  As important as this issue is, there is little evidence such a step 
is warranted, or that it will do any more than what I have proposed. In 
fact, one could argue that national enforcement of hate crime could 
decrease if states are told the federal government has assumed primary 
responsibility over hate crime enforcement.
  Accordingly, we must lead--but lead resonsibly--recognizing that we 
live in a country of governments of shared and divided 
responsibilities.
  In confronting a world of prejudice greater than any of us can now 
imagine, Lincoln said to Congress in 1862 that the ``dogmas of the 
quiet past'' were ``inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is 
piled high with difficulty, and we must rise--with the occasion. As our 
case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.''
  In that very spirit, I encourage this body to question the dogma that 
federal leadership must include federal control, and I encourage this 
body to act anew by supporting a proposal that is far-reaching in its 
efforts to stem hate crime, and that is at the same time respectful of 
the primacy states have traditionally enjoyed in prosecuting crimes 
committed within their boundaries.
  Ultimately, I believe the approach I have set forth is a principled 
way to accommodate our twin aims--our well-intentioned desire to 
investigate, prosecute, and, hopefully, end these vicious crimes; and 
our unequivocal duty to respect the constitutional boundaries governing 
any legislative action we take.
  My proposal should unite all of us on the point about which we should 
most fervently agree--that the Senate must speak firmly and 
meaningfully in denouncing as wrong in all respects those actions we 
have increasingly come to know as hate crimes. Our continued progress 
in fighting to protect Americans' civil rights demands no less.
  Mr. President, I feel deeply about this. I hope our colleagues will 
look at this seriously and realize this is the way to go. It 
appropriately respects the rights of the States and the rights of the 
Federal Government. It appropriately sets the tone. It appropriately 
goes after these types of crimes in a very intelligent and decent way. 
I believe it is the way to get at the bottom of this type of criminal 
activity in our society today.
  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. 1406

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

     SECTION 1. HATE CRIMES.

       (a) Declarations.--Congress declares that--
       (1) further efforts must be taken at all levels of 
     government to respond to the staggering brutality of hate 
     crimes that have riveted public attention and shocked the 
     Nation;
       (2) hate crimes are prompted by bias and are committed to 
     send a message of hate to targeted communities, usually 
     defined on the basis of immutable traits;
       (3) the prominent characteristic of a hate crime is that it 
     devastates not just the actual victim and the victim's family 
     and friends, but frequently savages the community sharing the 
     traits that caused the victim to be selected;
       (4) any efforts undertaken by the Federal Government to 
     combat hate crimes must respect the primacy that States and 
     local officials have traditionally been accorded in the 
     criminal prosecution of acts constituting hate crimes; and
       (5) an overly broad reaction by the Federal Government to 
     this serious problem might ultimately diminish the 
     accountability of State and local officials in responding to 
     hate crimes and transgress the constitutional limitations on 
     the powers vested in Congress under the Constitution.
       (b) Studies.--
       (1) Collection of data.--
       (A) Definition of hate crime.--In this paragraph, the term 
     ``hate crime'' means--
       (i) a crime described in subsection (b)(1) of the first 
     section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 
     note); and
       (ii) a crime that manifests evidence of prejudice based on 
     gender or age.
       (B) Collection from cross-section of states.--Not later 
     than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation 
     with the National Governors' Association, shall select 10 
     jurisdictions with laws classifying certain types of crimes 
     as hate crimes and 10 jurisdictions without such laws from 
     which to collect data described in subparagraph (C) over a 
     12-month period.

[[Page S8954]]

       (C) Data to be collected.--The data to be collected are--
       (i) the number of hate crimes that are reported and 
     investigated;
       (ii) the percentage of hate crimes that are prosecuted and 
     the percentage that result in conviction;
       (iii) the length of the sentences imposed for crimes 
     classified as hate crimes within a jurisdiction, compared 
     with the length of sentences imposed for similar crimes 
     committed in jurisdictions with no hate crime laws; and
       (iv) references to and descriptions of the laws under which 
     the offenders were punished.
       (D) Costs.--Participating jurisdictions shall be reimbursed 
     for the reasonable and necessary costs of compiling data 
     under this paragraph.
       (2) Study of trends.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the General Accounting Office shall complete a 
     study that analyzes the data collected under paragraph (1) 
     and under the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 to determine 
     the extent of hate crime activity throughout the country and 
     the success of State and local officials in combating that 
     activity.
       (B) Identification of trends.--In the study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and the General Accounting Office shall identify any 
     trends in the commission of hate crimes specifically by--
       (i) geographic region;
       (ii) type of crime committed; and
       (iii) the number of hate crimes that are prosecuted and the 
     number for which convictions are obtained.
       (c) Model Statute.--
       (1) In general.--To encourage the identification and 
     prosecution of hate crimes throughout the country, the 
     Attorney General shall, through the National Conference of 
     Commissioners on Uniform State Laws of the American Law 
     Institute or another appropriate forum, and in consultation 
     with the States, develop a model statute to carry out the 
     goals described in subsection (a) and criminalize acts 
     classified as hate crimes.
       (2) Requirements.--In developing the model statute, the 
     Attorney General shall--
       (A) include in the model statute crimes that manifest 
     evidence of prejudice; and
       (B) prepare an analysis of all reasons why any crime 
     motivated by prejudice based on any traits of a victim should 
     or should not be included.
       (d) Support for Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions by 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Officials.--
       (1) Assistance other than financial assistance.--
       (A) In general.--At the request of a law enforcement 
     official of a State or a political subdivision of a State, 
     the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall provide technical, 
     forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in 
     the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
       (i) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 
     16 of title 18, United States Code);
       (ii) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State; and
       (iii) is motivated by prejudice based on the victim's race, 
     ethnicity, or religion or is a violation of the State's hate 
     crime law.
       (B) Priority.--In providing assistance under subparagraph 
     (A), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes 
     committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 
     1 State.
       (2) Grants.--
       (A) In general.--There is established a grant program 
     within the Department of Justice to assist State and local 
     officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate 
     crimes.
       (B) Eligibility.--A State or political subdivision of a 
     State applying for assistance under this paragraph shall--
       (i) describe the purposes for which the grant is needed; 
     and
       (ii) certify that the State or political subdivision lacks 
     the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate 
     crime.
       (C) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     paragraph shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney 
     General not later than 24 hours after the application is 
     submitted.
       (D) Grant amount.--A grant under this paragraph shall not 
     exceed $100,000 for any single case.
       (E) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the National Governors' 
     Association, shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     applications made for grants under this paragraph, the award 
     of such grants, and the effectiveness of the grant funds 
     awarded.
       (F) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
       (e) Interstate Travel To Commit Hate Crime.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 249. Interstate travel to commit hate crime

       ``(a) In General.--A person, whether or not acting under 
     color of law, who--
       ``(1) travels across a State line or enters or leaves 
     Indian country in order, by force or threat of force, to 
     willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with, or by force 
     or threat of force to attempt to injure, intimidate, or 
     interfere with, any person because of the person's race, 
     color, religion, or national origin; and
       ``(2) by force or threat of force, willfully injures, 
     intimidates, or interferes with, or by force or threat of 
     force attempts to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere 
     with any person because of the person's race, color, 
     religion, or national origin,
     shall be subject to a penalty under subsection (b).
       ``(b) Penalties.--A person described in subsection (a) who 
     is subject to a penalty under this subsection--
       ``(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both;
       ``(2) if bodily injury results or if the violation includes 
     the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous 
     weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or
       ``(3) if death results or if the violation includes 
     kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse 
     or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
     attempt to kill--
       ``(A) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any 
     term of years or for life, or both; or
       ``(B) may be sentenced to death.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 13 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``249. Interstate travel to commit hate crime.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 1407. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Technology 
Administration of the Department of Commerce for fiscal years 2000, 
2001, and 2002, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


  technology administration authorization act for fiscal years 2000, 
                             2001, and 2002

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to 
authorize the appropriations for the Technology Administration (TA) of 
the Department of Commerce for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. This 
bill authorizes funding for activities in the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Technical Information 
Services (NTIS), the Office of Technology Policy (OTP), and the Office 
of Space Commercialization (OSC).
  The Technology Administration is the only federal agency responsible 
for maximizing technology's contribution to America's economic growth, 
and for partnering with industry to improve U.S. industrial 
competitiveness. Because technological progress is the single most 
important factor in our current economic growth, it is important that 
the agency be adequately funded to pursue its missions, even during the 
current era of fiscal constraints. As the pace of technological changes 
accelerates and as the world transitions to a digital economy, we must 
work proactively to ensure that the private sector has the best 
possible tools to compete in this new economy.
  NIST, as the main research laboratory in Technology Administration, 
promotes and strengthens the U.S. economy by collaborating with 
industry to apply new technology, measurement methods, and technical 
standards. In support of the programs in Scientific and Technical 
Research and Services, the bill seeks to increase the authorization 
amounts for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by 5.5 percent annually, 
consistent with my objective for doubling the aggregate federal funding 
for civilian research over an 11-year period beginning in fiscal year 
2000.
  In keeping with my firm belief that our national commitment to 
technological innovation must include a complete framework that also 
facilitates the realization and commercialization of new technologies 
in the marketplace, the bill also continues to provide funding for two 
NIST programs that have been particularly contentious: the Advanced 
Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). 
We respond to existing criticisms of ATP with several changes to the 
administration of ATP awards to ensure that the program fulfills its 
originally intended mission. These modifications include provisions to 
ensure that federal funds would not interfere or compete with private 
capital for the commercialization of new technologies, and that these 
funds would benefit primarily small businesses.
  With MEP approaching maturity, the evidence of its success in 
providing technical assistance and advanced

[[Page S8955]]

business practices to help small manufacturers improve their 
competitiveness has been overwhelming. However, as we transition from a 
labor-based to a knowledge-based economy, the function of the 
manufacturing sector will change and its needs will evolve accordingly. 
In anticipation of these changes, the legislation requests the Director 
of NIST to examine these issues closely, and recommend modification or 
expansion of MEP as appropriate.
  NTIS is an agency within Technology Administration that collects, 
archives, and disseminates scientific, technical, and related business 
information produced by or for the federal government. NTIS is required 
to cover its expenses through its revenues. However, the advance of the 
Internet and the convenience of electronic dissemination of information 
freely via agency web sites have severely impacted NTIS's ability to 
sell its products. It is my belief that the agency serves an important 
mission in ensuring the preservation of research results produced from 
federal investment. Yet, prudent fiscal management practice dictates 
that we give serious consideration to the agency and its future. 
Accordingly, the bill reauthorizes additional funding for the agency, 
but only if the Secretary can recommend potential resolutions to the 
issue. We leave open the option of possibly resolving this issue in a 
later bill.
  Through the Technology Administration Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-309), we 
created the Office of Space Commercialization, and for the first time, 
the Office will receive its own funding authorization. As the pace of 
activities to commercialize aspects of space increases, I hope that the 
Office will become a more active participant in the ongoing discussion 
between the government and industry in this strategically important 
market.
  Two other issues that the legislation addresses include the 
commissioning of a study to strengthen and maintain technical expertise 
of the national laboratories, and a study on the role and impact of 
international and domestic technical standards of global commerce. 
These are issues with national impact that I believe we must discuss in 
a timely manner.
  Mr. President, I believe that this authorization bill reflects a 
balance between prudent fiscal policies and wise investment for our 
Nation's future. We have incorporated input from my colleagues in the 
Senate, the House, and the Administration, as well as my constituents, 
and other interested parties. The legislation reaffirms our national 
commitment to maximize technology's contribution to economic growth in 
a responsible manner, while at the same time, prepares us for changes 
ahead as we transition into a knowledge-based economy. It also seeks to 
maintain America's unique technical skills. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support timely passage of this legislation so that we can 
give a clear indication to the American people that we are serious 
about enhancing U.S. competitiveness as we approach the next century, 
and ensuring that our federal investment is well spent.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1408. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 
promote the cleanup of abandoned, idled, or underused commercial or 
industrial facilities, the expansion or redevelopment of which are 
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.


          small business brownfields redevelopment act of 1999

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small 
Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999.
  As we debate the best avenue to promote smart growth in our 
communities, a prominent issue is brownfields revitalization. 
Historically an issue of corporate America, small businesses can play a 
crucial role in revitalizing brownfields sites. Providing small 
businesses with the necessary capital to redevelop these sites is 
critical. The potential for small businesses to redevelop brownfields 
sites has gone untapped for far too long.
  Although Congress clarified lender liability in 1996--in the FY 1997 
Omnibus Appropriations bill--P.L. 104-208--there has been little 
progress to enhance small business brownfields redevelopment efforts. 
Larger corporations have the necessary resources; for example, Bank of 
America has recognized the economic benefits for brownfields lending. 
The Small Business Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999 would level 
this playing field.
  Our goal with this legislation is to take an existing framework--the 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) successful loan guarantee and 
community development corporation programs--and channel important 
resources into brownfields redevelopment and prevention. It is a 
concept with multiple objectives. It will provide legitimacy to 
brownfields investment and lending, which does not now exist; and 
promote innovative cleanup technologies.
  By redeveloping brownfields and easing development pressure on 
greenfields, we are promoting smart growth; and by providing critical 
financial tools to our small businesses, we are promoting the backbone 
of our nation's economy. Revitalizing brownfields is pro-business, pro-
community, and pro-environment.
  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. 1408

       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 ``Small Business Brownfields 
     Redevelopment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM SET-ASIDE 
                   FOR BROWNFIELD PREVENTION AND REDEVELOPMENT.

       Section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
     (15 U.S.C. 697a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Set-Aside for Brownfield Prevention and Redevelopment 
     Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the amount authorized for financings 
     under this section in each fiscal year, the Administration 
     shall set aside the lesser of $50,000,000 or 10 percent, 
     which shall be used by qualified State and local development 
     companies to finance projects that assist qualified small 
     businesses (or prospective owners or operators of qualified 
     small businesses) in--
       ``(A) carrying out site assessment and cleanup activities 
     at brownfield sites or at sites contaminated with petroleum; 
     and
       ``(B) acquiring new, clean technologies and production 
     equipment.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `brownfield site' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 321(d);
       ``(B) the term `site assessment' means any investigation of 
     a site determined to be appropriate by the President and 
     undertaken pursuant to section 104(b) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9604(b));
       ``(C) the term `qualified small business' means a small 
     business--
       ``(i) that--

       ``(I) has acquired a brownfield site; or
       ``(II) uses, in the course of doing business, any hazardous 
     substance (as defined in section 101(14) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9601(14)); and

       ``(ii) that has limited or no access to capital from 
     conventional sources, as determined by the Administration; 
     and
       ``(D) the term `qualified State or local development 
     company' has the meaning given that term in section 
     503(e).''.

     SEC. 3. PROMOTION OF SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES FOR 
                   BROWNFIELD ACTIVITIES.

       Title III of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 
     U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 321. SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES FOR 
                   BROWNFIELD ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) Establishment of Certain Small Business Investment 
     Companies.--The Administration shall promote the 
     establishment of 1 or more small business investment 
     companies, the primary purpose of which is to finance--
       ``(1) cleanup activities for brownfield sites or sites 
     contaminated with petroleum, including those that use 
     innovative or experimental cleanup technologies; or
       ``(2) projects that assist small businesses in cleaning up 
     the facilities owned or operated by those small businesses 
     and adopting new, clean technologies.
       ``(b) Authority To Waive Certain Fee.--The Administration 
     may waive any filing fee otherwise required by the 
     Administration under this title with respect to any small 
     business investment company described in subsection (a).
       ``(c) Set-Aside.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, of the amount authorized for purchases of 
     participating securities and guarantees of debentures under 
     this title in each fiscal year, the Administration shall set 
     aside the lesser of $2,000,000 or 10 percent, which shall be 
     used to provide leverage to any small business investment 
     company described in subsection (a).

[[Page S8956]]

       ``(d) Brownfield Site Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `brownfield site' means an abandoned, idled, or underused 
     commercial or industrial facility, the expansion or 
     redevelopment of which is complicated by real or perceived 
     environmental contamination.''.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business 
Brownfields Redevelopment Act of 1999, a bill to set aside a portion of 
the Small business Administration's (SBA) resources for use by small 
businesses for brownfields prevention and redevelopment.
  I am pleased to co-sponsor this measure with Senator Jeffords of 
Vermont. Together, we co-chair the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition. 
We recognize that our area of the country has its share of brownfields 
and the need for this important legislation.
  Many smaller banks, including those represented by the SBA, are 
hesitant to lend to projects involving brownfields which they perceive 
to be risky. Our bill will encourage and provide the legitimacy to 
brownfields investment and lending that is long overdue.
  This bill designates a portion of the funding of two of SBA's 
programs, Section 504, Certified Development Companies (CDCs) and Small 
Business Investment Companies (SBICs), for brownfields activities. This 
will ensure that small businesses receive the support they need to 
promote the redevelopment of valuable land.
  Companies across the nation have recognized the financial and social 
advantages of Smart Growth and brownfields redevelopment. Communities 
call on us to preserve and promote open space. This bill unites the 
goals of businesses and residents in a common purpose: more efficient, 
economical and ecological use of our nation's lands.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 1409. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
from 24 months to 12 months the holding period used to determine 
whether horses are assets described in section 1231 of such Code; to 
the Committee on Finance.


    legislation reducing the capital gains holding period for horses

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Mr. Bunning, 
to introduce legislation to reduce from 24 months to 12 months the 
capital gains holding period for horses. All capital assets--with the 
exception of horses and cattle--qualify for the lowest capital gains 
tax rate if held for 12 months. This discrepancy in the tax code is 
simply not fair to the horse industry.
  The horse industry is extremely important to our economy, and 
accounts for thousands of jobs. Whether it is owning, breeding, racing, 
or showing horses--or simply enjoying an afternoon ride along a trail--
one in thirty-five Americans is touched by the horse industry. In 
Kentucky alone, the horse industry has an economic impact of $3.4 
billion, involving 150,000 horses and more than 50,000 employees.
  What supports this industry is the investment in the horses 
themselves. Much like other businesses, outside investments are 
essential to the operation and growth of the horse industry. Without 
others willing to buy and breed horses, it is impossible for the 
industry to remain competitive. The two-year holding period ultimately 
discourages investment, putting this industry --and the 1.4 million 
jobs it supports nationwide--at risk. Clearly, this is bad economic 
policy and must be changed.
  Mr. President, the two-year holding period for horses is sorely 
outdated. It was established in 1969, primarily as an anti-tax shelter 
provision. Since then, there have been a number of changes in the tax 
code. Specifically, the passive loss limitations have been adopted, 
putting an end to these previous tax loopholes.
  Although horses are categorized as livestock, they have an entirely 
different function than other animals, like cattle. While both are 
livestock, the investment in these two animals is entirely different. 
Beef is a commodity, with a finite and generally short life span. 
However, horses--whether they are used for racing, showing, or 
working--are frequently bought and sold multiple times over their 
longer life in order to maximize the return on the owner's investment. 
Additionally, once horses retire from the track or show arena, they 
continue to enhance their value through breeding.
  Mr. President, there is no sound argument for distinguishing horses 
from other capital assets. The two-year holding period discriminates 
against the horse industry and must be reduced. I urge my colleagues to 
join Senator Bunning and me in correcting this unfair tax policy. Mr. 
President, I ask that the text of this legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1409

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

     SECTION 1. HOLDING PERIOD REDUCED TO 12 MONTHS FOR PURPOSES 
                   OF DETERMINING WHETHER HORSES ARE SECTION 1231 
                   ASSETS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1231(b)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of 
     property used in the trade or business) is amended by 
     striking ``and horses''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1999.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 1410. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with 
respect to the treatment of certain air trnasportation; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                   empty seat tax relief legislation

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to equate the tax 
treatment of persons occupying what would otherwise be empty seats on 
private aircraft with the treatment of airline employees flying on a 
space available basis on regularly scheduled flights. Right now, use of 
these empty seats is deemed taxable personal income to the employee. I 
refer to it as the ``empty-seat tax.'' Filling these empty seats--the 
way airlines do--can be likened to personnel taking offsets on freight 
flights, and empty seat passengers on auto, trucks, taxis or limousines 
that are being driven for business.
  Under current law, airline employees and retirees and their parents 
and children can fly tax-free on scheduled commercial flights for 
nonbusiness reasons. Military personnel and their families can hop 
military flights for nonbusiness reasons without the imposition of tax. 
Current and former employees of airborne freight or cargo haulers, 
together with their parents and children, can fly tax-free for 
nonbusiness reasons on seats that would have otherwise been empty.
  In addition, no tax is imposed on passengers accompanying employees 
traveling on business via auto or other nonaircraft transportation. For 
example, a trucker can take his wife on a haul without facing the 
imposition of a tax for the seat that she occupies. Yet tax is 
frequently imposed on employees or ``deemed'' employees flying for 
nonbusiness reasons when they occupy what would otherwise be unused 
seats on business flights of noncommercial aircraft. Employers who own 
or lease these aircraft are compelled by IRS regulations to consider 13 
separate factors or steps in determining the incidence and amount of 
tax to be imposed on their employees. My proposal seeks to deal with 
this inequity by treating all passengers the same way.

  Under this provision, the employer would have to demonstrate to the 
IRS on audit that the flight would have been made in the ordinary 
course of the employer's business whether or not the person was on the 
flight. The employer would also have to show that the presence of the 
person did not cause the employer to incur additional costs for the 
flight. Personal use of a plane, such as when an executive files with 
his or her family or guests to a vacation home, would remain fully 
taxable, just as under current law.
  In 1984, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that it was 
``unacceptable'' to continue ``conditions'' under which ``taxpayers in 
identical or comparable situations have been treated differently'' 
because of the ``inequities, confusion and administrative difficulties 
for business, employees and the internal revenue service resulting from 
this situation.'' The Joint Committee on Taxation was right then, and 
the comment continues to be accurate 15 years later.
  This is not just about creating equity for all passengers. It also 
goes to our ultimate goal of simplifying the Tax

[[Page S8957]]

Code for all Americans. Upon passage of this provision, a separate 
category of taxpayer will be eliminated and employees and employers 
will be able to better assess the tax implications of travel on 
aircraft.
  This is an especially important issue to large States with smaller 
populations because air travel comprises such a large part of our 
transportation systems. Instead of getting on a plane to travel across 
country, many people from rural areas get on a plane to travel within 
the State.
  This is also a health care issue. Many people in rural States like 
mine must take an empty seat on a company-owned airplane because they 
get sick and need medical treatment that can only be found in larger 
cities. In the contiguous States, someone can call an ambulance to take 
a car or bus to a larger metropolitan area to receive medical 
treatment. There are no buses from Barrow to Fairbanks or Cold Bay to 
Anchorage. The current Tax Code overlooks this fact of life and my 
provision will take this into account. We must begin to treat all 
passengers fairly, regardless of how they get to their final 
destination.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 1411. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the credit for producing electricity from certain renewable resources; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                       Fish Oil Heat Act of 1999

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce the Fish Oil Heat Act 
of 1999. This act would provide a tax credit for fishing operations who 
choose to burn waste fish oil rather than diesel fuel. Fishing 
operations would earn a tax credit for each Btu of heat produced by 
this alternative fuel source. This measure is similar to others that 
are before the Senate in that it encourages businesses to use 
alternative energy sources at hand rather than relying solely on fossil 
fuels.
  This bill would amend section 45 of the Tax Code to include fish oil 
as a qualified energy producing resource. Fishing operations, whether 
on shore or at sea are able to use fish oil to keep their working areas 
warm and to process the fish they harvest. My legislation would expand 
the current Tax Code to provide an incentive to use alternative energy 
sources by including heat generated by waste fish oil under section 45. 
As it stands now, the Tax Code allows tax credits for electricity 
produced by wind or through a closed loop biomass system. Fishing 
operations are often isolated from energy grids and they do not rely on 
the organic biomass systems for energy, so they cannot take advantage 
of the electricity producing tax credit.
  Several Senators have introduced bills to expand the current Tax Code 
to allow for new energy producing tax credits from alternative 
resources. However, the tax credits are limited to a single form of 
energy--electricity. My bill would take into account a different form 
of energy--heat. This provision would give the same amount of tax 
credit for a single Btu of heat produced as the current Tax Code allows 
for a kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This will create equity 
within the tax system and across industry lines.
  Fishing operations in my State are often isolated and rely on the 
resources they have at hand. Unlike many of the industries in the 
contiguous United States, fishing operations in Alaska can't connect to 
area wide power grids. They rely on fossil fuels to run generators for 
heat and electricity. The fuel must be transported to the operation, 
often by barge or small boat. This bill would encourage these isolated 
fishing operations to collect and use the waste fish oil that they 
generate to keep their business warm. This would cut down on the amount 
of fossil fuel being transported to these distant locations, thus 
reducing the chances of fuel spills. Additionally, by encouraging the 
fishing operations to burn the waste oil they generate, we can reduce 
the amount of fish oil going to waste.

                          ____________________