[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 113 (Wednesday, August 4, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10221-S10241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1480. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act of 
assure access of Medicare beneficiaries to prescription drug coverage 
through the SPICE drug benefit program; to the Committee on Finance.


   seniors prescription insurance coverage equity (spice) act of 1999

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Seniors 
Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity (SPICE) Act along with my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden. The purpose of this bill is to 
provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to prescription drug 
coverage. The program is voluntary and federal assistance will be 
provided to help pay for the premiums. Senator Wyden and I believe that 
this bill is one solution to the lack of prescription drug coverage for 
America's seniors and we believe that it is a bill we could and should 
enact this year.

[[Page S10222]]

  Lack of prescription drug coverage is a serious problem facing our 
seniors. When Medicare was created in 1965 it was based on the 
inpatient care system that was prevalent at that time. Today, thirty 
four years later, drug therapy often allows individuals to stay out of 
the hospital--but Medicare does not cover drugs. And the lack of 
coverage means that those over 65 years of age end up paying for half 
the costs associated with their prescriptions, while the average person 
under age 65 pays only a third. It also means that seniors are forgoing 
medication because they cannot afford it.
  The SPICE Act creates a voluntary supplemental drug insurance policy 
that all Medicare eligible individuals can purchase. These policies 
will be guaranteed issue--no one can be turned down. SPICE eligibility 
will begin when Medicare eligibility begins. There will be a penalty 
for late entry, just as there is for those who make a late entry into 
the Medicare Part B program. The penalty fee for late entry will be 
waived if the late entry is based on the loss of prior drug coverage 
from a Medicare + Choice plan or a retiree group health plan.
  All seniors will receive some premium support assistance on a sliding 
scale based on income. Every senior will receive at least 25% premium 
support. Those below 150% of the federal poverty line will receive 100% 
premium support. A sliding scale will phase down the premium support 
from 100% to 25% for those between 150% and 175% of the federal poverty 
line.
  The federal premium support will be used to allow seniors to purchase 
SPICE policies from private providers, similar to the Medigap program. 
The policies will all meet a threshold standard developed by the SPICE 
Board, which includes consumers, state insurance commissioners, and 
insurance representatives, and will be designed with seniors needs in 
mind. Medicare+Choice and group health plans which provide drug 
coverage for Medicare eligible individuals will be able to receive the 
actuarial value of the drug benefit if their plans meet or exceed the 
SPICE Board threshold benefit plan.
  Seniors will be given a choice of plans. This will ensure competition 
and help keep the costs down and will allow seniors to choose the plan 
that best meets their needs. To provide an idea of the types of 
choices, plans may offer coverage for different drugs (formularies), 
copays, deductibles, and caps. The SPICE Board will disseminate 
information about these choices, much like the Federal Employee Benefit 
Health Program (FEHBP) does.
  Funding sources for the benefit will come from the on-budget surplus, 
which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates show to be $505 
billion after the $792 billion tax cut legislation that is currently in 
conference. Additional funding may come from implementing the 
President's FY2000 budget proposal to raise the tobacco tax by 55 cents 
per pack in addition to enacting the 15 cent tobacco increase already 
in law one year earlier than originally planned.
  America's seniors need help in obtaining prescription drug coverage. 
SPICE is a doable proposal that can be passed whether or not we are 
able to move forward on Medicare reform this year.
 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are 
introducing legislation to provide seniors with insurance coverage for 
prescription drugs. This legislation, the Seniors Prescription 
Insurance Coverage Equity Act, SPICE, is the only bipartisan, market-
based approach to provide seniors with choice and access to coverage 
that is actually paid for. It will give seniors the same kind of 
coverage that their member of Congress has.
  The key issue for seniors around our nation, when it comes to the 
issue of prescription drugs, is affordability. Our proposal will assure 
that each and every senior who voluntarily chooses to enroll in a SPICE 
plan will have the bargaining power of HMOs and of the large insurers 
whose job it is to get the best price they can. At least 13 million 
seniors have no prescription drug coverage at all. Those seniors get 
penalized twice: they have to pay all their costs, and they pay more 
because they can't get the negotiated rate that the insurers and HMOs 
can. This bill will level the playing field for those seniors giving 
them affordability and access.
  We know the kinds of drugs that are coming on the market now can help 
save lives, better the health status of an older person and, in many 
instances, save dollars because seniors taking their prescription drugs 
as they are told to by their doctor will prevent costly 
hospitalizations and the progression of disease. If we were to create 
Medicare today from scratch, there would be no questions about 
including prescription drug coverage. If we want to assure that 
Medicare beneficiaries stay healthy longer we must provide prescription 
drug coverage. If we want to be thoughtful, prudent purchasers of 
health care, we must find a way to assure seniors access to the drugs.
  I believe the Snowe-Wyden proposal is that thoughtful, prudent and 
reasonable way. It assures a variety of options for coverage, and it 
assures that we bring real dollars to the table to pay for the program. 
There is no smoke and mirrors, no IOUs or other budget gimmicks in this 
plan.
  The Snowe-Wyden proposal will be funded by funding from the non-
Social Security on-budget surplus and a 55-cent increase in the tobacco 
tax. During this body's deliberations of the budget resolution, an 
amendment that Sen. Snowe and I offered received 54 votes, including 12 
Republican votes to do just this--fund a prescription drug benefit for 
seniors with an increase in the tobacco tax.
  The SPICE legislation creates a senior-oriented program using the 
Federal Employees Benefit Program (FEHBP) as a model to provide 
benefits that include prescription drugs and other non-Medicare covered 
benefits. This benefit would be open to every beneficiary and be 
voluntary. However, if the senior elected coverage later rather when 
they were first eligible, the individual would pay incrementally more 
the longer he or she waited to choose a comprehensive coverage option.
  The individual senior would be able to select from an array of drug 
policies and Medicare+Choice plans with prescription drugs coverage. 
This would be voluntary. No senior would have to change what their 
current coverage is if they do not choose to do so. All plans would be 
offered by private sector companies. For beneficiaries under 150 
percent of the poverty level--$12,075 for a single senior and $16,275 
for a couple, the federal government would pay the entire premium. For 
those between 150 percent and 175 percent of the federal poverty level, 
the amount the federal government would pay phases down from 100 
percent of premium to 25 percent of the premium amount. For 
beneficiaries at 175 percent of poverty and over, the federal 
government would pay 25 percent of the premium amount.
  Our SPICE benefit will be administered by a new Board that would be 
separate from the Health Care Financing Administration but report to 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Board would approve 
plan designs and premium submissions, approve and distribute consumer 
education materials, develop enrollment procedures and make 
recommendations concerning additional funding, further ability to pay 
mechanisms and other steps needed to assure continuing availability of 
comprehensive coverage as seniors' health needs change over time.
  Many of us would prefer to do an overhaul of Medicare and modernize 
it to include benefits like prescription drugs. However, the thirteen 
million Medicare beneficiaries who need coverage and the millions who 
have coverage that does not truly help them, need a way to get 
meaningful coverage today. This proposal will do that.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, 
        and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1482. A bill to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


         THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator 
Kerry, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, 
Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, 
Ranking

[[Page S10223]]

Member of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Breaux are joining me as 
cosponsors on this legislation. This bill will protect our nation's 
valuable marine resources while facilitating their sustainable use.
  One hundred years after the first national park was created, the 
United States made a similar commitment to preserving its valuable 
marine resources by establishing the National Marine Sanctuary Program 
in 1972. Since then, twelve areas covering a wide range of marine 
habitats have been designated as national marine sanctuaries. Half of 
these designations have occurred in the last decade.
  Today, our marine sanctuaries encompass everything from kelp forests 
and marine mammal nursery grounds, to underwater archeological sites. 
Together these sanctuaries protect nearly 18,000 square miles of ocean 
waters, an area nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
  Acting as a platform for better ocean stewardship, these sanctuaries 
offer an opportunity for research, outreach, and educational 
activities. The national sanctuaries are also a model for multiple use 
management in the marine environment.
  Obviously, balancing the protection of public resources with 
fostering economic activities requires the cooperative efforts of the 
federal, state, and local governments, as well as nongovernmental 
organizations and the public. There are many of these partnerships 
working together within the national marine sanctuary program. Most of 
the successes of the program can be attributed to these partnerships.
  One of these sanctuaries is located in the Gulf of Maine. The 
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary provides feeding and nursery 
grounds for more than a dozen types of whales, including the endangered 
humpback, northern right, sei, and fin whales. This has led to the 
development of a thriving whale watching tourist trade in the 
sanctuary. The area also supports diverse seabird species and other 
fish and shellfish such as bluefin tuna, herring, cod, flounder, 
lobster, and scallops. Consequently, important commercial fisheries for 
lobster, bluefin tuna, cod and others exist in and around the 
sanctuary.
  Historic data strongly suggest the presence of several shipwreck 
sites within the sanctuary, including the recently discovered wreck of 
the steamship Portland which sunk in 1898. Seven historic shipwrecks 
have been identified within or adjacent to the boundaries. However, a 
complete inventory of historical resources has not been conducted. 
These traditional shipping lanes are still active today. A heavily-used 
vessel traffic separation lane in the sanctuary facilitates the passage 
of more than 2,700 commercial vessels in and out of regional ports each 
year.
  Through careful management and cooperation, all of these diverse uses 
co-exist in a marine sanctuary while providing protection to the marine 
resources. This is just one example of the diverse management 
strategies being utilized by the national program.
  The goal of the national marine sanctuary program is quite ambitious. 
Unfortunately, lack of funding has hampered their success. To date, 
insufficient funds have been provided to keep up with the pace of 
expansion of the sanctuary system. As a result, the 12 existing 
sanctuaries are not fully operational. Nationwide, individual 
sanctuaries are understaffed; unable to fully implement their 
management plans; unable to review existing management plans every five 
years as required by law; and lack educational and outreach materials 
and facilities. Consequently, management plans that were written twenty 
years ago have not been updated to adapt to the changing needs of the 
area nor for advances in science and resource management.
  Congress identified the need for these sanctuaries when we passed the 
original Act in 1972. It is time now to provide the funds necessary to 
achieve what we set out to do. This will require an increase in the 
authorization level. The bill we are introducing today provides $30 
million in FY 2000 and increases the annual authorization level by $2 
million a year to $38 million in FY 2004.
  It is time to move beyond fundamental planning and reach full 
implementation of the national program. This bill focuses the sanctuary 
program on making the existing sanctuaries fully operational before the 
formal designation process can begin for additional sanctuaries. It is 
our intention that management plans be developed in an open and 
participatory process so that partnerships between resource protection 
and compatible uses are given every chance to succeed. Further, 
management plans must be reviewed and updated in a timely manner so 
that we can prioritize our objectives and respond to the changing needs 
of the resources and the people who utilize them.
  A large part of the implementation process is the development of 
enforcement capabilities. It is one thing to plan resource protection, 
it is another thing to actually provide it. At the Subcommittee on 
Oceans and Fisheries hearing on reauthorization of the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Act, it was disappointing to hear about the overwhelming 
lack of enforcement in our marine sanctuaries. This bill encourages the 
development and implementation of meaningful enforcement plans, 
including partnerships with the states and other authorized entities. 
This will now become a part of the management plan review process. 
Further, the Administration will need to demonstrate that effective 
enforcement plans exist for the current sanctuaries before beginning 
the formal designation process for additional sanctuaries.
  The National Marine Sanctuaries Act expires at the end of Fiscal Year 
1999. This bill gives us the opportunity to realize the goals first 
laid out by Congress in 1972. There can be no doubt that this 
revitalization of the sanctuary program is long overdue.
  Mr. President, this is a strong and much-needed bill that enjoys 
bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. I look forward to moving 
this bill at the earliest opportunity.
  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. 1482

       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 ``National Marine Sanctuaries 
     Amendments Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment or repeal to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the National Marine Sanctuaries 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. CHANGES IN FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES.

       (a) Amendment of Findings.--Section 301(a) (16 U.S.C. 
     1431(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``research, educational, or aesthetic'' in 
     paragraph (2) and inserting ``scientific, educational, 
     cultural, archaeological, or aesthetic'';
       (2) by inserting ``ecosystem'' after ``comprehensive'' in 
     paragraph (3);
       (3) by striking ``wise use'' in paragraph (5) and inserting 
     ``sustainable use'';
       (4) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (5);
       (5) by striking ``protection of these'' in paragraph (6) 
     and inserting ``protecting the biodiversity, habitats, and 
     qualities of such''; and
       (6) by inserting ``and the values and ecological services 
     they provide'' in paragraph (6) after ``living resources''.
       (b) Amendment of Purposes and Policies.--Section 301(b) (16 
     1431(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``significance;'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``significance and to manage these areas as the 
     National Marine Sanctuary System;'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) to maintain natural biodiversity and biological 
     communities, and to protect, and where appropriate, restore, 
     and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological 
     processes;'';
       (3) by striking ``understanding, appreciation, and wise use 
     of the marine environment;'' in paragraph (4) and inserting 
     ``understanding, and appreciation of the natural, historical, 
     cultural, and archaeological resources of national marine 
     sanctuaries;'';
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (10), and inserting after paragraph 
     (4) the following:
       ``(5) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific 
     research on, and long-term monitoring of, the resources of 
     these marine areas;'';
       (5) by striking ``areas;'' in paragraph (8), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``areas, including

[[Page S10224]]

     the application of innovative management techniques; and'';
       (6) by striking ``marine resources; and'' in paragraph (9), 
     as redesignated, and inserting ``marine and coastal 
     resources.''; and
       (7) by striking paragraph (10), as redesignated.

     SEC. 4. CHANGES IN DEFINITIONS.

       Section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1432) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``304(a)(1)(C)(v)'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``304(a)(2)(A)'';
       (2) by striking `` `Magnuson'' in paragraph (2) and 
     inserting `` `Magnuson-Stevens'';
       (3) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (6);
       (4) by striking ``resources;'' in subparagraph (C) of 
     paragraph (6) and inserting ``resources; and'';
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (6)(C) the following:
       ``(D) the cost of curation and conservation of 
     archaeological, historical, and cultural sanctuary 
     resources;'';
       (6) by striking ``injury;'' in paragraph (7) and inserting 
     ``injury, including enforcement activities related to any 
     incident;''
       (7) by striking ``educational, or '' in paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``educational, cultural, archaeological,'';
       (8) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (8);
       (9) by striking ``Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act.'' in paragraph (9) and inserting ``Magnuson-
     Stevens Act;''; and
       (10) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(10) `system' means the National Marine Sanctuary System 
     established by section 303; and
       ``(11) `person' has the meaning given that term by section 
     1 of title 1, United States Code, but includes a department, 
     agency, and instrumentality of the government of the United 
     States, a State, or a foreign Nation.''.

     SEC. 5. CHANGES IN SANCTUARY DESIGNATION STANDARDS.

       Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1433) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section caption and inserting the 
     following:

     SEC. 303. NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY SYSTEM.

       (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Establishment of System.--There is established the 
     National Marine Sanctuary System, which shall consist of 
     national marine sanctuaries designated by the Secretary in 
     accordance with this title.'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (3) of subsection (b), and 
     redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs (2) and 
     (3);
       (4) by striking so much of subsection (b) as precedes 
     paragraph (2), as redesignated, and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Sanctuary Designation Standards.--
       ``(1) In General.--Before designating an area of the marine 
     environment as a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary 
     shall find that--
       ``(A) the area is of special national significance due to 
     its--
       ``(i) biodiversity;
       ``(ii) ecological importance;
       ``(iii) archaeological, cultural, or historical importance; 
     or
       ``(iv) human-use values;
       ``(B) existing State and Federal authorities should be 
     supplemented to ensure coordinated and comprehensive 
     conservation and management of the area, including resource 
     protection, scientific research, and public education;
       ``(C) designation of the area as a national marine 
     sanctuary will facilitate the objectives in subparagraph (B); 
     and
       ``(D) the area is of a size and nature that will permit 
     comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management.'';
       (5) by striking ``subsection (a)'' in paragraph (2), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (1)'';
       (6) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (I) of 
     paragraph (2), as redesignated, as paragraphs (F) through 
     (J), and inserting after paragraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) the areas's scientific value and value for monitoring 
     as a special area of the marine environment;'';
       (7) by redesignating subparagraphs (H), (I), and (J), as 
     redesignated, as subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K) and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (G), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(H) the feasibility, where appropriate, of employing 
     innovative management approaches to protect sanctuary 
     resources or to manage compatible uses;'';
       (8) by striking ``vital habitats, and resources which 
     generate tourism;'' in subparagraph (I), as redesignated, and 
     inserting ``and vital habitats;'';
       (9) by redesignating subparagraphs (J) and (K) as 
     subparagraphs (K) and (L), and inserting after subparagraph 
     (I) the following:
       ``(J) the value of the area as an addition to the 
     System;''; and
       (10) by striking ``Merchant Marine and Fisheries'' in 
     subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), as redesignated, and 
     inserting ``Resources'';
       (11) by inserting after ``Administrator'' in subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (3), as redesignated the following: ``of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency,''; and
       (12) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(4) Required findings.--
       ``(A) New designations.--Before beginning the designation 
     process for any sanctuary that is not a designated sanctuary 
     before January 1, 2000, the Secretary shall make, and submit 
     to the Congress, a finding that each designated sanctuary 
     has--
       ``(i) an operational level of facilities, equipment, and 
     employees;
       ``(ii) a list of priorities it considers most urgent and a 
     strategy to address those priorities;
       ``(iii) a plan and schedule to complete site 
     characterization studies to inventory existing sanctuary 
     resources, including cultural resources; and
       ``(iv) a plan for enforcement of the Act within its 
     boundaries, including partnerships with adjacent States or 
     other authorities.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply to any 
     draft management plan, draft environmental impact statement, 
     or proposed regulation for a Thunder Bay National Marine 
     Sanctuary.''.

     SEC. 6. CHANGES IN PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION AND 
                   IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Changes in Notice Requirements.--Section 304(a) (16 
     U.S.C. 1434(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1)(C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) on the same day the notice required by subparagraph 
     (A) is submitted to the Office of the Federal Register, the 
     Secretary shall submit a copy of the notice and the draft 
     sanctuary designation documents prepared under paragraph (2) 
     to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 
     the Senate.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (7), and inserting the following after 
     paragraph (1):
       ``(2) Sanctuary designation documents.--The Secretary shall 
     prepare sanctuary designation documents on the proposal that 
     include the following:
       ``(A) A draft environmental impact statement under 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(B) A management plan document, which the Secretary shall 
     make available to the public, containing--
       ``(i) the terms of the proposed designation;
       ``(ii) proposed mechanisms to coordinate existing 
     regulatory and management authorities within the area;
       ``(iii) the proposed goals and objectives, management 
     responsibilities, resource studies, and appropriate 
     strategies for managing sanctuary resources, including 
     innovative approaches such as marine zoning, interpretation 
     and education, research, monitoring and assessment, resource 
     protection, restoration, and enforcement (including 
     surveillance activities for the area);
       ``(iv) an evaluation of the advantages of cooperative State 
     and Federal management if all or part of a proposed marine 
     sanctuary is within the territorial limits of a State, or is 
     superjacent to the subsoil and seabed within the seaward 
     boundary of a State (as established under the Submerged Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.);
       ``(v) an estimate of the annual cost to the Federal 
     government of the proposed designation, including costs of 
     personnel, equipment and facilities, enforcement, research, 
     and public education; and
       ``(vi) the regulations proposed under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(C) Maps depicting the boundaries of the proposed 
     sanctuary.
       ``(D) A statement of the basis for the findings made under 
     section 303(b)(2).
       ``(E) An assessment of the considerations under section 
     303(b)(1).
       ``(F) A resource assessment that includes--
       ``(i) present and potential uses of the area, including 
     commercial and recreational fishing, research and education, 
     minerals and energy development, subsistence uses, and other 
     commercial, governmental, or recreational uses;
       ``(ii) a discussion, prepared after consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, of any commercial, governmental, 
     or recreational resource uses in the areas that are subject 
     to the primary jurisidiction of the Department of the 
     Interior; and
       ``(iii) information prepared in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, on any 
     past, present, or proposed future disposal or discharge of 
     materials in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary.''.
       (b) Other Notice-related Changes.--Section 304(a) (16 
     U.S.C. 1434(a)) is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``as provided by'' in subparagraph (A) of 
     paragraph (3), as redesignated, and inserting ``under'';
       (2) by inserting ``cultural, archaeological,'' after 
     ``educational,'' in paragraph (4), as redesignated;
       (3) by striking ``only by the same procedures by which the 
     original designation is made.'' in paragraph (4), as 
     redesignated, and inserting ``by following the applicable 
     procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code.'';
       (4) by inserting ``this Act and'' after ``objectives of'' 
     in the second sentence of paragraph (6), as redesignated; and
       (5) by striking ``Merchant Marine and Fisheries Resources'' 
     in paragraph (7), as redesignated, and inserting 
     ``Resources''.
       (c) Other Changes.--Section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1434) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or the national system'' in subsection 
     (b)(2) after ``sanctuary'';
       (2) by striking ``management techniques,'' in subsection 
     (e) and inserting ``management techniques and strategies,''; 
     and

[[Page S10225]]

       (3) by striking ``title.'' in subsection (e) and inserting 
     ``title. This review shall include a prioritization of 
     management objectives.''

     SEC. 7. CHANGES IN ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.

       Section 306 (16 U.S.C. 1436) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``sell,'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, export,''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) interfere with the enforcement of this title by--
       ``(A) refusing to permit any authorized officer to board a 
     vessel, other than a vessel operated by the Department of 
     Defense or United States Coast Guard, subject to such 
     person's control for the purpose of conducting a search or 
     inspection in connection with the enforcement of this title;
       ``(B) assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, 
     intimidating, or interfering with any authorized officer in 
     the conduct of any search or inspection under this title;
       ``(C) submitting false information to the Secretary or any 
     officer authorized by the Secretary in connection with any 
     search or inspection under this title; or
       ``(D) assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, 
     intimidating, harassing, bribing, or interfering with any 
     person authorized by the Secretary to implement the 
     provisions of this title; or''.

     SEC. 8. CHANGES IN ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

       Section 307 (16 U.S.C. 1437) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) of 
     subsection (b) as paragraphs (2) through (6), and inserting 
     before paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(1) arrest any person, if there is reasonable cause to 
     believe that the person has committed an act prohibited by 
     section 306(3);'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) through (j) as 
     subsections (d) through (k), and inserting after subsection 
     (b) the following:
       ``(c) Criminal Offenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Violation of section 306(3) is 
     punishable by a fine under title 18, United States Code, 
     imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.
       ``(2) Aggrevated Violations.--If a person in the course of 
     violating section 306(3)--
       ``(A) uses a dangerous weapon,
       ``(B) causes bodily injury to any person authorized to 
     enforce this title or to implement its provisions, or
       ``(C) causes such a person to fear imminent bodily injury,
     then the violation is punishable by a fine under title 18, 
     United States Code, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, 
     or both.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (e) through (k), as 
     redesignated, as subsections (f) through (l), respectively, 
     and by inserting after subsection (d), as redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(e) Judicial Civil Penalties.--The Secretary may bring an 
     action to access and collect any civil penalty for which a 
     person is liable under paragraph (d)(1) in the United States 
     district court for the district in which the person from whom 
     the penalty is sought resides, in which such person's 
     principal place of business is located, or where the incident 
     giving rise to civil penalties under this section 
     occurred.'';
       (4) by inserting ``electronic files,'' after ``books,'' in 
     subsection (h), as redesignated; and
       (5) by redesignating subsections (i) through (l), as 
     designated, as subsections (j) through (m), and by inserting 
     after subsection (h), as redesignated, the following:
       ``(i) Nationwide Service of Process.--In any action by the 
     United States under this chapter, process may be served in 
     any district where the defendant is found, resides, transacts 
     business, or has appointed an agent for the service of 
     process.''.

     SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AUTHORITY ADDED.

       Section 308 (16 U.S.C. 1439) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 308. REGULATIONS AND SEVERABILITY.''

       ``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this title.
       ``(b) Severability.--If any provision of this title, or the 
     application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held 
     invalid, the validity of the remainder of this title and of 
     the application of that provision to other persons and 
     circumstances shall not be affected.''.

     SEC. 10. CHANGES IN RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION 
                   PROVISIONS.

       Section 309 (16 U.S.C. 1440) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 309. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND 
                   INTERPRETIVE FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, support, or 
     coordinate research, monitoring, evaluation, and education 
     programs necessary and reasonable to carry out the purposes 
     and policies of this title.
       ``(b) Research and Monitoring.--The Secretary may support, 
     promote, and coordinate appropriate research on, and long-
     term monitoring of, the resources and human uses of marine 
     sanctuaries, as is consistent with the purposes and policies 
     of this title. In carrying out this subsection the Secretary 
     may consult with Federal agencies, States, local governments, 
     regional agencies, interstate agencies, or other persons, and 
     coordinate with the National Estuarine Research Reserve 
     System.
       ``(c) Education and Interpretive Facilities.--The Secretary 
     may establish facilities or displays--
       ``(1) to promote national marine sanctuaries and the 
     purposes and policies of this title; and
       ``(2) either solely or in partnership with other persons, 
     under an agreement under section 311.''.

     SEC. 11. CHANGES IN SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROVISIONS.

       Section 310 (16 U.S.C. 1441) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
     subsections (c) through (f), and by inserting after 
     subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Public Notice Required.--The Secretary shall provide 
     appropriate public notice before identifying any activity 
     subject to a special use permit under subsection (a).'';
       (2) by striking ``insurance'' in paragraph (4) of 
     subsection (c), as redesignated, and inserting ``insurance, 
     or post an equivalent bond,'';
       (3) by striking ``resource and a reasonable return to the 
     United States Government.'' in paragraph (2)(C) of subsection 
     (d), as redesignated, and inserting ``resource.'';
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (d), as 
     redesignated, as paragraph (4), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (2) thereof the following:
       ``(3) Waiver or reduction of fees.--The Secretary may waive 
     or reduce fees under this subsection, or accept in-kind 
     contributions in lieu of fees under this subsection, for 
     activities that do not derive profit from the access to and 
     use of sanctuary resources or that the Secretary considers to 
     be beneficial to the system.''; and
       (5) by striking ``designating and'' in paragraph (4)(B) of 
     subsection (d), as redesignated.

     SEC. 12. CHANGES IN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PROVISIONS.

       Section 311 (16 U.S.C. 1442) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, 
     the Secretary may apply for, accept, and use grants from 
     Federal agencies, States, local governments, regional 
     agencies, interstate agencies, foundations, or other persons, 
     to carry out the purposes and policies of this title.''; and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), and inserting after subsection 
     (a) the following:
       ``(b) Use of State and Federal Agency Resources.--The 
     Secretary may, whenever appropriate, use by agreement the 
     personnel, services, or facilities of departments, agencies, 
     and instrumentalities of the government of the United States 
     or of any State or political subdivision thereof on a 
     reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis to assist in carrying 
     out the purposes and policies of this title.''.

     SEC. 13. CHANGES IN PROVISIONS CONCERNING DESTRUCTION, LOSS, 
                   OR INJURY.

       (a) Liability.--Section 312 (16 U.S.C. 1443(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``used to destroy, cause the loss of, or 
     injure'' in subsection (a)(2) and inserting ``that destroys, 
     causes the loss of, or injures'';
       (2) by inserting ``or vessel'' after ``person'' in 
     subsection (a)(4);
       (3) by inserting ``(as defined in section 302(11))'' after 
     ``damages'' in subsection (b)(2);
       (4) by striking ``vessel who'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``vessel that'';
       (5) by striking ``person may'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting ``person or vessel may'';
       (6) by inserting ``by the Secretary'' after ``used'' in 
     subsection (d); and
       (7) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following:
       ``(4) Statute of limitations.--An action for response costs 
     and damages under subsection (c) may not be brought more than 
     2 years after the date of completion of the relevant damage 
     assessment and restoration plan prepared by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 313 (16 U.S.C. 1444) is amended by striking 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(3) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(4) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(5) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.

     SEC. 15. CHANGES IN U.S.S. MONITOR PROVISIONS.

       Section 314 (16 U.S.C. 1445) is amended by striking 
     subsection (b) and redesignating subsection (c) as subsection 
     (b).

     SEC. 16. CHANGES IN ADVISORY COUNCIL PROVISIONS.

       Section 315 (16 U.S.C. 1446) is amended by striking 
     ``provide assistance'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``advise and make recommendations''.

     SEC. 17. CHANGES IN THE SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT PROVISIONS.

       Section 316 (16 U.S.C. 1447) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``use'' in subsection (a)(4) and inserting 
     ``manufacture, reproduction, or other use'';
       (2) by striking ``sanctuaries;'' in subsection (a)(4) and 
     inserting ``sanctuaries or by persons that enter cooperative 
     agreements with the Secretary under subsection (f);'';
       (3) by striking ``symbols'' in subsection (a)(6) and 
     inserting ``symbols, including sale of items bearing the 
     symbols,'';

[[Page S10226]]

       (4) striking ``Secretary; and'' in paragraph (3) of 
     subsection (f), as redesignated, and inserting ``Secretary, 
     or without prior authorization under subsection (a)(4); or''; 
     and
       (5) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(f) Authorization for Non-profit Organization To Solicit 
     Sponsors.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into an 
     agreement with a non-profit organization authorizing it to 
     assist in the administration of the sponsorship program 
     established under this section. Under an agreement entered 
     into under this paragraph, the Secretary may authorize the 
     non-profit organization to solicit persons to be official 
     sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of 
     individual national marine sanctuaries, upon such terms as 
     the Secretary deems reasonable and will contribute to the 
     successful administration of the sanctuary system. The 
     Secretary may also authorize the non-profit organization to 
     collect the statutory contribution from the sponsor, and, 
     subject to paragraph (2), transfer the contribution to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Reimbursement for administrative costs.--Under the 
     agreement entered into under paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     authorize the non-profit organization to retain not more than 
     5 percent of the amount of monetary contributions it receives 
     from official sponsors under the agreement to offset the 
     administrative costs of the organization in soliciting 
     sponsors.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1483. A bill to amend the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal Year 1998 with respect to export controls on high performance 
computers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


    ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE LEVELS OF HIGH 
                         PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on July 1, 1999, President Clinton announced 
that the Commerce Department would implement changes to the United 
States export controls on high performance computers. By changing the 
limits on high performance computers, we will be increasing our 
national security and easing outdated regulations that are currently 
imposed on the thriving high tech industry and on government itself.
  Mr. President, as you may know, I have followed this issue closely 
for the last eight months since the inception of the high-tech working 
group that I chair. I have met with many company leaders, both large 
and small, to discuss the issue of export controls on computers. I am 
convinced that if we don't immediately act to ease export controls, 
many American jobs may be at risk. Each day that our nations's 
companies can't compete in foreign markets, we are losing market share 
and eventually will be giving up our world dominance in the high-tech 
sector.
  The bill that I am offering today reduces the review period from 180 
days to 30 days to complement the Administration's easing of export 
restrictions by amending the National Defense Authorization Act of 
1998.
  Mr. President. In closing, I would like to share with you an example 
of how outdated today's restrictions are. I was recently at a meeting 
where Michael Dell, President of Dell Computers, stood up and pulled 
his pager from his hip holster. He held it up and said that under 
current export controls, his little pager that is smaller than a 
computer mouse, cannot be exported to many countries because it is 
considered a ``super computer.''
  Mr. President. These controls need to be changed as the 
Administration has made clear, but it needs to be done sooner rather 
than later. In short, these controls need to be eased yesterday.
  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. 1483

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE 
                   LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

       Section 1211(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended in 
     the second sentence by striking ``180'' and inserting ``30''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1484. A bill entitled ``Random Selection of Judges Act of 1999''; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 Random Selection of Judges Act of 1999

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly on the 
introduction of legislation for the random selection of judges. I had 
thought when cases were assigned in the Federal courts they were 
assigned in a random fashion, unless they were related to some other 
case where a specific judge had jurisdiction and that judge would have 
the case by a related case assignment.
  During the course of the past week there has come to light a 
situation in the District of Columbia where the chief judge assigned 
specific judges to two very high-profile cases, one involving Mr. 
Webster Hubbell as a defendant and the other involving Mr. Charlie Trie 
as a defendant.
  My understanding of the practice has been that cases would be 
assigned on a random basis. In checking the specifics, I have found 
that the Judicial Conference, which is the policy-making body for the 
Federal Judiciary, only recommends that Federal courts randomly assign 
cases. It has not become a mandate to do so. I believe that public 
policy warrants having it as a mandate.
  It is customary for the Congress to legislate on matters of 
administration. For example, Congress has set a time limit under the 
speedy trial rule in the criminal courts. For another example, Congress 
has established time limits on Federal court habeas corpus cases where 
death penalty cases are appealed into the Federal courts.
  This is not a matter where we are talking about the discretion or 
judgment of an individual judge on how to decide a case, where judicial 
independence mandates that nobody make any suggestion to the judge as 
to how an individual case is to be decided. But as a matter of 
administrative policy it is entirely appropriate for the Congress to 
set the rules, one of which I think should be the random assignment of 
judges.
  In March of this year the Judicial Conference even rescinded its 28-
year-old policy that recommended giving the chief judges, the assigning 
judge, latitude to make special assignments of ``protracted, difficult, 
or wildly publicized cases,'' so such latitude is no longer recommended 
by the Judicial Conference.
  The chief judge of the District of Columbia has responded to the 
Associated Press article in a letter to the Washington Times dated 
August 2. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy 
of the newspaper article from the Washington Times, together with a 
copy of the response by the chief judge to the newspaper article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Judges Fret Over Assigning of Cases


Fellow jurists are concerned that trials of Clinton friends went to his 
                               appointees

                             (By Pete Yost)

       The chief judge of the U.S. District Court bypassed the 
     traditional random assignment system to send criminal cases 
     against presidential friends Webster Hubbell and Charlie Trie 
     to judges President Clinton appointed, court officials said.
       U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's decision to 
     abandon the longtime random computer assignment for high-
     profile cases has raised concerns among several other judges, 
     the officials said in interviews.
       The judges also raised concerns about an appearance of 
     possible conflicts of interest, because judges assigned the 
     cases were friendly with key players--presidential confidant 
     Vernon Jordan and defense lawyer Reid Weingarten--and made 
     rulings that handicapped prosecutors.
       Half a dozen judges, Republicans and Democrats, said they 
     have high regard for the ethics they have high regard for the 
     ethics and work of the two judges involved, Paul L. Friedman 
     and James Robertson, and do not believe they were improperly 
     influenced.
       But the judges, who spoke on condition for anonymity, said 
     they have discussed among themselves the public perception of 
     ignoring the random draw--used in almost all cases--and 
     passing over more experienced judges appointed by presidents 
     of both parties.
       One judge said his colleagues have discussed whether 
     assigning cases directly rather than using the random lottery 
     raises ``an appearance problem at least'' and ``whether there 
     has been impartial administration of justice.''
       The airing of the behind-the-scenes controversy provides a 
     rare window into a court process sealed from public view.
       Judges Johnson, Friedman and Robertson all declined 
     repeated requests for interviews.
       Judge Johnson, an appointee of President Carter, assigned:
       Judge Friedman to the Trie case, the first major 
     prosecution from the Justice Department probe of Democratic 
     fund raising. Mr. Clinton nominated Judge Friedman, a former 
     president of the local bar, in 1994.

[[Page S10227]]

       Judge Robertson was handed the Hubbell tax case, 
     independent counsel Kenneth Starr's first prosecution in 
     Washington. Judge Robertson is an ex-president of the local 
     bar and a former partner at the law firm of former White 
     House counsel Lloyd Cutler.
       Mr. Clinton nominated him in the last days of Mr. Cutler's 
     tenure as counsel in 1994. Judge Robertson had donated $1,000 
     to Mr. Clinton's 1992 presidential bid and has said he 
     ``worked on the periphery'' of that campaign.
       Judge Robertson on two occasions dismissed felony charges 
     against Hubbell. He dismissed the tax case against Hubbell, 
     who eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor when an 
     appeals court reinstated the case.
       Judge Johnson allowed a later indictment--charging Hubbell 
     with lying to federal regulators--be assigned at random by 
     computer. By coincidence, the computer picked Judge 
     Robertson, who threw out the central felony count in the 
     case. Judge Robertson, who threw out the central felony count 
     in the case. Hubbell pleaded guilty to that same felony count 
     June 30, after an appeals court reversed Judge Robertson.
       One politically sensitive aspect of the Hubbell tax evasion 
     indictment was a reference to a $62,500 consulting 
     arrangement that Mr. Jordan helped obtain for Hubbell, making 
     Mr. Jordan a potential witness.
       Judge Robertson and Mr. Jordan are friends from their days 
     in the civil rights movement. Mr. Jordan did not return 
     repeated calls seeking comment.
       [Judge Robertson, who was highly critical of Mr. Starr's 
     tactics in the Hubbell case, also dealt major setbacks to 
     Donald Smaltz, the independent counsel who investigated 
     former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy.
       [In one instance, the judge granted a new trial to a Tyson 
     Foods Inc. executive, Jack L. Williams, who had been 
     convicted on two counts of making false statements to federal 
     investigators.
       [Last September, Judge Robertson overturned the conviction 
     of Tyson lobbyist Archie Schaeffer III for giving illegal 
     gifts to Mr. Espy. A federal appeals court reinstated that 
     conviction July 23.]
       Judge Johnson assigned the Trie case and two subsequent 
     cases against Democratic fund-raisers to Judge Friedman, who 
     tossed out various charges.
       After one of Judge Friedman's rulings was overturned on 
     appeal, Trie agreed to plead guilty.
       Judge Friedman and Mr. Weingarten, the defense lawyer in 
     two of three fund-raising cases before Judge Friedman, are 
     longtime friends.
       ``He's a professional friend, but he's a judge now,'' Mr. 
     Weingarten said. ``These relationships change when somebody 
     goes to the bench.''
       When Judge Johnson bypassed the random draw for these 
     cases, 12 full-time judges were on the federal court, seven 
     of them Clinton appointees. Four were Republican appointees. 
     The court also has a number of senior judges who work part-
     time.
       Judge Johnson garnered headlines for her rulings against 
     Mr. Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, rejecting 
     privilege claims by the president and ordering White House 
     lawyer Bruce Lindsey and Secret Service personnel to testify.
       Experts said the assignments to Clinton-nominated judges 
     did not violate any rules but could shake public confidence.
       ``As far as assigning a recently appointed judge of the 
     same party, it's dangerous, it's risky, it's hazardous 
     because the outcome might support the cynical view that the 
     judge did not decide the matter on the merits even though 
     that may be the furthest thing from the truth,'' Columbia 
     University law professor H. Richard Uviller said.
       New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said, 
     ``If the case is high-profile, that should increase the 
     presumption in favor of random selection.''
       The assignments were confirmed to AP by several court 
     officials with access to parts of the court computer system 
     not available to the public.
       Local court rules give Judge Johnson the right to assign 
     ``protracted'' cases to specific judges, although nearly all 
     the cases in U.S. District Court here are assigned by 
     lottery, court officials said.
       The Judicial Conference, the policy-making body for the 
     federal judiciary, recommends that federal courts randomly 
     assign cases. In March, the conference rescinded its 28-year-
     old policy that recommended giving chief judges latitude to 
     make special assignments of ``protracted, difficult or widely 
     publicized cases.''
       Actual practice varies from court to court.
       In the Southern District of New York, which has more than 
     two dozen full-time judges, Court Executive Clifford P. 
     Kirsch said, ``It's all been by a blind draw . . . so it 
     doesn't appear anyone is preselecting or favoring one judge 
     over another judge.''
                                  ____

                                           U.S. District Court for


                                     the District of Columbia,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1999.
     Editor,
     The Washington Times,
     Washington, DC.
       As I firmly believe that justice is best served in the 
     courts of law and not on the front page of a newspaper, it 
     has long been my policy not to discuss my judicial decision-
     making with members of the press. However, I feel compelled 
     to make an exception to that policy in order to correct the 
     disturbing misimpression left by a recent story circulated by 
     the Associated Press and published in your paper as well as 
     several other news outlets. [This A.P. article alleges that I 
     ``bypassed the traditional random assignment system'' to 
     assign certain criminal cases to judges appointed by 
     President Clinton, singling out the criminal case against Yah 
     Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, which was assigned to Judge Paul L. 
     Friedman, and the criminal case against Webster Hubbell, 
     which was assigned to Judge James Robertson. The article 
     implies that these cases were assigned to these judges based 
     on political motivations. This unsubstantiated assertion 
     could not be further from the truth.] Moreover, it does a 
     significant disservice to the perception of impartial justice 
     that I believe all of the judges on our Court strive mightily 
     to maintain. Contrary to the false perception left by the 
     A.P. story, these cases were assigned to highly capable 
     federal judges. Politics was not and is never a factor in our 
     case assignments.
       In order to set the record straight, the circumstances 
     leading to these routine ``special assignments'' are quite 
     simple. For years, Local Rule 403(g) of the Rules of the 
     District Court for the District of Columbia has authorized 
     the Chief Judge to specially assign protracted or complex 
     criminal cases to consenting judges when circumstances 
     warrant. My predecessors and I have used this assignment 
     system to enable our Court to expeditiously handle high 
     profile criminal cases with their unique demands on judicial 
     resources. For example, criminal cases arising from Watergate 
     and the Iran-Contra affair were handled through special 
     assignment. In both those instances of overwhelming media 
     scrutiny and complexity, the special assignment system well 
     served our needs. In addition to these highly publicized 
     criminal cases, special assignment has also been a valuable 
     tool in addressing multiple defendant narcotics conspiracy 
     cases. It is the responsibility of the Chief Judge to move 
     the docket as expeditiously as possible. That is all that was 
     intended by these assignments.
       Finally, I must note that the A.P. article irresponsibly 
     impugns the reputation of two fine federal judges by 
     suggesting conflicts of interest in their handling of these 
     cases. Neither judge had any obligation to recuse himself 
     from the cases to which he was assigned, for neither faced a 
     conflict of any sort. A judge's prior affiliations and 
     acquaintances, alone, do not require recusal or 
     disqualification. Indeed, many judges on this Court know many 
     lawyers and public officials in Washington. If recusal were 
     required on the basis of these innocuous connections, it 
     would wreak havoc on case scheduling.
       In the future, I suggest that before your newspaper prints 
     a story that impugns the integrity of two outstanding members 
     of the federal judiciary, you offer more evidence of an 
     actual conflict than the slender reed of innuendo which 
     supports these current allegations. Such an unsubstantiated 
     and unsupportable attack does your publication little credit 
     and the truth much harm.
           Sincerely,
                                           Norma Holloway Johnson,
                                                      Chief Judge.

  Mr. SPECTER. In the reply, the chief judge says this:

       This A.P. article alleges that I ``bypassed the traditional 
     random assignment system'' to assign certain criminal cases 
     to judges appointed by President Clinton, singling out the 
     criminal case against Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie, which was 
     assigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman, and the criminal case 
     against Webster Hubbell, which was assigned to Judge James 
     Robertson. The article implies that these cases were assigned 
     to these judges based on political motivations. The 
     unsubstantiated assertion could not be further from the 
     truth.

  Now, I do not question the statements made by the chief judge in 
denying any portion of partiality or impropriety, but I do believe that 
when this case is called to widespread public attention the Congress 
ought to act. That is why I am introducing this legislation today on 
behalf of myself and Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  The reasons for this legislation are articulated by Columbia 
University law professor H. Richard Uviller, who said:

       As far as assigning a recently appointed judge of the same 
     party, it's dangerous, it's risky, it's hazardous because the 
     outcome might support the cynical view that the judge did not 
     decide the matter on the merits even though that may be the 
     furthest thing from the truth.

  A similar statement was made by New York University law professor 
Steven Gillers, who said:

       If the case is high-profile, that should increase the 
     presumption in favor of random selection.

  This issue of random selection is one that I feel particularly 
strongly about based on my experience as district attorney in the 
Philadelphia criminal courts. When high-profile or politically-tinged 
cases were filed in the criminal courts of Philadelphia during my 
tenure as district attorney, I routinely asked for a jury trial because 
I

[[Page S10228]]

wanted the facts decided by an impartial fact finder. At the outset of 
that tenure in January of 1966, the Commonwealth was a party to the 
proceeding and, like the defendant, had a right to demand a jury trial. 
I did demand jury trials because I found that the assignment to 
specific judges was not random and did on some occasions have 
inappropriate motivations.
  During the course of my tenure as district attorney, the State 
supreme court made a change in the criminal rules and took away the 
right of the district attorney to demand a jury trial. That was 
recently reinstated by a constitutional amendment so that the 
experience I have seen requires a very heavy emphasis on the random 
selection.
  During my tenure as district attorney, we reformed the entire minor 
judiciary of Philadelphia known as magistrates because of widespread 
corruption and inappropriate practices in that judicial system. While 
this in no way reflects upon the Federal courts of the United States, 
which I think are of uniformly high quality, I do believe that the 
principle of random selection of judges is a very important principle. 
I do believe there ought to be an exception if there is a related case; 
that is, where a judge was assigned a case on a random basis and 
another matter comes in where there are very similar, if not identical, 
questions of fact and questions of the parties. But this legislation 
removes at least the appearance and the question that there may be some 
collateral motivation.
  To reiterate, I seek recognition today to introduce the Random 
Selection of Judges Act of 1999, a bill which will require that cases 
in Federal court be assigned to judges randomly, by means of a computer 
program. I believe that only the random assignment of cases to judges 
will ensure blind justice in our courts.
  This power to assign cases creates the potential for abuse. An 
assigning judge who is so inclined could attempt to alter the outcome 
of a case by assigning it to a judge who, in the opinion of the chief 
judge, holds a ``correct'' view on the issue at hand.
  A story recently in the news clearly demonstrates the potential for 
abuse under the current system. Over the weekend, the Associated Press 
reported that Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, Chief Judge of the District 
Court for the District of Columbia, bypassed the traditional random 
computer assignment system in her court and instead directly assigned 
criminal cases against certain presidential friends to judges appointed 
by President Clinton. Specifically, the campaign finance case against 
Charlie Trie was assigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman, and the tax cases 
against Webster Hubbell were assigned to Judge James Robertson. 
According to the news reports, Judge Johnson's decision to abandon 
random assignment in these high profile cases raised concerns among 
several other judges on her court. It was also reported that these 
judges raised concerns because Judge Robertson is friends with Vernon 
Jordan, who played a role in the Hubbell affair, and Judge Friedman is 
friends with Reid Weingarten, who represents the defendants in two 
fundraising cases before Friedman.
  According to the Associated Press article, it has been asserted by 
some that Judge Johnson assigned these cases to Clinton appointees 
because they would be more sympathetic to the President and his friends 
than Republican appointees who may have gotten the cases through random 
assignment. Judge Johnson has denied any political or other improper 
motive in a letter to the Washington Times. The fact is that Judge 
Johnson herself issued a number of rulings against President Clinton, 
including her rulings rejecting privilege claims by White House lawyer 
Bruce Lindsey and the Secret Service. But no matter what Judge 
Johnson's motives, her actions make quite clear that, under the current 
system, the potential for abuse does exist.
  Currently, the Judicial Conference, which is the policymaking body 
for the federal judiciary, recommends that Federal courts randomly 
assign cases. In fact, in March the conference even rescinded its 28-
year-old policy that recommended giving chief judges latitude to make 
special assignments of ``protracted, difficult, or widely publicized 
cases.'' But there is still no requirement that Federal courts randomly 
assign cases. The problem with mere recommendations is that they can be 
ignored. If we believe that cases should be randomly assigned, then we 
must require that cases be randomly assigned.
  My bill imposes such a requirement. Under my bill, the chief judges 
of the Federal district and circuit courts must assign cases by means 
of an automated random assignment program. Recognizing that there are 
some instances in which it would serve the interests of efficiency to 
allow the chief judges to directly assign cases to specific judges, my 
bill includes two important exceptions to the random assignment 
requirement. First, chief judges will be permitted to directly assign a 
case to a judge who has already heard a related case. A related case is 
defined as one which involves substantially the same facts, individuals 
and/or property as a case previously before the court. For instance, a 
case against a defendant in a bank robbery could be directly assigned 
to a judge who already heard the case against another defendant in the 
same bank robbery.
  Secondly, chief judges will be permitted to directly assign a 
technical case to a judge who is already familiar with the subject 
matter at issue. Technical cases are defined as those which involve 
specialized, unusually complex facts or subject matter and which would 
demand a great deal of time to master. For example, an asbestos 
liability case could be directly assigned to a judge who has already 
developed an expertise in handling asbestos liability cases.
  While Congress should not micro-manage the Courts, the legislation I 
introduce today is reasonable, limited, and well within our power. 
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9 of the Constitution gives Congress the 
power to ``constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.'' 
Pursuant to this power, Congress established the Federal circuits and 
originally assigned Supreme Court justices to ride these circuits. 
Under this power, Congress eventually established the Federal district 
courts and outlined their jurisdiction. The sections of the Federal 
Code I seek to amend today--which permit the assignment of judges in 
accordance with court rules--were themselves Congressional enactments. 
Even in recent years, Congress has imposed restrictions on the 
procedures of the courts. For example, the Anti-Terrorism Bill of 1996 
contained a provision I authored to reform habeas corpus. This 
provision imposes strict time limits on both the filing of habeas 
corpus petitions and the response by the courts to such petitions. 
Likewise, many bills we pass include requirements that certain cases be 
heard by the Courts on an expedited basis.
  Mr. President, I feel strongly that my bill should not become a 
partisan issue. As I mentioned before, one's opinion of Judge Johnson 
and her actions is entirely beside the point. Judge Johnson's reported 
actions merely make us aware of the potential for abuse in our current 
system and the need to rectify it. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this necessary, common-sense legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                                S. 1484

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (A) Short Title.--This act may be cited as the ``Random 
     Selection of Judges Act of 1999.''

     SECTION 2. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES IN DISTRICT COURT.

       Title 28, United States Code is amended--
       (1) in section 137 as follows:
       (A) By adding the words, ``Except as provided below,'' at 
     the beginning of the first paragraph.
       (B) By deleting the words ``and assign in cases'' in the 
     middle of the second paragraph.
       (C) By inserting the following new paragraphs at the end of 
     the section:
       ``Except as provided below, the chief judge of the district 
     court shall assign all cases by means of an automated random 
     assignment program provided by the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts.
       ``Notwithstanding the foregoing, the chief judge of the 
     district court may directly assign related cases and 
     technical cases to a specific judge without using the 
     automated random assignment program. The chief judge may 
     directly assign a related case only to a

[[Page S10229]]

     judge who is hearing or has heard a case or cases to which 
     the new case relates. The chief judge may directly assign a 
     technical case only to a judge who has significant experience 
     with the subject matter at issue.
       ``For purposes of this section, a ``related case'' is a 
     case which involves substantially the same facts, 
     individuals, and/or property as a case previously or 
     contemporaneously before the court.
       ``For purposes of this section, a ``technical case'' is a 
     case which involves specialized, unusually complex facts or 
     subject matter and which would demand a significant 
     investment of time for a judge to master.''

     SECTION 3. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES IN CIRCUIT COURT.

       Title 28, United States Code is amended--
       (1) in section 46 as follows:
       (A) By adding the words, ``in accordance with the 
     procedures outlined in Section 46(e),'' at the end of Section 
     46(a).
       (B) By adding the words, ``In accordance with the 
     procedures outlined in Section 46(e)'' at the beginning of 
     Section 46(b).
       (C) By inserting the following new Section 46(e) at the end 
     of the section:
       ``Except as provided below, the chief judge of the circuit 
     court shall assign all cases by means of an automated random 
     assignment program provided by the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts.
       ``Notwithstanding the foregoing, the chief judge of the 
     circuit court may directly assign related cases and technical 
     cases to a specific judge or judges without using the 
     automated random assignment program. The chief judge may 
     directly assign a related case only to a judge or judges who 
     are hearing or have heard a case or cases to which the new 
     case relates. The chief judge may directly assign a technical 
     case only to a judge or judges who have significant 
     experience with the subject matter at issue.
       ``For purposes of this section, a `related case' is a case 
     which involves substantially the same facts, individuals, 
     and/or property as a case previously or contemporaneously 
     before the court.
       ``For purposes of this section, a `technical case' is a 
     case which involves specialized, unusually complex facts or 
     subject matter and which would demand a significant 
     investment of time for a judge to master.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for Mr. Nickles (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Ashcroft, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lott, Mr. Rockefeller, and 
        Mr. Smith of Oregon)):
  S. 1485. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on 
certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    adopted orphans citizenship act

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Don Nickles, and a number of my colleagues, including 
Senators Ashcroft, Bond, Brownback, Chafee, Cochran, Craig, DeWine, 
Edwards, Grassley, Hollings, Inhofe, Kennedy, Levin, Lott, Rockefeller, 
and Gordon Smith in introducing a very important piece of legislation 
called the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act.
  As you can see from this long list of distinguished Members, the 
Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act is an important piece of legislation 
and one I hope, by introducing it today, we could actually have some 
committee and floor action on in the weeks and months ahead. I commend 
Senator Nickles for his leadership. We have presented this bill on 
behalf of the 15,000 children who are adopted into our country each 
year through the process of international adoption.
  A few weeks ago, I had the great privilege to join Senator Levin and 
others to travel to Romania and had the opportunity to see firsthand 
the institutions and orphanages. Over 100,000 children of Romania call 
these places home, but they in fact do not look much like homes, as you 
can imagine. The staff at these homes try very hard to give the 
children in their care the love and support they need as they grow and 
mature, yet the fact is they are living in these institutions. Nothing 
can really supplant or take the place of a family or home to call your 
own.
  Not only in Romania but in many places in the world, American 
families are building their families through the process of 
international adoption. Last year alone, 15,000 families opened their 
homes and their hearts to adopt a child from another country, and 
85,000 families adopted children from within the United States. But 
this bill is directed at the families who are bringing children from 
other parts of the world to come and be part of an American family and 
become American citizens. What people may not realize is that now, when 
the adoption process is final, when all the paperwork has been done, 
after all the time and energy and in some cases a considerable amount 
of financial expense that is associated with these particular 
adoptions, under our current law, these children and these families 
still have to go through a citizenship process.
  This bill will basically make that process automatic and would, as 
the other parts of our law, recognize no difference between a child who 
is a biological child and a child who is an adopted child. It 
simplifies our law, it reduces paperwork, it reduces heartaches, 
reduces headaches, and really is something we should have done years 
ago. I am proud to join my colleagues today to introduce this 
legislation that, if passed, will make it automatic that children who 
are adopted into families in the United States will receive, with their 
adoption finalization, automatic citizenship, to be citizens of the 
United States of America.
  I think this change is long overdue. I can say, as the mother of two 
beautiful adopted children, obviously there is no difference between 
biological and adopted children. Both are wonderful ways to build 
families. Through the adoption process, many families in the United 
States are able to provide homes for children who were not fortunate 
enough to have them the first time around. So I am happy to join my 
colleagues to introduce this bill.
  I send it to the desk and ask it be referred to the proper committee, 
and I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1485

       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 ``Adopted Orphans Citizenship 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP BY CERTAIN 
                   ADOPTED CHILDREN.

       (a) Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
     Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1401) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (g);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subsection (h) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) an unmarried person, under the age of 18 years, born 
     outside the United States and its outlying possessions and 
     thereafter adopted by at least one parent who is a citizen of 
     the United States and who has been physically present in the 
     United States or one of its outlying possessions for a period 
     or periods totaling not less than 5 years prior to the 
     adoption of the person, at least 2 of which were after 
     attaining the age of 14 years, if--
       ``(1) the person is physically present in the United States 
     with the citizen parent, having attained the status of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
       ``(2) the person satisfied the requirements in subparagraph 
     (E) or (F) of section 101(b)(1); and
       ``(3) the person seeks documentation as a United States 
     citizen while under the age of 18 years.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to persons adopted before, on, or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 1486. A bill to establish a Take Pride in America Program; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        take pride in america volunteer recognition act of 1999

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce the Take Pride 
in America Volunteer Recognition Act of 1999, legislation which will 
revitalize and expand an important program created in the 1980's to 
enhance the legacy of the Great Outdoors.
  Each American is part owner of an incredible asset--millions and 
millions of acres of national parks, national forests, national 
wildlife refuges and other public lands. These wonderful places are 
part of the legacy each of us shares, whether we live in my state of 
Washington or on the other side of the nation. We visit these places 
often and for a variety of reasons. Together, federal lands attract 
nearly two billion visits annually. Americas' Great Outdoors is a place 
for active fun--for skiing and fishing, camping and

[[Page S10230]]

whitewatersports--as well as for quite time away from our cities, jobs 
and commutes.
  Years ago, an important initiative was launched to encourage 
Americans to enjoy this legacy, and take responsibility for protecting 
it for future generations. The program was called Take Pride in America 
and had three components. The first portion was a public awareness 
campaign, designed to emphasize the importance of caring for federal 
lands and water. The second portion was an environmental education 
program for school children and for visitors to public lands. The third 
portion was a volunteer recruitment and recognition effort.
  The Take Pride in America program received the support of a great 
number of well-known Americans. Public Service Announcements and 
appearances were contributed by Clint Eastwood and Linda Evans, Lou 
Gossett and Charles Bronson, Gerald McRainey and even ALF. The Oak 
Ridge Boys wrote and recorded to Take Pride in America theme song, and 
donated all royalties to the program. Forty-seven governors initiated 
Take Pride programs within their states, recognizing outstanding 
volunteers ranging from young children to seniors. Volunteers from 
across the nation came to Washington for an annual national recognition 
event at the White House and similar prominent locations. The Ad 
Council obtained professional support for the program and donated 
placements for PSA's--in fact, some of the elements of this campaign 
continue to run.
  The results were good. Volunteerism for America's Great Outdoors 
surged and vandalism decline. Agencies such as the National Park 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and the 
Corps of Engineers were given a new tool to recruit and recognize 
Americans who invested their time and energy into enhancing our shared 
wealth of parks and forests.
  Other priorities have put the Take Pride in America Program on hold 
in recent years. It is time to take this tool out and put it to good 
use once again.
  Our public lands have maintenance and enhancement needs that exceed 
our ability to fund through general appropriations. We are now 
experimenting with new recreation fees and other mechanisms to attack a 
deferred maintenance backlog amounting to more than one billion 
dollars.
  My legislation would restore and expand the program created by 
Congress in 1990, recommitting us to all three parts of the original 
program. It would also strengthen the program to reflect a special 
opportunity associated with the National Fee Demonstration Program 
created in 1996, which provides nearly $200 million annually in 
additional resources to four key federal land systems. The legislation 
would strengthen our volunteer programs in several ways, including the 
establishment of a special pass to recognize volunteers who serve 50 
hours or more on federal public lands.
  In my state, the Forest Service has done a tremendous job of 
organizing and utilizing the skills and enthusiasm of volunteers 
committed to improving our forests. The volunteer programs in the 
Northwest vary from forest to forest. Typically, groups like the 
Student Conservation Association, Mountaineers, Mazamas, and 
Backcountry Horsemen of Washington contract with the National Forest 
Service to complete specific projects designed to improve the health of 
the forests and enhance recreational opportunities. Individuals within 
these associations can earn passes for free access at national forest 
trailheads in the Pacific Northwest. I think this program is 
outstanding, and I want the Forest Service to continue accommodating 
and encouraging the efforts of volunteers. This bill is designed to 
encore these types of volunteer programs in other regions of the 
National Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, I want 
to recognize the special efforts of volunteers who contribute over 50 
hours of work on federal lands. The legislation directs the Department 
of Interior and Department of Agriculture to recognize these 
individuals with a pass to recreation areas throughout the federal 
system.
  I look forward to exploring appropriate means for recognition of 
volunteers as this legislation is considered in the hearing process. We 
need to consider carefully the relationship between the special Take 
Pride in America Pass and other passes, including the Golden Eagle and 
Golden Age passes.
  This legislation also will serve as a catalyst for expanding the 
scope of volunteer programs on federal lands. Too often in the past, 
our expectations for volunteer projects have focused on projects 
requiring shovels or paint brushes and requiring high levels of 
physical exertion. The truth is that important volunteer projects that 
can protect and enhance America's Great Outdoors are far more diverse. 
We need skills senior Americans have developed during a lifetime of 
living and learning, from research in libraries to teaching. We need 
those with special talents and gifts, from architects to web page 
designers, from attorneys--yes, even attorneys--to masons. We need to 
have meaningful projects for those with just a few hours to contribute 
as well as for those who are prepared to make an ongoing commitment of 
their time. Some of the projects can even be undertaken off-site. We 
need a good directory of needed volunteer undertakings that is widely 
available long before a volunteer shows up at a forest or park 
headquarters.
  To the hundreds of thousands of Americans who already spend time 
protecting and enhancing America's public lands--covering nearly one in 
three acres of the nation--I give my thanks and ask for help in 
devising a system that recognizes the wonderful contribution you make 
and inspires millions of others to join in your important work. I also 
ask for the support of the Department of Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture for this legislation and its goal of taking better care of 
America's Great Outdoors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Inouye, 
        and Mr. Kerrey):
  S. 1487. A bill to provide for excellence in economic education, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


              Excellence in Economic Education Act of 1999

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Excellence in 
Economic Education Act of 1999, a bill I am introducing today with my 
friends, Senators Cochran, Murray, Inouye, and Kerrey.
  With each passing day, the need for increased economic literacy 
becomes more and more apparent. The rise of Internet commerce, market 
globalization, advances in technology, growth of online investment 
services, and the increase in the number of Americans who invest in the 
stock market serve to highlight the importance of economic literacy for 
citizens of every age and professional background. I am convinced that 
more education about basic economic concepts such as money, personal 
finance, and inflation--starting from a young age--could help people 
make decisions about their financial situation, so that they can better 
prepare for and endure our changing economy.
  We need to help young people better understand economic implications 
of their actions: they can't always get what they want; they need to be 
more responsible with money; and, they are learning fiscal habits now 
that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
  In addition to teaching our youth how to make good financial 
decisions, we must help them become productive and well-informed 
citizens. It has been shown that a lack of knowledge about fundamental 
economics can have negative effects on our economy and lead to 
divisions and polarization in our communities. Economic education can 
have profound long-term effects for all of us.
  We must educate our country's future workforce about what effects the 
retirements of our ``baby boom generation'' will have on them. 
Currently, Social Security reform is one of the biggest issues that is 
before us. We are working to ensure that Social Security will remain 
solvent well into the next century.
  As we know, the number of people receiving Social Security will surge 
from 44 million now to 75 million in 2020. Even if we achieve a truly 
bipartisan

[[Page S10231]]

solution on Social Security, our young people will still feel the 
impact from this tremendous future demographic shift, and they should 
learn how to prepare themselves for security in retirement. Economic 
education can help them.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment on the results of a basic 
economics test given nationally by the National Council on Economic 
Education, which provides further evidence of the need for increased 
economic education. Taken by 1,010 adults and 1,085 high school 
students, the test's findings are striking:
  (1) half of adults and two-thirds of high school students failed, 
while only six percent of adults and three percent of high school 
students got an ``A'';
  (2) on average, adults received a grade of 57 percent and high school 
students a grade of 48 percent;
  (3) students and adults alike lacked a basic understanding about the 
concepts of money, inflation and scarcity of resources--core economic 
concepts;
  (4) a sizeable number of students--35 percent--admitted that they 
simply do not know what the effect of an increase in interest rates 
would be; and
  (5) only a little more than half of adults, 54 percent, and less than 
one in four students, 23 percent, know that a budget deficit occurs 
when the Federal Government's expenditures exceed its revenues for that 
year.
  However, amid these disappointing results, the study found that 96 
percent believe basic economics should be taught in high school. 
Currently, 38 states have adopted guidelines for teaching economics in 
their schools, but only 13 states require that students take economics 
in order to graduate. Clearly, people see the need for improved 
economic education, and this need exists in many States.
  This brings me to a brief description of what the Excellence in 
Economic Education Act would do. My bill would ensure that a majority 
of total funds appropriated under the Act would be distributed to state 
councils on economic education and economic education centers based at 
universities to support the work that these entities are performing. It 
would support the National Council on Economic Education in economic 
literacy activities that it conducts. It would also fund the creation 
of new councils and centers in states without a council or center.
  The goals of the bill are to increase student knowledge of and 
achievement in economics; strengthen teachers' understanding of and 
ability to teach economics; encourage related research and development, 
dissemination of instructional materials, and replication of best 
practices and programs; help States measure the impact of economic 
education; ensure a strong presence of the nationwide network in every 
State; and leverage and increase private and public support for 
economic education partnerships at all levels.
  Support for economic education is in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act which lists economics as a national core subject area.
  My bill encourages the National Council and state councils and 
centers to work with local businesses and private industry as much as 
possible, particularly in obtaining matching funds.
  Mr. President, we need to improve economic literacy for our children, 
just as we need to ensure reading literacy, writing aptitude, math and 
science comprehension, and an understanding of history and the arts. 
Economics is a fundamental, practical building block that should round 
out our children's education. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
cosponsoring the Excellence in Economic Education Act.
  For more specific details on the grants my bill creates, one-fourth 
of funds would be provided to the National Council, so that the council 
may strengthen and expand its nationwide economic education network, 
support and promote teacher training in coordination with current 
Eisenhower Professional Development activities, support related 
research, and develop and disseminate appropriate materials.

  The remaining funds will be distributed by the National Council to 
state councils or centers, which will work in partnership with the 
private sector, state educational agencies, local educational agencies, 
institutions of higher education or other organizations that promote 
economic development or educational excellence. With this money, 
councils and centers will be able to fund teacher training programs, 
resources to school districts that want to incorporate economics into 
curricula, evaluations of the impact of economic education on students, 
related research, school-based student activities to promote consumer 
and personal finance education and to encourage awareness and student 
achievement in economics, interstate and international student and 
teacher exchanges, and replication of best practices to promote 
economic literacy.
  The National Council runs an International Economics Exchange Program 
which is authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This 
program assists with economic education in transition countries of the 
former Soviet Union, and enjoys broad support. My bill would boost the 
domestic component of the National Council's activities.
  In addition, my bill puts increased emphasis on economics by adding 
it to the list of subject areas in Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act programs, such as National Teacher Training Project, Star Schools, 
Magnet Schools, Fund for the Improvement of Education, and Urban and 
Rural Education Assistance.
  We are looking for ways to better educate our young people on how to 
manage their resources, be better workers, make wise investments, and 
prepare for a secure financial future. My bill provides the flexibility 
needed so that this may happen through practical means and make 
economics come alive for students. It is important to start working on 
this now. Before we know it, current eighth graders will have gone 
through high school, possibly college, and entered the workforce.
  One again, I thank Senators Cochran, Inouye, Murray, and Kerrey for 
becoming original cosponsors of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
join us in cosponsoring the Excellence in Economic Education Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1487

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

     SECTION 1. EXCELLENCE IN ECONOMIC EDUCATION.

       (a) Amendment.--Title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

               ``PART L--EXCELLENCE IN ECONOMIC EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 10995. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This part may be cited as the 
     ``Excellence in Economic Education Act of 1999''.
       ``(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) The need for economic literacy in the United States 
     has grown exponentially in the 1990's as a result of rapid 
     technological advancements and increasing globalization, 
     giving individuals in the United States more numerous and 
     complex economic and financial choices than ever before as 
     members of the workforce, managers of their families' 
     resources, and voting citizens.
       ``(2) Individuals in the United States lack essential 
     economic knowledge, as demonstrated in a 1998-1999 test 
     conducted by the National Council on Economic Education, a 
     private nonprofit organization. The test results indicated 
     the following:
       ``(A) Students and adults alike lack a basic understanding 
     of core economic concepts such as scarcity of resources and 
     inflation, with less than half of those tested demonstrating 
     knowledge of those basic concepts.
       ``(B) A little more than \1/3\ of those tested realize that 
     society must make choices about how to use resources.
       ``(C) Only \1/3\ of those tested understand that active 
     competition in the marketplace serves to lower prices and 
     improve product quality.
       ``(D) Slightly more than \1/2\ of adults in the United 
     States and less than \1/4\ of students in the United States 
     know that a Federal budget deficit is created when the 
     Federal Government's expenditures exceed its revenues in a 
     year.
       ``(E) Overall, adults received a grade of 57 percent on the 
     test and secondary school students received a grade of 48 
     percent on the test.
       ``(F) Despite those poor results, the test pointed out that 
     individuals in the United States realize the need for 
     understanding basic economic concepts, with 96 percent of 
     adults tested believing that basic economics should be taught 
     in secondary school.
       ``(3) A range of trends points to the need for individuals 
     in the United States to receive a practical economics 
     education that

[[Page S10232]]

     will give the individuals tools to make responsible choices 
     about their limited financial resources, choices which face 
     all people regardless of their financial circumstances. 
     Examples of the trends are the following:
       ``(A) The number of personal bankruptcies in the United 
     States continued to rise and set new records in the 1990's, 
     despite the longest peacetime economic expansion in United 
     States history. One in every 70 United States households 
     filed for bankruptcy in 1998. Rising bankruptcies have an 
     impact on the cost and availability of consumer credit which 
     in turn negatively affect overall economic growth.
       ``(B) Credit card delinquencies in the United States rose 
     to 1.83 percent in 1998, which is a percentage not seen since 
     1992 when the effects of a recession were still strong.
       ``(C) The personal savings rate in the United States over 
     the 5 years ending in 1998 averaged only 4.5 percent. In the 
     first quarter of 1999, the personal savings rate dropped to 
     negative 0.4 percent. A decline in savings rates reduces 
     potential investment and economic growth.
       ``(D) By 2030, the number of older persons in the United 
     States will grow to 70,000,000, more than twice the number of 
     older persons in the United States in 1997. The additional 
     older persons will add significantly to the population of 
     retirees in the United States and require a shift in private 
     and public resources to attend to their specific needs. The 
     needs will have dramatic, long-term economic consequences for 
     younger generations of individuals in the United States 
     workforce who will need to plan well in order to support 
     their families and ensure themselves a secure retirement.
       ``(4) The third National Education Goal puts economics 
     forth as 1 of 9 core content areas in which teaching, 
     learning, and students' mastery of basic and advanced skills 
     must improve.
       ``(5) The National Council on Economic Education presents a 
     compelling case for doing more to meet the need for economic 
     literacy. While an understanding of economics is necessary to 
     help the next generation to think, choose, and function in a 
     changing global economy, economics has too often been 
     neglected in schools.
       ``(6) States' requirements for economic and personal 
     finance education are insufficient as evidenced by the fact 
     that, while 39 States have adopted educational standards 
     (including guidelines or proficiencies) in economics--
       ``(A) only 13 of those States require all students to take 
     a course in economics before graduating from secondary 
     school;
       ``(B) only 25 States administer tests to determine whether 
     students meet the standards; and
       ``(C) only 27 States require that the standards be 
     implemented in schools.
       ``(7) Improved and enhanced national, State, and local 
     economic education efforts, conducted as part of the Campaign 
     for Economic Literacy led by the National Council on Economic 
     Education, will help individuals become informed consumers, 
     conscientious savers, prudent investors, productive workforce 
     members, responsible citizens, and effective participants in 
     the global economy.
       ``(8)(A) Founded in 1949, the National Council on Economic 
     Education is the preeminent economic education organization 
     in the United States, having a nationwide network that 
     supports economic education in the Nation's schools.
       ``(B) This network supports teacher preparedness in 
     economics through--
       ``(i) inservice teacher education;
       ``(ii) classroom-tested materials and appropriate 
     curricula;
       ``(iii) evaluation, assessment, and research on economics 
     education; and
       ``(iv) suggested content standards for economics.
       ``(9) The National Council on Economic Education network 
     includes affiliated State Councils on Economic Education and 
     more than 275 university or college-based Centers for 
     Economic Education. This network represents a unique 
     partnership among leaders in education, business, economics, 
     and labor, the purpose of which is to effectively deliver 
     economic education throughout the United States.
       ``(10) Each year the National Council on Economic Education 
     network trains 120,000 teachers, reaching more than 7,000,000 
     students. By strengthening the Council's nationwide network, 
     the Council can reach more of the Nation's 50,000,000 
     students.
       ``(11) The National Council on Economic Education conducts 
     an international economic education program that provides 
     information on market principles to the world (particularly 
     emerging democracies) through teacher training, materials 
     translation and development, study tours, conferences, and 
     research and evaluation. As a result of those activities, the 
     National Council on Economic Education is helping to support 
     educational reform and build economic education 
     infrastructures in emerging market economies, and reinforcing 
     the national interest of the United States.
       ``(12) Evaluation results of economics education activities 
     support the following conclusions:
       ``(A) Inservice education in economics for teachers 
     contributes significantly to students' gains in economic 
     knowledge.
       ``(B) Secondary school students who have taken economics 
     courses perform significantly better on tests of economic 
     literacy than do their counterparts who have not taken 
     economics.
       ``(C) Economics courses contribute significantly more to 
     gains in economic knowledge than does integration of 
     economics into other subjects.
       ``(13) Through partnerships, the National Council on 
     Economic Education network leverages support for its mission 
     by raising $35,000,000 from the private sector, universities, 
     and States.

     ``SEC. 10996. EXCELLENCE IN ECONOMIC EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this part is to promote 
     economic literacy among all United States students in 
     kindergarten through grade 12 by enhancing national 
     leadership in economic education through the strengthening of 
     a nationwide economic education network and the provision of 
     resources to appropriate State and local entities.
       ``(b) Goals.--The goals of this part are--
       ``(1) to increase students' knowledge of and achievement in 
     economics to enable the students to become more productive 
     and informed citizens;
       ``(2) to strengthen teachers' understanding of and 
     competency in economics to enable the teachers to increase 
     student mastery of economic principles and their practical 
     application;
       ``(3) to encourage economic education research and 
     development, to disseminate effective instructional 
     materials, and to promote replication of best practices and 
     exemplary programs that foster economic literacy;
       ``(4) to assist States in measuring the impact of education 
     in economics, which is 1 of 9 national core content areas 
     described in section 306(c) of the Goals 2000: Educate 
     America Act (20 U.S.C. 5886(c));
       ``(5) to extend strong economic education delivery systems 
     to every State; and
       ``(6) to leverage and expand private and public support for 
     economic education partnerships at national, State, and local 
     levels.

     ``SEC. 10997. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Grants to the National Council on Economic 
     Education.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award a 
     grant to the National Council on Economic Education (referred 
     to in this section as the `grantee'), which is a nonprofit 
     educational organization that has as its primary purpose the 
     improvement of the quality of student understanding of 
     economics through effective teaching of economics in the 
     Nation's classrooms.
       ``(2) Use of grant funds.--
       ``(A) One-quarter.--The grantee shall use \1/4\ of the 
     funds made available through the grant and not reserved under 
     subsection (f) for a fiscal year--
       ``(i) to strengthen and expand the grantee's nationwide 
     network on economic education;
       ``(ii) to support and promote training, of teachers who 
     teach a grade from kindergarten through grade 12, regarding 
     economics, including the dissemination of information on 
     effective practices and research findings regarding the 
     teaching of economics;
       ``(iii) to support research on effective teaching practices 
     and the development of assessment instruments to document 
     student performance;
       ``(iv) to develop and disseminate appropriate materials to 
     foster economic literacy; and
       ``(v) to coordinate activities assisted under this section 
     with activities assisted under title II.
       ``(B) Three-quarters.--The grantee shall use \3/4\ of the 
     funds made available through the grant and not reserved under 
     subsection (f) for a fiscal year to award grants to State 
     economic education councils, or in the case of a State that 
     does not have a State economic education council, a center 
     for economic education (which council or center shall be 
     referred to in this section as a `recipient'). The grantee 
     shall award such a grant to pay for the Federal share of the 
     cost of enabling the recipient to work in partnership with 1 
     or more of the entities described in paragraph (3) for 1 or 
     more of the following purposes:
       ``(i) Collaboratively establishing and conducting teacher 
     training programs that use effective and innovative 
     approaches to the teaching of economics.
       ``(ii) Providing resources to school districts that want to 
     incorporate economics into the curricula of the schools in 
     the districts.
       ``(iii) Conducting evaluations of the impact of economic 
     education on students.
       ``(iv) Conducting economic education research.
       ``(v) Creating and conducting school-based student 
     activities to promote consumer, economic, and personal 
     finance education, such as saving, investing, and 
     entrepreneurial education, and to encourage awareness and 
     student achievement in economics.
       ``(vi) Establishing interstate and international student 
     and teacher exchanges to promote economic literacy.
       ``(vii) Encouraging replication of best practices to 
     encourage economic literacy.
       ``(C) Additional requirements and technical assistance.--
     The grantee shall--
       ``(i) meet such other requirements as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to assure compliance with this 
     section; and
       ``(ii) provide such technical assistance as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       ``(3) Partnership entities.--The entities referred to in 
     paragraph (2)(B) are the following:
       ``(A) A private sector entity.
       ``(B) A State educational agency.

[[Page S10233]]

       ``(C) A local educational agency.
       ``(D) An institution of higher education.
       ``(E) Another organization promoting economic development.
       ``(F) Another organization promoting educational 
     excellence.
       ``(4) Administrative costs.--The grantee and each recipient 
     receiving a grant under this section for a fiscal year may 
     use not more than 25 percent of the funds made available 
     through the grant for administrative costs.
       ``(b) Teacher Training Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out the teacher training 
     programs described in subsection (a)(2)(B) a recipient 
     shall--
       ``(A) train teachers who teach a grade from kindergarten 
     through grade 12;
       ``(B) conduct programs taught by qualified teacher trainers 
     who can tap the expertise, knowledge, and experience of 
     classroom teachers, private sector leaders, and other members 
     of the community involved, for the training; and
       ``(C) encourage teachers from disciplines other than 
     economics to participate in such teacher training programs, 
     if the training will promote the economic understanding of 
     their students.
       ``(2) Release time.--Funds made available under this 
     section for the teacher training programs described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(2) may be used to 
     pay for release time for teachers and teacher trainers who 
     participate in the training.
       ``(c) Involvement of Business Community.--In carrying out 
     the activities assisted under this part the grantee and 
     recipients are encouraged to--
       ``(1) include interactions with the local business 
     community to the fullest extent possible, to reinforce the 
     connection between economic education and economic 
     development; and
       ``(2) work with private businesses to obtain matching 
     contributions for Federal funds and assist recipients in 
     working toward self-sufficiency.
       ``(d) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described 
     in subsection (a)(2)(B) shall be 50 percent. The Federal 
     share of the cost of establishing a State council on economic 
     education or a center for economic education under subsection 
     (f), for 1 fiscal year only, shall be 75 percent.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may be paid 
     in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, 
     equipment, or services.
       ``(e) Applications.--
       ``(1) Grantee.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, the grantee shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Recipients.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a recipient shall submit an application to the 
     grantee at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the grantee may require.
       ``(B) Review.--The grantee shall invite the individuals 
     described in subparagraph (C) to review all applications from 
     recipients for a grant under this section and to make 
     recommendations to the grantee regarding the funding of the 
     applications.
       ``(C) Individuals.--The individuals referred to in 
     subparagraph (B) are the following:
       ``(i) Leaders in the fields of economics and education.
       ``(ii) Such other individuals as the grantee determines to 
     be necessary.
       ``(f) Special Rule.--For each State that does not have a 
     recipient in the State, as determined by the grantee, not 
     less than the greater of 1.5 percent or $100,000 of the total 
     amount appropriated under subsection (i), for 1 fiscal year, 
     shall be made available to the State to pay for the Federal 
     share of the cost of establishing a State council on economic 
     education or a center for economic education in partnership 
     with a private sector entity, an institution of higher 
     education, the State educational agency, and other 
     organizations.
       ``(g) Supplement and Not Supplant.--Funds appropriated 
     under this section shall be used to supplement and not 
     supplant other Federal, State, and local funds expended for 
     the purpose described in section 10996(a).
       ``(h) Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress a report regarding 
     activities assisted under this section not later than 2 years 
     after the date funds are first appropriated under subsection 
     (i) and every 2 years thereafter.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.
       (b) Related Amendments.--The Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2103(a)(2)(I) (20 U.S.C. 6623(a)(2)(I)), by 
     inserting ``economics,'' after ``civics and government,'';
       (2) in section 3206(b)(4) (20 U.S.C. 6896(b)(4)), by 
     inserting ``economics,'' after ``history,'';
       (3) in section 5108(b) (20 U.S.C. 7208(b)), by inserting 
     ``economics,'' after ``history,'';
       (4) in section 10101(b)(1)(A)(iii) (20 U.S.C. 
     8001(b)(1)(A)(iii)), by striking ``and social studies'' and 
     inserting ``social studies, and economics,'';
       (5) in section 10963(b)(4) (20 U.S.C. 8283(b)(4))--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) economic education and other programs designed to 
     enhance economic literacy and personal financial 
     responsibility;''; and
       (6) in section 10974(a)(8)(H) (20 U.S.C. 8294(a)(8)(H)), by 
     striking ``local rural entrepreneurship'' and inserting 
     ``promoting economic literacy, local rural 
     entrepreneurship,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1489. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 
the payment to States of pilot allowances for certain veterans eligible 
for burial in a national cemetery who are buried in cemeteries of such 
States.


                    veterans' plot allowance equity

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
which provides equity for a group of veterans at their final moment: 
those veterans who are buried in State-owned veterans' cemeteries.
  For a number of years, the amount of space in national veterans' 
cemeteries has been rapidly declining. With the strong encouragement of 
the Federal government, the States have undertaken to develop their own 
veterans' cemeteries. When certain categories of veterans are buried 
without charge in these State veterans' cemeteries, the Federal 
government pays the State a $150 ``plot allowance'' for the burial 
space. However, only limited categories of veterans are covered by this 
payment: those who were discharged for disability or who were receiving 
disability-related compensation; those who died in a veterans hospital; 
and those indigent veterans whose bodies were unclaimed after death.
  For the many other veterans who don't fall into one of these few 
categories, the federal government will pay nothing for their burial 
space if they are buried in a State veterans' cemetery. By contrast, if 
any of these veterans were buried in a national veterans' cemetery, for 
which they are eligible, the federal government picks up the cost of 
the burial space. This disparity seems inexplicable, a final insult to 
the dedicated service of men and women who unselfishly served their 
country.
  My bill removes this inequity by stating that, for any veteran who is 
eligible for burial in a national veterans' cemetery but who is 
interred in a State veterans' cemetery, the federal government will pay 
the State a $150 plot allowance for the burial space. That's it. No 
ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions.
  The government promised these veterans that they would be taken care 
of in their final passage, and it must live up to this vow. Regardless 
of whether veterans are buried in a State cemetery or in a national 
cemetery, their service in the armed forces benefitted all of us, and 
we should stop quibbling about whether the location of the grave has 
anything to do with the dignity and selflessness of the service to the 
country.
  Mr. President, I urge my fellow Senators to support this bill in the 
name of fairness and in recognition of the service to the country of 
all our veterans in their final hour.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself and Mr. Frist):
  S. 1490. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for State and local sales taxes in lieu of State and local 
income taxes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   Deductibility of State Sales Taxes

 Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will address an inequity in the tax code that affects 
the citizens of my state and citizens of the other states that do not 
have a state income tax. Tennesseans are discriminated against under 
federal tax laws simply because our state chooses to raise revenue 
primarily through a sales tax instead of an income tax. My bill would 
end this inequity by allowing taxpayers to deduct either their state 
and local sales taxes or their state and local income taxes on their 
federal tax forms, but not both. I am joined today by my colleague from 
Tennessee, Senator Frist.
  Under current law, individuals who itemize their deductions for 
federal tax purposes are only permitted to deduct state and local 
income taxes and property taxes paid. State and local sales

[[Page S10234]]

taxes are not deductible. Therefore, residents of nine states are 
treated differently from residents of states with an income tax. Seven 
states--Texas, Florida, Alaska, Wyoming, Washington, South Dakota and 
Nebraska--have no state income tax. Two states--Tennessee and New 
Hampshire--only impose an income tax on interest and dividends, but not 
wages.
  Prior to 1986, taxpayers were permitted to deduct all of their state 
and local taxes paid (including income, sales and property taxes) when 
computing their federal tax liability. The ability to deduct all state 
and local taxes is based on the principle that levying a tax on a tax 
is unfair.
  In 1986, however, Congress made dramatic changes to the tax code. The 
Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly reduced federal tax rates on 
individuals. In exchange for these lower rates, Congress broadened the 
base of income that is taxed by eliminating many of the deductions and 
credits that previously existed in the code, including the deduction 
for state and local sales taxes.
  Mr. President, I believe that our federal tax laws should be neutral 
with respect to the treatment of state and local taxes. As I have said, 
that is not the case now. The current tax code is biased in favor of 
states that raise revenue through an income tax. I strongly support 
comprehensive reform of the tax code that will address issues such as 
neutrality, fairness and simplicity. As we work to reform the overall 
tax code, restoring equality in this area should be a part of the 
discussion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bennett, 
        Mr. Brownback, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 1492. A bill to require the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System to focus on price stability in establishing monetary 
policy to ensure the stable, long-term purchasing power of the 
currency, to repeal the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 
1978, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs.


            economic growth and price stability act of 1999

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                S. 1492

       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 ``Economic Growth and Price 
     Stability Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) during periods of inflation, the United States has 
     experienced a deterioration in its potential economic growth;
       (2) a decline in inflation has been a crucial factor in 
     encouraging recent robust economic growth;
       (3) stable prices facilitate higher sustainable levels of 
     economic growth, investment, and job creation;
       (4) the multiple policy goals of the Full Employment and 
     Balanced Growth Act of 1978 cause confusion and ambiguity 
     about the appropriate role and aims of monetary policy, which 
     can add to volatility in economic activity and financial 
     markets, harming economic growth and costing workers jobs;
       (5) recognizing the dangers of inflation and the 
     appropriate role of monetary policy, political leaders in 
     countries throughout the world have directed the central 
     banks of those countries to institute reforms that focus 
     monetary policy on the single objective of price stability, 
     rather than on multiple policy goals;
       (6) there is a need for the Congress to clarify the proper 
     role of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
     in economic policymaking, in order to achieve the best 
     environment for long-term economic growth and job creation; 
     and
       (7) because price stability is a key condition for 
     maintaining the highest possible levels of productivity, real 
     incomes, living standards, employment, and global 
     competitiveness, price stability should be the primary long-
     term goal of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System.
       (b) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States that--
       (1) the principal economic responsibilities of the 
     Government are to establish and ensure an environment that is 
     conducive to both long-term economic growth and increases in 
     living standards, by establishing and maintaining free 
     markets, low taxes, respect for private property, and the 
     stable, long-term purchasing power of the United States 
     currency; and
       (2) the primary long-term goal of the Board of Governors of 
     the Federal Reserve System (hereafter in this Act referred to 
     as the ``Board'') should be to promote price stability.

     SEC. 3. MONETARY POLICY.

       (a) Amendment to the Federal Reserve Act.--Section 2A of 
     the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 225a) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 2A. MONETARY POLICY.

       ``(a) Price Stability.--The Board and the Federal Open 
     Market Committee (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     the `Committee') shall--
       ``(1) establish an explicit numerical definition of the 
     term `price stability'; and
       ``(2) maintain a monetary policy that effectively promotes 
     long-term price stability.
       ``(b) Congressional Consultation.--Not later than February 
     20 and July 20 of each year, the Board shall consult with the 
     Congress at semiannual hearings before the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives, about the objectives and plans of the Board 
     and the Committee with respect to achieving and maintaining 
     price stability.
       ``(c) Congressional Oversight.--The Board shall, concurrent 
     with each semiannual hearing required by subsection (b), 
     submit a written report to the Congress containing--
       ``(1) numerical measures to help assess the extent to which 
     the Board and the Committee are achieving and maintaining 
     price stability in accordance with subsection (a);
       ``(2) a description of the intermediate variables used by 
     the Board to gauge the prospects for achieving the objective 
     of price stability; and
       ``(3) the definition, or any modifications thereto, of 
     `price stability' established in accordance with subsection 
     (a)(1).''.
       (b) Compliance Estimate.--
       (1) In general.--Concurrent with the first semiannual 
     hearing required by section 2A(b) of the Federal Reserve Act 
     (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) following the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall submit to the 
     Congress a written estimate of the length of time it will 
     take for the Board and the Committee to fully achieve price 
     stability. The Board and the Committee shall take into 
     account any potential short-term effects on employment and 
     output in complying with the goal of price stability.
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (A) the term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System; and
       (B) the term ``Committee'' means the Federal Open Market 
     Committee.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.--The 
     Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 
     3101 et seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Employment Act of 1946.--The Employment Act of 1946 (15 
     U.S.C. 1021 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3 (15 U.S.C. 1022)--
       (A) in the section heading, by striking ``and short-term 
     economic goals and policies'';
       (B) by striking ``(a)''; and
       (C) by striking ``in accord with section 11(c) of this 
     Act'' and all that follows through the end of the section and 
     inserting ``in accordance with section 5(c).'';
       (2) in section 9(b) (15 U.S.C. 1022f(b)), by striking ``, 
     the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978,'';
       (3) in section 10 (15 U.S.C. 1023)--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``in the light of the 
     policy declared in section 2'';
       (B) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``section 9'' and 
     inserting ``section 3''; and
       (C) in the matter immediately following paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (e), by striking ``and the Full Employment and 
     Balanced Growth Act of 1978'';
       (4) by striking section 2;
       (5) by striking sections 4 through 8; and
       (6) by redesignating sections 3, 9, 10, and 11 as sections 
     2 through 5, respectively.
       (c) Congressional Budget Act of 1974.--Title III of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 301--
       (A) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (2) through (9) as paragraphs (1) 
     through (8), respectively;
       (B) in subsection (d), in the second sentence, by striking 
     ``the fiscal policy'' and all that follows through the end of 
     the sentence and inserting ``fiscal policy.'';
       (C) in subsection (e)(1), in the second sentence, by 
     striking ``as to short-term and medium-term goals''; and
       (D) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) [Reserved.]''; and
       (2) in section 305--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting before the period at 
     the end ``, as described in section 2 of the Economic Growth 
     and Price Stability Act of 1999'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(4)--
       (i) by striking ``House sets forth the economic goals'' and 
     all that follows through ``designed to achieve,'' and 
     inserting ``House of Representatives sets forth the economic 
     goals and policies, as described in section 2 of the Economic 
     Growth and Price Stability Act of 1999,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``such goals,'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``such goals 
     and policies.'';

[[Page S10235]]

       (C) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the period at 
     the end ``, as described in section 2 of the Economic Growth 
     and Price Stability Act of 1999''; and
       (D) in subsection (b)(4)--
       (i) by striking ``goals (as'' and all that follows through 
     ``designed to achieve,'' and inserting ``goals and policies, 
     as described in section 2 of the Economic Growth and Price 
     Stability Act of 1999,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``such goals,'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the paragraph and inserting ``such goals 
     and policies.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1493. A bill to establish a John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program 
to advance the development of public policy with respect to issues 
affecting senior citizens; to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration.


                the John Heinz senate fellowship program

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce a 
bill reauthorizing the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program. This 
Congressional fellowship program, created in 1992, is a fitting tribute 
to my late colleague and dear friend, United States Senator John Heinz. 
Senator Heinz dedicated his life and much of his Congressional career 
to improving the lives of senior citizens. He believed that Congress 
has a special responsibility to serve as a guardian for those who 
cannot protect themselves. This fellowship program, which focuses on 
aging issues, honors the life and continues the legacy of Senator John 
Heinz.
  During his 20 years in the Congress, John Heinz compiled an enviable 
record of accomplishments. While he was successful in many areas, he 
built a national reputation for his strong commitment to improving the 
quality of life of our nation's elderly. Pennsylvania, with nearly 2 
million citizens aged 65 or older--over 15% of the population--houses 
the second largest elderly population nationwide. As John traveled 
throughout the state, he listened to the concerns of this important 
constituency and came back to Washington to address their needs through 
policy and legislation.
  Senator Heinz led the fight against age discrimination by championing 
legislation to eliminate the requirement that older Americans must 
retire at age 65, and by ensuring full retirement pay for older workers 
employed by factories forced to close. During his Chairmanship of the 
Senate Special Committee on Aging from 1981-1986 and his tenure as 
Ranking Minority Member from 1987-1991, Senator Heinz used his position 
to improve health care accessibility and affordability for senior 
citizens and to reduce fraud and abuse within Federal health care 
programs. Congress enacted his legislation to provide Medicare 
recipients a lower cost alternative to fee-for-service medicine, as 
well as his legislation to add a hospice benefit to the Medicare 
program.
  John also recognized the great need for nursing home reforms. He was 
successful in passing legislation mandating that safety measures be 
implemented in nursing homes and ensuring that nursing home residents 
cannot be bound and tied to their beds or wheelchairs.
  Mr. President, the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program will help 
continue the efforts of Senator Heinz to give our nation's elderly the 
quality of life they deserve. The program encourages the identification 
and training of new leadership in aging policy by awarding fellowships 
to qualified candidates to serve in a Senate office or with a Senate 
Committee staff. The goal of this program is to advance the development 
of the public policy in issues affecting senior citizens. Administered 
by the Heinz Family Foundation in conjunction with the Secretary of the 
Senate, the program allows fellows to bring their firsthand experience 
in aging issues to the work of Congress. Heinz fellows who are 
advocates for aging issues spend a year to help us learn about the 
effects of Federal policies on our elderly citizens, those who are 
social workers help us find better ways to protect our nation's elderly 
from abuse and neglect, and those who are health care providers help us 
to build a strong health care system that addresses the unique needs of 
our seniors.
  As fellows, senior citizen advocates and aging policy experts not 
only have the opportunity to use their expertise to facilitate national 
debate about issues concerning senior citizens, they also prepare 
themselves to make future contributions to their local communities. The 
Heinz fellowship enables us to train new leaders in senior citizen 
advocacy and aging policy. The fellows return to their respective 
careers with a new understanding about how to work effectively with 
government, so they may better fulfill their goals as senior citizen 
advocates.
  The John Heinz Fellowship Program has been a valuable tool for 
Congress and our communities since its establishment in 1992. The 
continuation of this vital program will signal a sustained commitment 
to our nation's elderly. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring this resolution, and urge its swift adoption. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1493

       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 ``John Heinz Senate Fellowship 
     Program''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Senator John Heinz believed that Congress has a special 
     responsibility to serve as a guardian for those persons who 
     cannot protect themselves.
       (2) Senator Heinz dedicated much of his career in Congress 
     to improving the lives of senior citizens.
       (3) It is especially appropriate to honor the memory of 
     Senator Heinz through the creation of a Senate fellowship 
     program to encourage the identification and training of new 
     leadership in aging policy and to bring experts with 
     firsthand experience of aging issues to the assistance of the 
     Congress in order to advance the development of public policy 
     in issues that affect senior citizens.

     SEC. 3. FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In order to encourage the identification 
     and training of new leadership in issues affecting senior 
     citizens and to advance the development of public policy with 
     respect to such issues, there is established a John Heinz 
     Senate Fellowship Program.
       (b) Senate Fellowships.--The Heinz Family Foundation, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized 
     to select Senate fellowship participants.
       (c) Selection Process.--The Heinz Family Foundation shall--
       (1) publicize the availability of the fellowship program;
       (2) develop and administer an application process for 
     Senate fellowships; and
       (3) conduct a screening of applicants for the fellowship 
     program.

     SEC. 4. COMPENSATION; NUMBER OF FELLOWSHIPS; PLACEMENT.

       (a) Compensation.--The Secretary of the Senate is 
     authorized, from funds made available under section 5, to 
     appoint and fix the compensation of each eligible participant 
     selected under this Act for a period determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Number of Fellowships.--No more than 2 fellowship 
     participants shall be so employed. Any individual appointed 
     pursuant to this Act shall be subject to all laws, 
     regulations and rules in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as any other employee of the Senate.
       (c) Placement.--The Secretary of the Senate, after 
     consultation with the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of 
     the Senate, shall place eligible participants in positions in 
     the Senate that are, within practical considerations, 
     supportive of the fellowship participants' areas of 
     expertise.

     SEC. 5. FUNDS.

       The funds necessary to compensate eligible participants 
     under this Act for fiscal year 1999 shall be paid from the 
     contingent fund of the Senate. Such funds shall not exceed, 
     for fiscal year 1999, $71,000. There are authorized to be 
     appropriated $71,000 for each of the fiscal years 2000 
     through 2004 to carry out the provisions of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 1494. A bill to ensure that small businesses throughout the United 
States participate fully in the unfolding electronic commerce 
revolution through the establishment of an electronic commerce 
extension program at the National Institutes of Standards and 
Technology; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


        ELECTRONIC COMMERCE EXTENSION ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm very pleased to be joined by 
Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, and Mikulski in introducing the 
``Electronic Commerce Extension Establishment Act of 1999.'' The 
purpose of this bill is

[[Page S10236]]

simple--to ensure that small businesses in every corner of our nation 
fully participate in the electronic commerce revolution unfolding 
around us by helping them find and adopt the right e-commerce 
technology and techniques. It does this by authorizing an ``electronic 
commerce extension'' program at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology modeled on NIST's existing, highly successful Manufacturing 
Extension Program.
  Everywhere you look today, e-commerce--the buying, selling, and even 
the delivery of goods and services via computer networks--is starting a 
revolution in American business. Being so new, precise e-commerce 
numbers are hard to come by, but by one estimate business to business 
and business to consumer e-commerce sales in 1998 were $100 billion. If 
you add in the hardware, software, and services making those sales 
possible, the number rises to $300 billion. That's comparable to adding 
another entire automobile industry to the economy in the last few 
years. Another estimate has business to business e-commerce growing to 
$1.3 trillion by 2003. Whatever the exact numbers, an amazing change in 
our economy has begun.
  But the shift to e-commerce is about more than new ways to sell 
things; it's about new ways to do things. It promises to transform how 
we do business--how we design products, manage supply chains and 
inventories, advertise and distribute goods, et cetera--and thereby 
boost productivity, the root of long term improvements in our standard 
of living. A recent Washington Post piece on Cisco Systems, a major 
supplier of Internet hardware, notes that Cisco saved $500 million last 
year by selling its products and buying its supplies online. On sales 
of $8.5 billion, that helped make for some nice profits. Imagine the 
productivity and economic growth spurred when more firms get 
efficiencies like that. And that's the point of this bill, to make sure 
that small businesses get those benefits too.
  Electronic commerce is a new use of information technology and the 
Internet. Many people, including Alan Greenspan, suspect information 
technology is the major driver behind the productivity and economic 
growth we've been enjoying. The crucial verb here is ``use.'' It is the 
widespread use of a more productive technology that sustains 
accelerated productivity growth. It was steam engine, not its sales, 
that powered the industrial revolution. In 1899, only about 5 percent 
of factory horsepower came from electric motors, even though the 
technologies had been around for two decades. But by 1920, when 
electric motors finally accounted for more than half of factory 
horsepower, they created a surge in industrial productivity as more 
efficient factory designs became common.
  Closer to today, in 1987, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow 
quipped, ``We see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity 
statistics.'' Well, it looks like the computer has started to show up 
because more people are using them in more ways, like e-commerce. 
Information technology producers, companies like Cisco Systems who are, 
notably, some of the most sophisticated users of IT, are 8 percent of 
our economy; from 1995 to 1998 they contributed 35 percent of our 
economic growth. There are also some indications that IT is now 
improving productivity among companies that only use IT, though 
economists continue to debate that.
  But here's the real point. If we are going to sustain this 
productivity and economic growth, if this is to be more than a one time 
boost that dies out, we have to spread sophisticated uses of 
information technology like e-commerce beyond the high tech sector and 
companies like Cisco Systems and into every corner of the economy, 
including small businesses. Back in the 1980s we used to debate if it 
mattered if we made money selling ``potato chips or computer chips.'' 
But here's the real difference: consuming a lot of potato chips isn't 
good for you; consuming a lot of computer chips is.
  I emphasize all this because too often our discussions of government 
policy, technology, and economic growth dwell on the invention and sale 
of new technologies, which are crucial, but shortchange the all 
important, but not terribly glamorous topic of their adoption and use. 
Extension programs, like the electronic commerce extension program in 
this bill, are policy aimed at precisely spreading the adoption and use 
of more productive technology by small businesses.

  Now, with that in mind, the e-commerce revolution creates both 
opportunities and challenges for small businesses. On the one hand, it 
will open new markets to them and help them be more efficient. Many of 
us have seen that cartoon with a dog in front of a computer saying, 
``On the Internet no one knows you're a dog.'' Well, on the web, the 
garage shop can look as good as IBM or GM. On the other hand, the high 
fixed costs, low marginal costs, and technical sophistication that can 
sometimes characterize e-commerce, when coupled with a good brand name, 
may allow larger, more established e-commerce firms to quickly move 
from market to market. Amazon.com, perhaps the archetype e-commerce 
firm, has done such a wonderful job of making a huge variety of books 
widely available that it's been able to expand to CDs, to toys, to 
electronics, to auctions. Moreover, firms in more rural or isolated 
areas have suddenly found sophisticated, low cost, previously distant 
businesses entering their market, and competing with them. Thus, there 
is considerable risk that many small businesses be left behind in the 
shift to e-commerce. That would not be good for them, nor for the rest 
of us, because we all benefit when everyone is more productive and 
everyone competes.
  The root of this problem is the fact that many small firms have a 
hard time identifying and adopting new technology. They're hard pressed 
and hard working, but they just don't have the time, people, or money 
to understand all the different technologies they might use. And, they 
often don't even know where to turn for help. Thus, while small firms 
are very flexible, they can be slow to adopt new technology, because 
they don't know which to use or what to do about it. That's why we have 
extension programs. Extension programs give small businesses low cost, 
impartial advice on what technologies are out there and how to use 
them.
  Extension programs have a long, solid pedigree. They started in 1914, 
with the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service to 
``extend'' the benefits of agricultural research to the farmer. That 
extension service has played no small part in making the American 
farmer the most productive in the world. More recently, the 
competitiveness crisis of the 1980's prompted the creation of the 
Manufacturing Extension Program, or MEP, at NIST to help small 
manufacturers find and use the technology they need. NIST has done a 
good job building and managing MEP's network of more than 70 non-profit 
centers, in all 50 states, with 2000 experts on call, that has helped 
over 60,000 manufacturers.
  Today, the United States is the international leader in e-commerce, 
but other nations are working to catch up, just like they did in 
manufacturing. Thus, the time is ripe to solidify our lead in e-
commerce and extend it to every part of our economy in every corner of 
the nation. An electronic commerce extension program will help us do 
that.
  So, what might such a program do? Imagine you're a small specialty 
foods retailer in rural New Mexico and you see e-commerce as a way to 
reach more customers. But your specialty is chiles, not computers; 
imagine all the questions you'd have. How do I sell over the web? Can I 
buy supplies that way too? How do I keep hackers out of my system? What 
privacy policies should I follow? How do I use encryption to collect 
credit card numbers and guarantee customers that I'm who I say I am? 
Can I electronically integrate my sales orders with instructions to 
shippers like Federal Express? How might I handle orders from Japan or 
Holland? Should I band together with other local producers to form a 
chile cybermall? What servers, software, and telecommunications will I 
need and how much will it cost? Can I do this via satellite links? Your 
local e-commerce extension center would answer those questions for you. 
And, you could trust their advice, because you'd know they were 
impartial and had no interest in selling you a particular product.
  This bill will lead to the creation of a high quality, nationwide 
network of non-profit organizations providing that kind of expert 
advice, analogous to the MEP network NIST runs today, but

[[Page S10237]]

with a focus on e-commerce and on firms beyond manufacturers. NIST, as 
part of the Department of Commerce, is a logical choice to run an e-
commerce extension program because it's about promoting commerce via 
technology and standards; recall that the Internet is based on 
standards for how computers can talk to each other. But the best reason 
for NIST to do this is that MEP shows they can do it well; that 
expertise will prove invaluable in getting this new network up and 
running.
  Similarly, this bill is directly modeled on the MEP authorization. It 
retains the key features of MEP: a network of centers run by non-
profits; strict merit selection; cost sharing where the federal 
government's share decreases from one half to one third over time; and 
periodic independent review of each center. In addition, it emphasizes 
serving small businesses in rural or more isolated areas, so that those 
businesses can get a leg up on e-commerce too. In short, this 
legislation takes an approach that has already been proven to work.
  Practically speaking, if this bill becomes law, I assume NIST, 
together with its headquarters organization, the Technology 
Administration, would begin by leveraging their MEP management 
expertise to start a few e-commerce extension centers and then 
gradually build out a network separate from MEP. They could also use 
the study of e-commerce extension resulting from my amendment to the 
Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill the other week. I also 
want to note that this is a new, separate authorization for an e-
commerce extension program because it will have a different focus than 
MEP and because I do not want it to displace MEP in any way. MEP is a 
great program. Let's keep it going strong while we build this new e-
commerce extension system.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
important, timely, and practical piece of legislation. Just as a strong 
agricultural sector called for an agricultural extension service, and a 
strong industrial sector called for manufacturing extension, our shift 
to an information economy calls for electronic commerce extension.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no obection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1494

       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 ``Electronic Commerce 
     Extension Establishment Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States economy is in the early stages of a 
     revolution in electronic commerce--the ability to buy, sell, 
     and even deliver goods and services through computer 
     networks. Estimates are that electronic commerce sales in 
     1998 were around $100,000,000,000 and could rise to 
     $1,300,000,000,000 by 2003.
       (2) Electronic commerce promises to spur tremendously 
     United States productivity and economic growth--repeating a 
     historical pattern where the greatest impetus toward economic 
     growth lies not in the sale of new technologies but in their 
     widespread adoption and use.
       (3) Electronic commerce presents an enormous opportunity 
     and challenge for small businesses. Such commerce will give 
     such businesses new markets and new ways of doing businesses. 
     However, many such business will have difficulty in adopting 
     appropriate electronic commerce technologies and practices. 
     Moreover, such businesses in more rural areas will find 
     distant businesses entering their markets and competing with 
     them. Thus, there is considerable risk many small businesses 
     will be left behind in the shift to electronic commerce.
       (4) The United States has an interest in ensuring that 
     small businesses in all parts of the United States 
     participate fully in the electronic commerce revolution, both 
     for the sake of such businesses and in order to promote 
     productivity and economic growth throughout the entire United 
     States economy.
       (5) The Federal Government has a long history of 
     successfully helping small farmers with new agricultural 
     technologies through the Cooperative Extension System at the 
     Department of Agriculture, founded in 1914. More recently, 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology has 
     successfully helped small manufacturers with manufacturing 
     technologies though its Manufacturing Extension Program, 
     established in 1988.
       (6) Similarly, now is the time to establish an electronic 
     commerce extension program to help small businesses 
     throughout the United States identify, adapt, and adopt 
     electronic commerce technologies and business practices, 
     thereby ensuring that such businesses fully participate in 
     the electronic commerce revolution.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to establish an electronic 
     commerce extension program focused on small businesses at the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE EXTENSION 
                   PROGRAM AT NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF STANDARDS AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Establishment.--The National Bureau of Standards Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     25 (15 U.S.C. 278k) the following new section:


 ``regional centers for the transfer of electronic commerce technology

       ``Sec. 25A. (a)(1) The Secretary, through the 
     Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology and the Director 
     and in consultation with other appropriate officials, shall 
     provide assistance for the creation and support of Regional 
     Centers for the Transfer of Electronic Commerce Technology 
     (in this section referred to as `Centers').
       ``(2) The Centers shall be affiliated with any United 
     States-based nonprofit institution or organization, or group 
     thereof, that applies for and is awarded financial assistance 
     under this section in accordance with the program established 
     by the Secretary under subsection (c).
       ``(3) The objective of the Centers is to enhance 
     productivity and technological performance in United States 
     electronic commerce through--
       ``(A) the transfer of electronic commerce technology and 
     techniques developed at the Institute to Centers and, through 
     them, to companies throughout the United States;
       ``(B) the participation of individuals from industry, 
     institutions of higher education, State governments, other 
     Federal agencies, and, when appropriate, the Institute in 
     cooperative technology transfer activities;
       ``(C) efforts to make electronic commerce technology and 
     techniques usable by a wide range of United States-based 
     small companies;
       ``(D) the active dissemination of scientific, engineering, 
     technical, and management information about electronic 
     commerce to small companies, with a particular focus on 
     reaching those located in rural or isolated areas; and
       ``(E) the utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise 
     and capability that exists in State and local governments, 
     institutions of higher education, the private sector, and 
     Federal laboratories other than the Institute.
       ``(b) The activities of the Centers shall include--
       ``(1) the establishment of electronic commerce 
     demonstration systems, based on research by the Institute and 
     other organizations and entities, for the purpose of 
     technology transfer; and
       ``(2) the active transfer and dissemination of research 
     findings and Center expertise to a wide range of companies 
     and enterprises, particularly small companies.
       ``(c)(1) The Secretary may provide financial support to any 
     Center created under subsection (a) in accordance with a 
     program established by the Secretary for purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not provide to a Center more than 
     50 percent of the capital and annual operating and 
     maintenance funds required to create and maintain the Center.
       ``(3)(A) Any nonprofit institution, or group thereof, or 
     consortia of nonprofit institutions may, in accordance with 
     the procedures established by the Secretary under the program 
     under paragraph (1), submit to the Secretary an application 
     for financial support for the creation and operation of a 
     Center under this section.
       ``(B) In order to receive financial assistance under this 
     section for a Center, an applicant shall provide adequate 
     assurances that it will contribute 50 percent or more of the 
     estimated capital and annual operating and maintenance costs 
     of the Center for the first three years of its operation and 
     an increasing share of such costs over the next three years 
     of its operation.
       ``(C) An applicant shall also submit a proposal for the 
     allocation of the legal rights associated with any invention 
     which may result from the activities of the Center proposed 
     by the applicant.
       ``(4)(A) The Secretary shall subject each application 
     submitted under this subsection to merit review.
       ``(B) In making a decision whether to approve an 
     application and provide financial support for a Center under 
     this section, the Secretary shall consider at a minimum--
       ``(i) the merits of the application, particularly the 
     portions of the application regarding technology transfer, 
     training and education, and adaptation of electronic commerce 
     technologies to the needs of particular industrial sectors;
       ``(ii) the quality of service to be provided;
       ``(iii) geographical diversity and extent of service area; 
     and
       ``(iv) the percentage of funding and amount of in-kind 
     commitment from other sources.
       ``(5)(A) Each Center receiving financial assistance under 
     this section shall be evaluated during the third year of its 
     operation by

[[Page S10238]]

     an evaluation panel appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Each evaluation panel under this paragraph shall be 
     composed of private experts, none of whom shall be connected 
     with the Center involved, and with appropriate Federal 
     officials. An official of the Institute shall chair each 
     evaluation panel.
       ``(C) Each evaluation panel under this paragraph shall 
     measure the performance of the Center involved against the 
     objectives specified in this section and under the 
     arrangement between the Center and the Institute.
       ``(6) The Secretary may not provide funding for a Center 
     under this section for the fourth through the sixth years of 
     its operation unless the evaluation regarding the Center 
     under paragraph (5) is positive. If such evaluation for a 
     Center is positive, the Secretary may provide continued 
     funding for the Center through the sixth year of its 
     operation at declining levels.
       ``(7)(A) After the sixth year of operation of a Center, the 
     Center may receive additional financial support under this 
     section if the Center has received a positive evaluation of 
     its operation through an independent review conducted under 
     procedures established by the Institute. Such independent 
     review shall be undertaken for a Center not less often than 
     every two years commencing after the sixth year of its 
     operation.
       ``(B) The amount of funding received by a Center under this 
     section for any fiscal year of the Center after the sixth 
     year of its operation may not exceed an amount equal to one-
     third of the capital and annual operating and maintenance 
     costs of the Center in such fiscal year under the program.
       ``(8) The provisions of chapter 18 of title 35, United 
     States Code, shall (to the extent not inconsistent with this 
     section) apply to the promotion of technology from research 
     by Centers under this section except for contracts for such 
     specific technology extension or transfer services as may be 
     specified by statute or by the Director.
       ``(d)(1) In addition to such sums as may be appropriated to 
     the Secretary and Director for purposes of the support of 
     Centers under this section, the Secretary and Director may 
     accept funds from other Federal departments and agencies for 
     such purposes.
       ``(2) The selection and operation of a Center under this 
     section shall be governed by the provisions of this section, 
     regardless of the Federal department or agency providing 
     funds for the operation of the Center.
       ``(e) In this section, the term `electronic commerce' means 
     the buying, selling, and delivery of goods and services, or 
     the coordination or conduct of economic activities within and 
     among organizations, through computer networks.''.
       (b) Description of Program.--(1) Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall publish in the Federal Register a proposal for 
     the program required by section 25A(c) of the National Bureau 
     of Standards Act, as added by subsection (a).
       (2) The proposal for the program under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a description of the program;
       (B) procedures to be followed by applicants for support 
     under the program;
       (C) criteria for determining qualified applicants under the 
     program;
       (D) criteria, including the criteria specified in paragraph 
     (4) of such section 25A(c), for choosing recipients of 
     financial assistance under the program from among qualified 
     applicants; and
       (E) maximum support levels expected to be available to 
     Centers for the Transfer of Electronic Commerce Technology 
     under the program in each year of assistance under the 
     program.
       (3) The Secretary shall provide a 30-day period of 
     opportunity for public comment on the proposal published 
     under paragraph (1).
       (4) Upon completion of the period referred to in paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     final version of the program referred to in paragraph (1). 
     The final version of the program shall take into account 
     public comments received by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (3).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Commerce 
     each fiscal year such amounts as may be required during such 
     fiscal year for purposes of activities under section 25A of 
     the National Bureau of Standards Act, as added by subsection 
     (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWine:
  S. 1495. A bill to establish, wherever feasible, guidelines, 
recommendations, and regulations that promote the regulatory acceptance 
of new and revised toxicological tests that protect human and animal 
health and the environment while reducing, refining, or replacing 
animal tests and ensuring human safety and product effectiveness; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                  The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 1999

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
that would authorize the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the 
Validation of Alternative Methods, otherwise known as ``ICCVAM.'' This 
bill would permanently establish ICCVAM, which currently only exists as 
a ``standing'' committee--so, it could be dismantled at any time. This 
bill would make it more permanent, thus giving companies and Federal 
agencies a sense of certainty, and encourage them to make the long term 
research investments that are required to develop alternative animal 
toxicology test methods for ICCVAM to review. This will decrease, and 
may ultimately lead to the end of, the use of animals in testing 
cosmetics, shampoos, detergents, and other products.
  ICCVAM was created pursuant to the 1993 National Institutes of Health 
Revitalization Act's mandate that the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) recommend new processes for 
Federal agencies' acceptance of alternative toxicology tests using 
animals. ICCVAM is composed of representatives of 13 Federal agencies 
that use animals in toxicology research.
  ICCVAM evaluates and recommends improved testing methods and makes it 
possible for more uniform testing to be adopted across Federal 
agencies. This legislation maintains the current practice of leaving 
the ultimate decision of whether or not to adopt the new test method up 
to each individual Federal agency. For example, a new lab test using a 
skin substitute has been evaluated and accepted by ICCVAM so that 
potentially toxic substances can first be tested on this ``substitute 
skin'' rather than on an animal. The test is a measure of the ability 
of a chemical to burn the skin. If the substance tests positive (i.e., 
burns or irritates the ``substitute skin''), then it could be 
considered to produce skin burns and no animal would be used in further 
testing. If the substance does not irritate the ``artificial skin,'' 
then the substance might then be tested on an animal. Ultimately, 
ICCVAM streamlines the test method validation and approval process by 
evaluating methods of interest to multiple agencies. By having the same 
method in place in multiple agencies, it aids in reducing the need to 
perform multiple animal tests to meet the requirements of various 
federal agencies. This bill and ICCVAM do not apply to regulations 
related to medical research. This bill is supported by the Humane 
Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, Procter & 
Gamble, the American Humane Association, Colgate-Palmolive Company, the 
Gillette Company, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. 
        Lautenberg):
  S. 1497. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to take 
steps to control the growing international problem of tuberculosis; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


             international tuberculosis control act of 1999

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Smith of Oregon, 
and by Senator Lautenberg in introducing the International Tuberculosis 
Control Act.
  This bill speaks to the growing international problem of 
tuberculosis. That is a disease we thought we had eliminated--and in 
fact, in the Western World, we largely did with the development of 
antibiotics in the 1950s. But the disease is making a comeback. As the 
World Health Organization (WHO) notes on the back cover of its most 
recent report on TB, ``The tuberculosis epidemic is growing larger and 
more dangerous each year.''
  According to the WHO, last year, nearly 2 million people died of 
tuberculosis-related conditions. And--get this--the WHO estimates that 
one-third of the entire world's population is infected with TB.
  Like so many other diseases, it impacts women disproportionately. TB 
is the world's leading killer of women between the ages of 15 and 44. 
For women in the primes of their lives, more than twice as many die of 
tuberculosis than because of war. TB kills three times as many women 
aged 15-44 as HIV/AIDS, and three times as many as heart disease.
  And it is a leading cause of children becoming orphans.
  But this is not just a growing international problem. Because of its 
persistence abroad, it is having a tremendous impact here at home.
  TB is an airborne disease. You can get it when someone coughs or 
sneezes.

[[Page S10239]]

 And with the increased immigration and travel to the United States--as 
well as the homeless population, the rate of incarceration, and HIV/
AIDS--we are seeing it re-emerge in many of our communities. Nearly 40 
percent of the TB cases in the United States are attributable to 
foreign-born individuals.
  We have seen it in my state of California, where local public health 
officials never thought they would have to worry about TB again. But 
they are. In 1997, nearly 20,000 TB cases were reported to the Centers 
for Disease Control. And over 4000 of them--20 percent of all TB cases 
in the United States--were in California.
  The headline on the March 25 editorial in ``The Oakland Tribune'' 
said it best: ``We ignore TB at our peril.'' Public health officials 
acknowledge that the key to controlling TB at home is to control TB 
abroad.
  Fortunately, the experts know what to do--and it works. TB can be 
treated and cured. We have seen that in this country.
  But in many other countries where this disease persists, there are 
numerous barriers that are facing public health officials. For example, 
the process for screening, detecting, and treating tuberculosis is very 
lengthy and labor intensive. Also, there is a lack of trained personnel 
and medicine in those nations with a high incidence of TB.
  The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and 
the World Health Organization have begun implementing a program to 
eliminate these barriers and to treat and control tuberculosis. So far, 
they have had some success. But the resources are, quite frankly, 
inadequate.
  And they may become even more inadequate in the near future. The WHO 
is currently developing a global action plan to combat tuberculosis. 
That plan should be finalized and ready for implementation early in the 
year 2001. But unless there is a greater global investment of 
resources, we may have an action plan that does not see much action.
  So the purpose of our bill is two-fold. First, we must raise 
awareness that TB is still a problem. I suspect that few Americans 
realize that the disease persists--not only in other countries, but 
also right here in the United States. And fewer still realize how 
easily it can be transmitted.
  Second, we must increase the resources available to fight this 
disease in foreign countries.
  This year, USAID will spend about $12 million on fighting 
tuberculosis abroad. Under the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, 
as passed by the Senate, there should be enough funding for USAID to 
increase that to about $14 million next year.
  I wanted to increase that even more, and I offered an amendment to 
the Foreign Operations bill. My amendment, which was accepted, says 
that if more money overall is provided for foreign aid programs before 
the appropriations bill becomes law, a top priority should be to 
provide more money for the infectious disease control program, 
especially tuberculosis.
  But, Mr. President, I am not sure that will happen, and even if it 
does, I do not believe it will be enough. So our bill would authorize 
$60 million for fiscal year 2001--a five-fold increase over current 
funding levels--so that USAID can expand the work it has begun.
  Make no mistake, we cannot do this alone. That is why this 
legislation calls on USAID to coordinate its efforts with the WHO and 
other organizations and why the bill adopts detection- and cure-rate 
goals based on the goals established by WHO. This must be a global 
effort with contributions and participation from nations around the 
world. But it is also an opportunity for the United States to provide 
global leadership.
  Mr. President, this bill is supported by the American Lung 
Association, Results, the Global Health Council, and Princeton Project 
55, an organization formed specifically to fight the international TB 
problem. I ask unanimous consent that the statements of support from 
these groups be included in the Record.
  I am pleased to have their support, and I am pleased to have the 
cosponsorship of my colleagues from Oregon and New Jersey. I hope 
others will join us in this important bipartisan effort.
  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:
       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 ``International Tuberculosis 
     Control Act of 1999''.

      SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since the development of antibiotics in the 1950s, 
     tuberculosis has been largely controlled in the United States 
     and the Western World.
       (2) Due to societal factors, including growing urban decay, 
     inadequate health care systems, persistent poverty, 
     overcrowding, and malnutrition, as well as medical factors, 
     including the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the emergence of multi-
     drug resistant strains of tuberculosis, tuberculosis has 
     again become a leading and growing cause of adult deaths in 
     the developing world.
       (3) According to the World Health Organization--
       (A) in 1998, about 1,860,000 people worldwide died of 
     tuberculosis-related illnesses;
       (B) one-third of the world's total population is infected 
     with tuberculosis; and
       (C) tuberculosis is the world's leading killer of women 
     between 15 and 44 years old and is a leading cause of 
     children becoming orphans.
       (4) Because of the ease of transmission of tuberculosis, 
     its international persistence and growth pose a direct public 
     health threat to those nations that had previously largely 
     controlled the disease. This is complicated in the United 
     States by the growth of the homeless population, the rate of 
     incarceration, international travel, immigration, and HIV/
     AIDS.
       (5) With nearly 40 percent of the tuberculosis cases in the 
     United States attributable to foreign-born persons, 
     tuberculosis will never be controlled in the United States 
     until it is controlled abroad.
       (6) The means exist to control tuberculosis through 
     screening, diagnosis, treatment, patient compliance, 
     monitoring, and ongoing review of outcomes.
       (7) Efforts to control tuberculosis are complicated by 
     several barriers, including--
       (A) the labor intensive and lengthy process involved in 
     screening, detecting, and treating the disease;
       (B) a lack of funding, trained personnel, and medicine in 
     virtually every nation with a high rate of the disease;
       (C) the unique circumstances in each country, which 
     requires the development and implementation of country-
     specific programs; and
       (D) the risk of having a bad tuberculosis program, which is 
     worse than having no tuberculosis program because it would 
     significantly increase the risk of the development of more 
     widespread drug-resistant strains of the disease.
       (8) Eliminating the barriers to the international control 
     of tuberculosis through a well-structured, comprehensive, and 
     coordinated worldwide effort would be a significant step in 
     dealing with the increasing public health problem posed by 
     the disease.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION, TREATMENT, 
                   CONTROL, AND ELIMINATION.

       Section 104(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2151b(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4)(A) Congress recognizes the growing international 
     problem of tuberculosis and the impact its continued 
     existence has on those nations that had previously largely 
     controlled the disease. Congress further recognizes that the 
     means exist to control and treat tuberculosis, and that it is 
     therefore a major objective of the foreign assistance program 
     to control the disease. To this end, Congress expects the 
     agency primarily responsible for administering this part--
       ``(i) to coordinate with the World Health Organization, the 
     Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of 
     Health, and other organizations toward the development and 
     implementation of a comprehensive tuberculosis control 
     program; and
       ``(ii) to set as a goal the detection of at least 70 
     percent of the cases of infectious tuberculosis, and the cure 
     of at least 85 percent of the cases detected, in those 
     countries in which the agency has established development 
     programs, by December 31, 2010.
       ``(B) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     President, $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 to be used to 
     carry out this paragraph. Funds appropriated under this 
     subparagraph are authorized to remain available until 
     expended.''.
                                  ____



                                    American Thoracic Society,

                                                   August 4, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the American Lung 
     Association and its medical section, the American Thoracic 
     Society, I want to express our strong support for your 
     legislation, the International Tuberculosis Control Act 1999. 
     This bill will provide needed resources to combat the threat 
     that tuberculosis poses the world and to the United States.
       The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 as the 
     National Association for the Study of Prevention of 
     Tuberculosis.

[[Page S10240]]

     While the American Lung Associations and its medical section, 
     the American Thoracic Society has made steady progress over 
     the past 90 years, much has changed in the area of U.S. 
     tuberculosis control. The two biggest changes have been the 
     development of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and the 
     growth of foreign-born cases of TB in the U.S.
       Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a form of 
     tuberculosis that is resistant to two or more of the primary 
     drugs used to treat TB. A strain of MDR-TB develops when a 
     case of a drug susceptible TB is improperly treated. MDR-TB 
     is more expensive to treat and more likely to kill. MDR-TB is 
     on the rise, both in the U.S., and throughout the world. 
     Unless we quickly develop and implement an effective global 
     response to TB, deadly strains of MDR-TB will continue to 
     spread.
       Tuberculosis will kill almost two million people this year. 
     Eight million people will become sick with the disease. Today 
     nearly 40% of TB cases in the U.S. are in foreign-born 
     individuals. We can't stop TB from entering the country. But 
     through our continued support of global TB programs we can 
     reduce the impact of the disease around the world and at 
     home.
       The U.S. Agency for International Development has taken 
     initial steps towards coordinating an international response 
     to the global TB epidemic. Your legislation will provide the 
     U.S. Agency for International Development the resources 
     needed to plan and implement a cooperative global TB control 
     strategy. With direction from Congress and your leadership we 
     are confident that U.S. can lead the way to controlling TB 
     globally.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Fran DuMelle,
     Deputy Managing Director.
                                  ____



                                    Princeton Project 55 Inc.,

                                      Tuberculosis Initiative,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1999.
     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer, The Princeton Project 55 Tuberculosis 
     Initiative (TBI) would like to express its support for your 
     sponsorship of the ``International Tuberculosis Control Act 
     of 1999,'' aimed at increasing funding for international TB 
     control. At a time when funding for tuberculosis is severely 
     inadequate, it is important that additional monies be 
     allocated to fight the world's second leading infectious 
     disease killer.
       The TBI commends your leadership in calling attention to 
     the TB threat and your work to increase funding for the 
     international fight against tuberculosis. In order to control 
     TB within the United States, it is crucial that we control TB 
     internationally.
       As you know, although TB is an easily preventable and 100% 
     curable disease, over one third of the world's population is 
     infected with TB and many international TB control programs 
     are poorly managed and underfunded. It has been proven that 
     TB treatment is cost-effective and saves both money and 
     lives. Yet only 16% of TB patients receive the recommended 
     Directly Observed Therapy (DOTS) regimen. The risk of multi-
     drug resistant TB, a strain of TB that is often incurable, 
     has become more widespread as a result of the poorly 
     organized TB control programs.
       Your bill's proposed $60 million for U.S. Agency for 
     International Development (USAID) to support tuberculosis 
     control would expand funding to develop country-specific 
     plans for TB control programs for nations with the highest 
     prevalence of TB. Many of these nations face major barriers 
     to effective TB control programs, including lack of funds, 
     trained personnel, and drug supply. The $60 million would 
     also increase support to develop an integrated global 
     tuberculosis control program in coordination with Centers for 
     Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
     World Health Organization (WHO), and private voluntary 
     organizations.
       The Princeton Project 55 Tuberculosis Initiative has worked 
     tirelessly with you and other health organizations to 
     increase awareness of the need for increased international 
     tuberculosis funding. Your bill aims to control TB 
     internationally now, before the problem is uncontrollable. 
     The bill also brings needed attention to an often forgotten 
     disease.
       The TBI congratulates your efforts to fight TB and looks 
     forward to working with you in the future, to ensure the 
     passage of your TB bill in the coming legislative session.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gordon Douglas,
                                                  Project Manager.
                                                      Ralph Nader,
     Steering Committee.
                                  ____



                                        Global Health Council,

                                                   August 4, 1999.
     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     112 Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Boxer. On behalf of the Global Health Council, 
     a private, not-for-profit membership organization consisting 
     of over 2000 individual and organizational members world-
     wide, I would like to thank you for your support and 
     leadership on the issue of tuberculosis control. Your bill, 
     the ``International Tuberculosis Control Act of 1999,'' is an 
     important step in the prevention of and fight against 
     tuberculosis.
       I would especially like to commend you on your recognition 
     of the increase of tuberculosis internationally and the 
     problem of the development of multiple drug resistant strains 
     of the disease. World wide, more people die of tuberculosis 
     than at any other time in our history--between two to three 
     million deaths per year. Projections indicate that left 
     unchecked, the death toll for this disease could reach as 
     high as 30 million in the next decade.
       The problem of Multiple Drug Resistant Tuberculosis--100 
     times more expensive to treat--is emerging in communities 
     around the world. Inappropriate treatment regimens, self-
     medication, the proliferation of inferior drugs, and 
     interruptions in patient treatment all give TB the 
     opportunity to become resistant to one or more drugs over 
     times, making the disease more expensive and difficult to 
     cure.
       As we move towards a global economy--economic trade policy, 
     improved transportation and tourism, voluntary and forced 
     migration have collectively changed the pattern and spread of 
     infectious diseases. Last year, more than 19,000 people came 
     down with this disease in the U.S.--more than 4,000 in 
     California.
       A 1998 General Accounting report highlights the new 
     reality: the world now has tools and the know-how to vastly 
     improve the health of the four billion humans living in 
     poverty in the developing world. It also makes clear that 
     there are enormous benefits to the American people, both in 
     terms of health and of economics that will come from 
     improving the health of others.
       Your legislation is another step towards achieving this new 
     reality. It sets achievable goals that will work to control 
     the threat of tuberculosis in our nation and in our world. 
     Thank you again for your commitment to this cause. we look 
     forward to working with you to assure global health for all.
           Sincerely,
                                           Nils Daulaire, MD, MPH,
     President & CEO
                                  ____



     RESULTS hails Senator Boxer's Efforts to Control TB's Spread: 
  Tuberculosis is on the rise around the world--killing as many as 2 
                       million people each year.

       Washington, D.C.--Senator Boxer (D-CA), along with Senator 
     Smith (R-OR) and Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced 
     legislation today which would control the growing problem of 
     tuberculosis internationally. The bill calls for the 
     investment of $60 million next year to jump-start 
     tuberculosis control programs in some of the countries of the 
     world with the highest TB rates.
       Senator Barbara Boxer, a leading health advocate in 
     Congress, is also a member of the Foreign Relations 
     Committee. Her bill sets out to address the fact that despite 
     the existence of an extremely cost-effective TB treatment 
     (according to the World Bank, an investment of between $20-
     $100 can save a life), only 16 percent of those with active 
     TB, actually have access to it.
       The fact that millions of victims are not being treated for 
     TB, combined with its highly infectious nature, has resulted 
     in two million people dying every year from this disease. TB 
     kills more women than any cause of maternal mortality and is 
     the biggest killer of people with AIDS. In addition, with the 
     rise in global travel and with forty percent of TB cases here 
     in the United States attributable to foreign born persons, 
     tuberculosis will never be eliminated in this country until 
     it is controlled worldwide. Multi drug resistant TB, the 
     result of poor treatment programs, threaten to render this 
     disease incurable unless we act now.
       RESULTS Executive Director, Lynn McMullen, praised Boxer 
     for her leadership. ``Thanks to the efforts of Senator Boxer 
     and her colleagues, TB will not be allowed to spread 
     unchecked around the world. Her commitment to controlling 
     this plague will mean millions of lives saved.''
       RESULTS is a citizens grassroots advocacy organization 
     which works to end hunger and the worst aspects of poverty.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Boxer in introducing this legislation to help control a deadly 
and easily communicable disease--tuberculosis (TB). I, like many of 
you, thought we had this scourge under control since the development of 
antibiotics more than 40 years ago.
  However, TB is a real problem here and abroad. It is a disease that 
knows no borders--because of the ease of transmission of TB, its growth 
abroad poses a real public health threat to nations like the United 
States that had previously controlled TB.
  Our bill will authorize $60 million in FY 2001 to help control this 
deadly disease. This bill calls for a coordinated effort to wipe out 
this disease and sets goals for the detection and cure.
  The statistics surrounding tuberculosis are terrifying. TB kills 
almost 2 million people abroad every year. The rate of infection abroad 
is increasing each year and TB is transmitted as easily as the common 
cold. Every second someone is infected with TB. Further, TB is the 
leading killer of women, more than any single cause of maternal

[[Page S10241]]

mortality. This has an enormous impact on families and the very social 
fabric of a society. TB is the leading cause of death among HIV-
positive individuals. It accounts for almost one-third of AIDS deaths 
worldwide.
  Many TB cases are easily treatable by a six-month antibiotic regimen. 
Tragically, this regimen is only used in 15% of TB cases worldwide. An 
untreated person with active TB will infect 10-15 people per year. TB 
control programs are underfunded and poorly organized in many 
countries. Since millions of people travel between the U.S. and other 
nations daily, we must develop stable country-specific programs that 
will control this disease.
  I believe that our bill is a good strong step towards ending TB here 
and abroad and I look forward to working with my colleague from 
California on this legislation. I ask all my colleagues in the Senate 
to support his important legislation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of 
legislation the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, is introducing 
today, the ``International Tuberculosis Act of 1999.'' This bill seeks 
to control the growing international problem of tuberculosis.
  Mr. President, we cannot stand idly by while tuberculosis kills more 
people worldwide than AIDS and malaria combined, and yet still receives 
substantially less attention and aid dollars.
  Although the introduction of antibiotics in the 1950's led to the 
near eradication of tuberculosis, it still plagues many nations 
throughout the world. In 1993 the World Health Organization declared 
tuberculosis to be a public health emergency, with an estimated 1,700 
million people, or nearly one third of the world's population, infected 
with the tubercle bacillus. The World Health Organization estimates 
that eight million people get TB every year, and an estimated 3 million 
die from the disease annually.
  Mr. President, the registered number of new cases of TB worldwide 
roughly correlates with economic conditions: the highest incidences are 
seen in those countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America with the 
lowest gross national products. We must now face the realization that 
without much needed aid, most of the countries with a high burden of TB 
will not be able to reach the targets for TB control established by the 
World Health Assembly for the year 2000. In human terms, this means 
that each year millions of lives could be lost due to a preventable and 
curable disease.
  Thankfully, Mr. President, efforts to combat this terrible disease 
have been largely successful inside U.S. borders. In my own State of 
New Jersey, the number of people with active tuberculosis has declined 
each year for the past six years. But the problem still persists. Each 
year over 25,000 people in the United States contract TB. The treat of 
infection here in America still looms large for anyone who travels 
abroad or comes into contact with those who have recently traveled 
outside the United States. This disease does not discriminate: People 
of all ages, all nationalities and all incomes can get tuberculosis.
  An airborne disease that can be spread through a simple cough, TB can 
be carried around the world in a matter of hours on a transcontinental 
flight. Nearly 40 percent of TB cases in the U.S. are attributable to 
foreign-born persons. Until TB is eradicated worldwide, no person--no 
American--will ever be safe from its affliction.
  Only small steps have been taken to eradicate TB outside the United 
States. Medical experts estimate that over $1 billion is necessary to 
control TB. This money will allow scientists and doctors to take the 
necessary steps to wipe out this disease, much like the world community 
has already done with malaria and small pox. The longer we wait, the 
larger the TB population will be. This translates into higher costs to 
eradicate this debilitating disease. International organizations note 
that for every dollar spent on prevention, a nation saves between three 
and four dollars in treatment.
  Mr. President, TB control efforts have received approximately $12 
million a year for the last two fiscal years under USAID's Infectious 
Disease Initiative to create a TB Global Action Plan. However, this is 
not enough; an increase in funding is critical if tuberculosis is to be 
vanquished. The U.S. must do its part.
  An increase in funding to $60 million for TB would help expedite 
global action, and give aid officials the necessary resources to 
develop and implement country specific plans for control programs for 
nations with a high prevalence of TB. Once a plan is implemented, it is 
necessary to formulate a systematic program to avoid increases of drug 
resistant strains of TB.
  A plan, coordinated with the World Health Organization, the Centers 
for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and other 
organizations, will expand and provide a framework for enhanced 
direction and coordination of worldwide tuberculosis research 
activities, translate research results into efficient and effective TB 
control practices which are applicable to all environments, and engage 
society and government control programs more quickly and widely.
  The American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society and 
International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and other 
renowed organizations support an increase in funding for TB prevention.
  Mr. President, a global TB prevention effort makes sense. The 
benefits outweigh the costs. Given the importance of a global plan to 
eradicate TB, and its potential in saving lives, I urge the Senate to 
approve this bill.
  Mr. President, tuberculosis is a global problem. We will never 
control TB in this country until we control it worldwide, since 
infectious diseases do not stop at the border. I commend the Senator 
from California for introducing this important and timely legislation 
to address tuberculosis effectively now. I hope and believe this bill 
will gain the support of the full Senate.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________