[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11255-S11267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LOTT (for Mr. McCain):
  S. 1611. A bill to amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to broaden its 
scope and make the moratorium permanent, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                    INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today which will ensure that Internet commerce remains free from 
burdensome, anti-consumer taxation. Simply, this bill would make 
permanent the moratorium on sales and use taxes for e-commerce, and 
would encourage the Administration to urge our world trading partners 
to do the same.
  I believed that this was the right approach last year. However, 
others were concerned about the impact on so-called ``main street 
business'' if such a prohibition against taxation of e-commerce was 
implemented. Therefore, I agreed to a temporary moratorium to allow 
more information to be gathered and those issues to be further 
considered. I now believe that additional information and further 
analysis of

[[Page S11256]]

Internet taxation issues confirms that indeed a complete moratorium is 
the right approach, and we should act now to protect the engine of our 
economy from unnecessary regulation and taxation.
  In addition to the discussion here in the United States, protection 
of the Internet against international tariffs is also a topic of 
interest to our trade partners. It is important for us to set the tone 
for discussion with the international Internet community by 
establishing the Internet as a world-wide ``tax-free zone.''
  Conslusions included in a recent study completed by the respected 
auditing and consulting firm Ernst & Young supports passage of this 
legislation. The report found that the total sales and use taxes not 
collected by state and local governments from Internet e-commerce 
transactions amounted to only ``one-tenth of one percent of total state 
and local sales and use tax collections.''
  Further, Ernst & Young determined that the small effect of commerce 
transaction on sales and use tax revenues is due to several factors, 
including the fact that ``an estimated 80% of current commerce is 
business-to-business sales that are either not subject to sales and use 
taxes or are effectively subject to use tax payments by in-state 
business purchasers,'' ``an estimated 63 percent of e-commerce sales 
are for intangible services, such as travel and financial services, or 
exempt products, such as groceries and prescription drugs'' which are 
not subject to tax in most states.
  As a result, ``. . . only 13% of total e-commerce retail sale have 
potential sales and use tax collection issues.'' Thus, the nearly 
infinitesimal effect on local revenues is not causing a financial 
crisis for either states or local communities.
  Mr. President, what is clear is that the issues raised in relation to 
e-commerce transactions are really broader policy issues related to a 
fair and equitable tax policy in this country. Debate on this larger 
issue needs to take place. The discussion includes not just Internet 
sales or even catalog sales, but all of the ramifications of taxing 
sales of goods across state and international boundaries.
  We must look at the costs to small businesses of administering 
different tax policies for each location in which it conducts business. 
We need to look at the effects of taxation on consumers. And, we need 
to consider how taxes affect the United States' position as the world 
leader in technology application.
  I look forward to the report in April from the panel commissioned 
last year by Congress to explore these issues. Recent media accounts 
suggest that they may not reach agreement on a plan to propose to 
Congress. I think it is important to move forward on ensuring that the 
default position absent a consensus proposal is not to lift the 
moratorium, but to place the burden of proof on those advocating 
taxation of e-commerce. This places the burden on those who support 
taxation to provide both the rationale and a workable methodology. I 
will be skeptical of both, but invite them to make their case and allow 
the debate. This bill ensure, however, that we don't provide an 
incentive for inaction. This bill confirms that the right answer is to 
not tax unless there is a good reason to, and unless there is a fair 
mechanism for doing so.
  I look forward to debate on what is a fair tax system in the United 
States, at both the national and state levels. However, while we 
continue that debate, we must also ensure that we do not perpetuate the 
problems currently ingrained in our tax system by applying them to the 
Internet.
  Mr. President, 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. 1611

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

     SECTION 1. MORATORIUM MADE PERMANENT; SCOPE.

       Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``during the period beginning on October 1, 
     1998, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act--'' 
     and inserting ``after September 30, 1998:'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (1);
       (3) redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (4) inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) sales or use taxes for domestic or foreign goods or 
     services acquired through electronic commerce; and''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that United States 
     representatives to the World Trade Organization, and any 
     other multilateral trade organization of which the United 
     States is a member, should resolutely advocate that it is the 
     firm position of the United States that electronic commerce 
     conducted via the Internet should not be burdened by national 
     or local regulation, taxation, or the imposition of tariffs 
     on such commerce.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1612. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain irrigation project property to certain irrigation and 
reclamation districts in the State of Nebraska; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


   the missouri river basin, middle loup division project facilities 
                             conveyance act

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Hagel in 
introducing the Missouri River Basin, Middle Loup Division Project 
Facilities Conveyance Act.
  The bill provides for the transfer of title of irrigation project 
facilities and lands from the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of 
Interior to the Middle Loup Division irrigation districts in central 
Nebraska. These districts have operated the facilities there for over 
35 years.
  The project facilities are part of the Missouri River Basin Project, 
and provide water from the Middle Loup River to over 64,000 acres of 
irrigable land, as well as providing recreating and fish and wildlife 
benefits. Principal features of the projects include the Sherman Dam 
and Reservoir, the Arcadia Diversion Dam, the Milburn Diversion Dam, 
irrigation canals and laterals, drains and pumping plants.
  Crops grown on these irrigated lands primarily include alfalfa, small 
grains, sugar beets, and corn to provide feed for a thriving livestock-
feeding economy in my state of Nebraska, which includes beef cattle, 
hogs, and poultry.
  In 1995, the Vice President indicated that the Bureau of Reclamation 
of the U.S. Department of Interior should transfer titles to allow 
local ownership of irrigation projects such as this. The Bureau has 
indicated to me that this project is a top candidate for title transfer 
to be achieved. This transfer also has the support of Nebraska's Game 
and Parks Commission as well as the Middle Loup Public Power and 
Irrigation District. When this legislation passes, Nebraska will become 
the first state where title transfer efforts have been successful.
  Two trust funds are to be created: one by the Districts and one by 
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Those two trusts will be equally 
funded from the proceeds of the transfer. Details of those two trusts 
are as follows:
  First, a ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Community Environmental Trust'' 
will be created by the Districts and will be funded with the proceeds 
of the transfer from the power producers share of the total payments. 
That fund will be administered and used by the Districts for 
environmental and conservation enhancements, to protect lands and 
facilities in the area of the River Basin in which the project 
facilities exist, and $500,000 of the funds will be used expressly for 
drainage work required in the Middle Loup River valley near Loup City. 
The funds cannot be used for routine operation and maintenance of the 
project facilities.
  And second, a ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Game and Parks Trust'' 
will be created by Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and will be 
funded by the proceeds of the transfer from the District's share of the 
total payments. That fund will be administered and used by the Game and 
Parks Commission to improve and enhance fisheries and recreation 
opportunities and to expand knowledge of water and land resources for 
enhancing project operations and improving the service of project 
purposes. Like the other trust, funds cannot be used for routine 
operations and maintenance of project facilities.
  The irrigation projects and facilities were constructed between 1955 
and 1966

[[Page S11257]]

under authorities of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and are currently 
operated and maintained under contracts between the Bureau and the 
irrigation districts and power producers. The transfer will provide for 
total repayment of all outstanding obligations on behalf of the 
irrigation districts and power producers, while retaining all current 
uses and purposes for the projects.
  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. 1612

       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 ``Missouri River Basin, Middle 
     Loup Division Facilities Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation.
       (2) District.--The term ``District'' means--
       (A) the Farwell Irrigation District, a political 
     subdivision of the State of Nebraska;
       (B) the Sargent Irrigation District, a political 
     subdivision of the State of Nebraska; and
       (C) the Loup Basin Reclamation District, a political 
     subdivision of the State of Nebraska.
       (3) District trust.--The term ``District Trust'' means the 
     Nebraska-Middle Loup River Community Environmental Trust 
     established under section 5(a)(2)(B)(v).
       (4) Game and parks commission trust.--The term ``Game and 
     Parks Commission Trust'' means the Nebraska-Middle Loup River 
     Game and Parks Commission Trust established under section 
     5(a)(2)(B)(vi).
       (5) Project.--The term ``Project'' means Sherman Reservoir, 
     Milburn Diversion Dam, Arcadia Diversion Dam, related canals 
     and other related lands, water rights, acquired land, 
     distribution and diversion facilities, contracts, personal 
     property, and other associated interests owned by the United 
     States and authorized under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 
     Stat. 388, chapter 1093), the Act of December 22, 1944 
     (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1944'') (58 
     Stat. 887, chapter 665), and the Act of August 3, 1956 (70 
     Stat. 975, chapter 917).
       (6) Repayment and water service contracts.--The term 
     ``Repayment and Water Service Contracts'' means all repayment 
     and water service contracts between the Commissioner and the 
     District relating to the Project.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) Trust.--The term ``Trust'' means--
       (A) the District Trust; and
       (B) the Game and Parks Commission Trust.

     SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF THE PROJECT.

       (a) Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the 
     Districts, by quitclaim deed, assignment, or patent, the 
     interest of the United States in the Project, in 
     consideration of payment to the Secretary--
       (A) by the Districts, of an amount not to exceed 
     $3,000,000, determined in accordance with the Bureau of 
     Reclamation document entitled ``Framework for Title 
     Transfer'' and the memorandum of agreement between the 
     Commissioner and the Districts under section 5; and
       (B) by the Western Area Power Administration, of 
     $2,000,000.
       (2) Timing.--The conveyance under paragraph (1) shall be 
     made concurrently with the making of the payment under 
     paragraph (1)(A), but the payment under paragraph (1)(B) 
     shall be made from capacity and energy charges at Pick-Sloan 
     Missouri Basin Program firm power rates received in fiscal 
     year 1999 or any subsequent fiscal year in which the amount 
     of power sale revenue received exceeds the amount of interest 
     and operation and maintenance obligations of the Western Area 
     Power Administration by at least $2,000,000, to the extent of 
     the excess.
       (3) Satisfaction of obligations against the project.--The 
     payment under paragraph (1)(A) shall constitute full and 
     complete satisfaction of all obligations against the Project, 
     the Districts, and the Western Area Power Administration 
     existing before the date of the conveyance or thereafter 
     relating to the Project, including--
       (A) future obligations for additional drainage under 
     section 5(a)(2)(iv);
       (B) obligations under any contracts entered into between 
     the United States, the Districts, and the Western Area Power 
     Administration or its predecessors; and
       (C) any obligation that may have been required by the Act 
     of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665) or other 
     related Federal law.
       (4) Satisfaction of obligations for irrigation benefits.--
     The conveyance of the Project and the payment of the 
     consideration under paragraph (1) shall constitute full 
     satisfaction of any and all obligations of the Districts or 
     of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program firm power users or 
     the Western Area Power Administration for irrigation benefits 
     of the Project or for any other benefits conveyed to the 
     Districts.
       (b) Contaminated Property.--
       (1) Remedial action.--The Secretary shall convey the 
     Project without regard to whether all necessary remedial 
     action required under section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)) on any part of the Project has 
     been completed.
       (2) Continuing obligation to complete remedial action.--
     Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the United States 
     shall remain during and subsequent to the conveyance 
     obligated, at the expense of the United States, to complete 
     any required remedial action.
       (c) Extinguishment of Obligations Between the Commissioner 
     and the Districts.--Effective on the date of the conveyance, 
     all obligations between the Commissioner and the Districts 
     relating to the Project and the Repayment and Water Service 
     Contracts are extinguished.
       (d) Payment of NEPA Study Costs.--The Commissioner and the 
     Districts shall each pay 50 percent of the costs associated 
     with compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (e) Crediting of certain items toward payment under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A).--There shall be credited toward the 
     payment under subsection (a)(1)(A)--
       (1) the amount of any payment made by the Districts before 
     the date of the conveyance for compliance with the National 
     Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in excess 
     of 50 percent of the cost of compliance;
       (2) the amount of any payments made by the Districts under 
     contracts with the Commissioner between January 1, 1999, and 
     the date of the conveyance;
       (3) the present value of future operation and maintenance 
     costs required for historic preservation on Project land at 
     Sherman Reservoir; and
       (4) any other amount specified in the memorandum of 
     agreement between the Commissioner and the Districts under 
     section 5.
       (f) Additional Drainage.--
       (1) In general.--Of the $2,000,000 paid by the Western Area 
     Power Administration under subsection (a), $500,000--
       (A) shall be deposited in the fund referred to in section 
     5(a)(3); and
       (B) shall be available for additional drainage projects.
       (2) Nonreimbursability.--The amount deposited under 
     paragraph (1) shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated not more than $500,000 for the additional 
     drainage projects.

     SEC. 4. LIABILITY.

       Effective on the date of conveyance of the Project, the 
     United States shall not be liable for claims, costs, damages, 
     or judgments of any kind arising out of any act, omission, or 
     occurrence related to the Project except for such claims, 
     costs, or damages arising from acts of negligence committed 
     by the United States or by employees, agents, or contractors 
     of the United States before the date of conveyance for which 
     the United States is liable under chapter 171 of title 28, 
     United States Code (commonly known as the ``Federal Tort 
     Claims Act'').

     SEC. 5. COMPLETION OF CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall not make the 
     conveyance under section 3 until the following events have 
     been completed:
       (1) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (2) Execution of--
       (A) memoranda of agreement between the Commissioner and the 
     Districts describing the purchase price and other terms and 
     conditions of the conveyance consistent with this Act; and
       (B) an agreement by the Districts to manage the Project in 
     a manner substantially similar to the manner in which the 
     Project was managed before the conveyance and in accordance 
     with applicable Federal and State laws, including--
       (i) preserving on a permanent basis the right of the State 
     of Nebraska Games and Parks Commission to develop, provide, 
     and protect the public interest in Project fish, wildlife, 
     and recreation facilities related to the Projects;
       (ii) providing for protection of cultural resources at the 
     Project after the conveyance consistent with applicable law 
     that authorizes the Districts or others with responsibility 
     to protect significant historic features in situ or 
     otherwise;
       (iii) providing that the Districts shall annually make 
     payments to local governments in the amounts in which the 
     Commissioner made payment to the local governments under 
     chapter 69 of title 31, United states Code (commonly known as 
     ``payments in lieu of taxes'') for fiscal year 1999;
       (iv) providing for--

       (I) a plan for additional drainage work in the Middle Loup 
     Valley as specified in the memoranda of agreement under 
     paragraph (1); and
       (II) the funding of the additional drainage work;

       (v) providing for the establishment by the Districts of an 
     organization to be known as the ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River 
     Community Environmental Trust'' and to be organized under 
     State law to preserve, protect, enhance, and manage the 
     Project by--

[[Page S11258]]

       (I) stabilizing surface and ground water supplies;
       (II) conserving water and land resources;
       (III) carrying out essential drainage projects using funds 
     deposited under section 3(f); and
       (IV) expanding knowledge of water and land resources for 
     enhancing Project operations and improving the service of 
     Project purposes; and

       (vi) providing for the establishment by the Nebraska Game 
     and Parks Commission of an organization to be known as the 
     ``Nebraska-Middle Loup River Game and Parks Trust'' and to be 
     organized under State law to--

       (I) improve and enhance fisheries and recreational 
     opportunities; and
       (II) expand knowledge of water and land resources for 
     enhancing Project operations and improving the service of 
     Project purposes.

       (3) Deposits in the district trust.--On receipt of the 
     payments under section 3(a)(1), the Secretary shall deposit 
     in the District trust--
       (A) $2,000,000 of the amount received under section 
     3(a)(1); and
       (B) the entire amount received under section 3(a)(2).
       (4) No tax; no effect on rates.--No payment under this 
     Act--
       (A) shall be subject to Federal or State income tax; or
       (B) shall affect Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program firm 
     power rates in any way.
       (5) Use of funds.--
       (A) Funds deposited under section 3(f).--The Trusts shall 
     by their charters prohibit the use of any funds deposited 
     under section 3(f) for routine operation and maintenance work 
     by the Districts, the Game and Parks Commission, or any of 
     the participating agencies of the Trusts.
       (B) Other funds.--Funds received by a Trust from a District 
     or any other source may be used for any purpose.
       (6) Assistance for drainage work.--The Game and Parks 
     Commission Trust shall provide for direct priority assistance 
     to the Districts for drainage work in the Middle Loup River 
     Valley under conditions requiring greater trust fund 
     investments than are available from the Trust.
       (b) Report.--If the conveyance under section 3 is not 
     substantially completed on or before December 31, 2000, the 
     Secretary and the Districts shall promptly submit to the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 
     report on the status of the conveyance describing the matters 
     remaining to be resolved before completion of the conveyance 
     and stating the anticipated date for the completion of the 
     conveyance.
       (c) Future Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Effective on the date of the conveyance 
     under section 3, the Districts shall not be entitled to 
     receive any further benefits under reclamation law not 
     otherwise available attributable to its status as a 
     reclamation project under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 
     388, chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory 
     of that Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.).
       (2) No flood control component.--After the date of the 
     conveyance under subsection 3, the Project shall no longer 
     have a flood control component.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LOTT (for Mr. McCain)
  S. 1616. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
develop within the Department of Veterans Affairs a system for 
collecting payments under the Medical Care Cost Recovery Program that 
utilizes collection practices similar to private collection practices, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                    Better Medical Cost Collections

  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to 
increase the funding available to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) without requiring an additional appropriation from the Congress 
for that chronically short-changed agency. The bill would improve VA's 
ability to collect insurance costs from third-party providers, 
generating new financial flows to the VA and benefiting all American 
veterans.
  My colleagues are well aware that the President's budget request for 
the VA--scandalously, the fourth year in a row of effectively flat 
budget requests for the agency--falls fully $3 billion short of what is 
needed for veterans' medical care in fiscal 2000, according to some of 
our most prominent veterans service organizations. Congress has tried 
to make up for this shortfall, but budget caps and competing priorities 
have made that effort exceedingly difficult. I previously wrote to the 
Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and the Chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee to urge them to add fully $3 billion in 
funding for veterans medical care. Nonetheless, I congratulate the 
Appropriations Committee for adding $1.1 billion in new money for 
veterans medical care.
  The 1997 Balanced Budget Act gave VA the authority to retain 
collections from private insurers for veterans health care as part of 
an agreement to free VA funding. However, VA has proven incapable of 
effectively collecting these private insurance payments. In fiscal 
1996, VA sought recovery of about $1.6 billion it was owed by private 
insurers but recovered only $563 million, or 35 percent of the billed 
amount and a 3 percent decrease in collections from the previous year. 
That decline continued in fiscal 1997, when collections totaled $524 
million, and in fiscal 1998, when collections totaled about $562 
million. A 1998 Coopers and Lybrand study comparing VA and private-
sector cost-recovery confirmed that VA's medical collection program is 
ineffective confirmed that VA's medical collection program is 
ineffective and delinquent. In short, the VA loses hundreds of millions 
of dollars in revenue every year that could be used to provide enhanced 
services to America's veterans, rather than be written off by 
government book-keepers.
  The Independent Budget prepared by AMVETS, Disabled American 
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars 
explicitly calls for Congress to give VA the authority to privatize its 
Medical Care Cost Recovery (MCCR) program. This legislation would 
mandate that VA privately contract for those collections for a period 
of three years, during which the VA would develop an internal process 
to improve medical cost recovery.
  I am open to suggestions from other Members of Congress and our 
veterans service organizations regarding other means to improve VA cost 
collection firm private insurers, and I note the Appropriations 
Committee's requirement for a VA study on this issue. However, I 
believe this legislation offers a near-term way to collect these much-
needed funds.
  Our veterans are being short-changed by their government, which 
pledged to support and care for them in exchange for their honorable 
service. I was proud when the Senate passed legislation Senator 
Wellstone and I sponsored to add $3 billion in budget authority for the 
VA earlier this year. Unfortunately, we could not come up with a 
matching appropriation, although I applaud the increased funding for VA 
health care contained in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. But we can 
empower the VA to improve its Medical Care Cost Recovery program in a 
way that increases VA revenues, thereby enhancing care for America's 
veterans. I hope every Member of Congress would agree that they have 
earned it.
  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. 1616

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

     SECTION 1. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
                   OF SYSTEM OF COLLECTIONS UNDER MEDICAL CARE 
                   COST RECOVERY PROGRAM USING PRIVATE COLLECTION 
                   PRACTICES.

       (a) Development of Proposal.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall develop a proposal for a system within the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for the collection of payments 
     from third party payers under the Medical Care Cost Recovery 
     Program of the Department which system shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, utilize procedures for the collection of 
     payments from third parties similar to the procedures 
     utilized in the private sector for the collection of payments 
     for health care costs from third parties.
       (2) In developing the proposal, the Secretary shall 
     consider a variety of procedures utilized in the private 
     sector for the collection of payments for health care costs 
     from third parties.
       (b) Use of Private Cost-Recovery Entities During 
     Development.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary shall, during the period referred to in 
     paragraph (3), provide for the collection of payments from 
     third party payers under the Medical Care Cost Recovery 
     Program solely through appropriate private entities with 
     which the Secretary contracts for that purpose.
       (2) The fee paid a private entity for the collection of 
     payments under a contract under this subsection shall be a 
     contingent fee based on the amount of payments collected by 
     the entity under the contract.
       (3) The period referred to in this paragraph is the period 
     beginning as soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and ending on the date that is six 
     months after the date on which the Secretary commences 
     collections under the Medical Care Cost Recovery Program 
     through a system within the Department under this section.

[[Page S11259]]

       (c) Safeguards.--The Secretary shall take appropriate 
     actions to ensure that any collection practices utilized 
     under this section do not impose unwarranted financial or 
     other burdens upon veterans who receive medical care from the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (d) Submittal of Proposal.--Not later than three years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the proposal developed 
     under subsection (a). The report shall include--
       (1) a description of the system covered by the proposal; 
     and
       (2) an assessment by an appropriate entity independent of 
     the Department of the potential effectiveness of the 
     collection procedures under the system in comparison with the 
     effectiveness of the collection procedures of the private 
     entities utilized under subsection (b).
       (e) Implementation of Proposal.--The Secretary shall 
     implement the system covered by the proposal submitted under 
     subsection (d) commencing 90 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary submits to Congress the proposal on the system 
     under that subsection.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs such sums as may be necessary for purposes of 
     developing the proposal for a system required by subsection 
     (a) and implementing the system under subsection (e).
       (2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bryan, 
        Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1618. A bill to promote primary and secondary health promotion and 
disease prevention services and activities among the elderly, to amend 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add preventive benefits, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                         medicare wellness act

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Bryan, Senator Rockefeller, 
and Senator Kerry to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act. The Medicare 
Wellness Act represents a concerted effort by myself and my 
distinguished colleagues to change the fundamental focus of the 
Medicare program.
  It changes the program from one that simply treats illness and 
disability, to one that is also proactive. It enhances the focus on 
health promotion and disease prevention for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, despite common misperceptions, declines in health 
status are not inevitable with age. A healthier lifestyle, even one 
adopted later in life, can increase active life expectancy and decrease 
disability. This fact is a major reason why the Medicare Wellness Act 
has support from a broad range of groups, including the National 
Council on Aging, Partnership for Prevention, American Heart 
Association, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation.
  The most significant aspect of this bill is its addition of several 
new preventative screening and counseling benefits to the Medicare 
program. The benefits being added focus on some of the most prominent, 
underlying risk factors for illness that face all Medicare 
beneficiaries, including: screening for hypertension, counseling for 
tobacco cessation, screening for glaucoma, counseling for hormone 
replacement therapy, screening for vision and hearing loss, expanded 
screening and counseling for osteoporosis, and screening for 
cholesterol.
  The new benefits added by the Medicare Wellness Act represent the 
highest recommendations for Medicare beneficiaries of the U.S. 
Preventive Services Task Force--recognized as the gold standard within 
the prevention community. Attacking these prominent risk factors will 
reduce Medicare beneficiaries' risk for health problems such as stroke, 
diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, and blindness.
  The addition of these new benefits would accelerate the fundamental 
shift, that began in 1997 under the Balanced Budget Act, in the 
Medicare program from a sickness program to a wellness program. Prior 
to 1997, only three preventive benefits were available to 
beneficiaries: pneumococcal vaccines, pap smears, and mammography.
  Other major components of our bill include the establishment of the 
Healthy Seniors Promotion Program. This program will be led by an 
interagency work group within the Department of Health and Human 
Services. It will bring together all the agencies within HHS that 
address the medical, social and behavioral issues affecting the elderly 
and instructs them to undertake a series of studies which will increase 
knowledge about and utilization of prevention services among the 
elderly.
  In addition, the Medicare Wellness Act incorporates an aggressive 
applied and original research effort that will investigate ways to 
improve the utilization of current and new preventive benefits and to 
investigate new methods of improving the health of Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, this latter point is critical. The fact is that there 
are a number of prevention-related services available to Medicare 
beneficiaries today, including mammograms and colorectal cancer 
screening. But those services are seriously underutilized.
  In a study published by Dartmouth University this spring (The 
Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999), it was found that only 28 percent 
of women age 65-69 receive mammograms and only 12 percent of 
beneficiaries were screened for colorectal cancer. These are disturbing 
figures and they clearly demonstrate the need to find new and better 
ways to increase the rates of utilization of proven, demonstrated 
prevention services. Our bill would get us the information we need to 
increase rates of utilization for these services.
  Further, our bill would establish a health risk appraisal and 
education program aimed at major behavioral risk factors such as diet, 
exercise, alcohol and tobacco use, and depression. This program will 
target both pre-65 individuals and current Medicare beneficiaries.
  The main goal of this program is to increase awareness among 
individuals of major risk factors that impact on health, to change 
personal health habits, improve health status, and save the Medicare 
program money. Our bill would require the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, known as MedPAC, to report to Congress every two years and 
assess how the program needs to change over time in order to reflect 
modern benefits and treatment.
  Shockingly, this is information that Congress currently does not 
receive on a routine basis. And this is a contributing factor to why we 
find ourselves today in a quandary over the outdated nature of the 
Medicare program. Quite frankly, Medicare hasn't kept up with the rest 
of the health care world.
  While a vintage wine from the 1960s may be desirable, a health care 
system that is vintage 1965 is not. We need to do better.
  Our bill would also require the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to 
conduct a study every five years to assess the scientific validity of 
the entire preventive benefits package. The study will be presented to 
Congress in a manner that mirrors The Trade Act of 1974.
  The IOM's recommendations would be presented to Congress in 
legislative form. Congress would then have 60 days to review and then 
either accept or reject the IOM's recommendations for changes to the 
Medicare program. But Congress could not change the IOM's 
recommendations.
  This ``fast-track'' process is a deliberate effort to get Congress 
out of the business of micro-managing the Medicare program. While 
limited to preventive benefits, this will offer a litmus test on a new 
approach to future Medicare decision making.
  In the aggregate, The Medicare Wellness Act represents the most 
comprehensive legislative proposal in the 106th Congress for the 
Medicare program focused on health promotion and disease prevention for 
beneficiaries. It provides new screening and counseling benefits for 
beneficiaries, it provides critically needed research dollars, and it 
tests new treatment concepts through demonstration programs.
  The Medicare Wellness Act represents sound health policy based on 
sound science. Before I conclude, I have a few final thoughts.
  There are many here in Congress who argue that at a time when 
Medicare faces an uncertain financial future, this is the last time to 
be adding new benefits to a program that can ill afford the benefits it 
currently offers.
  Normally I would agree with this assertion. But the issue of 
prevention is different. The old adage of ``an ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure'' is very relevant here.

[[Page S11260]]

  Does making preventive benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries 
``cost'' money? Sure it does. But the return on the investment, the 
avoidance of the pound of cure and the related improvement in quality 
of life is unmistakable.
  Along these lines, a longstanding problem facing lawmakers and 
advocates of prevention has been the position taken by the 
Congressional Budget Office, as it evaluates the budgetary impact of 
all legislative proposals.
  Only costs incurred by the Federal government over the next ten years 
can be considered in weighing the ``cost'' of adding new benefits. From 
a public health and quality of life standpoint, this premise is 
unacceptable.
  Among the problems with this practice is that ``savings'' incurred by 
increasing the availability and utilization of preventive benefits 
often occur over a period of time greater than 10 years. This problem 
is best illustrated in an examination of the ``compression of 
morbidity'' theory developed by Dr. James Fries of Stanford University 
over 20 years ago.
  According to Dr. Fries, by delaying the onset of chronic illness 
among seniors, there is a resulting decrease in the length of time 
illness or disability is present in the latter stages of life. This 
``compression'' improves quality of life and reduces the rate of growth 
in health care costs. But, these changes are gradual and occur over an 
extended period of time--10, 20, even 30 years.
  With the average life expectancy of individuals who reach 65 being 
nearly 20 years--20 years for women and 18 years for men--it only makes 
sense to look at services and benefits that improve quality of life and 
reduce costs to the Federal government for that 20 year lifespan.
  In addition to increased lifespan, a ten year budget scoring window 
doesn't factor into consideration the impact of such services on the 
private sector, such as increased productivity and reduced absenteeism, 
for the many seniors that continue working beyond age 65. The bottom 
line is, the most important reason to cover preventive services is to 
improve health.
  As the end of the century nears, children born now are living nearly 
30 years longer than children born in 1900.
  While prevention services in isolation won't reduce costs, they will 
moderate increases in the utilization and spending on more expensive 
acute and chronic treatment services.
  As Congress considers different ways to reform Medicare, two basic 
questions regarding preventive services and the elderly must be part of 
the debate.
  (1) Is the value of improved quality of life worth the expenditure? 
And,
  (2) How important is it for the Medicare population to be able to 
maintain healthy, functional and productive lives?
  These are just some of the questions we must answer in the coming 
debate over Medicare reform.
  While improving Medicare's financial outlook for future generations 
is imperative, we must do it in a way that gives our seniors the 
ability to live longer, healthier and valued lives. I believe that by 
pursuing a prevention strategy that addresses some of the most 
fundamental risk factors for chronic illness and disability that face 
seniors, we will make an invaluable contribution to the Medicare reform 
debate and, more importantly, to our children and grandchildren.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss in pointing out that the 
Medicare Wellness Act represents the first time in this Congress that 
Republicans and Democrats have gotten together in support of a major 
piece of Medicare reform legislation. This bill represents a health 
care philosophy that bridges political boundaries. It just makes sense. 
And you see that common sense approach today from myself and my 
esteemed colleagues who have joined me in the introduction of this 
bill.
   Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join us on this 
important bill and to work with us to ensure that the provisions of 
this bill are reflected in any Medicare reform legislation that is 
debated and voted on this year in the Senate.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Graham, to introduce the Medicare Wellness Act of 1999. This 
legislation will modernize Medicare benefits and improve the preventive 
care received by our nation's seniors.
  The Medicare program was designed in 1965 to provide seniors with 
access to the same health care services enjoyed under private health 
insurance plans. Medical science has grown by leaps and bounds in the 
decades since that time. Most of the private sector acted swiftly to 
cover preventive benefits when they realized that it is cheaper to 
screen for an illness and treat its early diagnosis than to pay for 
drastic procedures in a hospital later on. Congress has been too slow 
in extending to Medicare beneficiaries the same advances in quality 
care enjoyed throughout the rest of the health care system.
  The Medicare Wellness Act adds to the Medicare program those benefits 
recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. These include: 
screening for hypertension, counseling for tobacco cessation, screening 
for glaucoma, counseling for hormone replacement therapy, screening for 
vision and hearing loss, expanded screening and counseling for 
osteoporosis, and cholesterol screening. These are some of the most 
prominent risk factors facing Medicare beneficiaries. If these symptoms 
are addressed regularly, beneficiaries will have a head start on 
fighting the conditions they lead to, such as diabetes, lung cancer, 
heart disease, blindness, osteoporosis, and many others.
  Beyond the eight new preventive benefits under this bill, the 
Institute of Medicine (IOM) will conduct a study every five years to 
assess the scientific validity and cost-effectiveness of the preventive 
benefits package. When presented to Congress, the study will recommend 
what, if any, preventive benefits should be added, or removed from the 
Medicare program. By facing such regularly scheduled considerations of 
preventive benefits, Congress will do a much better job of keeping the 
Medicare program up to date with the rapid advances in medical science.
  The Medicare Wellness Act also instructs the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to coordinate with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Health Care Financing Administration to establish a 
Risk Appraisal and Education Program. This program will target both 
current beneficiaries and individuals with high risk factors below the 
age of 65. Outreach to these groups will offer questions regarding 
major behavioral risk factors, including the lack of proper nutrition, 
the use of alcohol, the lack of regular exercise, the use of tobacco, 
and depression. State of the art software, case managers, and nurse 
hotlines will then identify what conditions beneficiaries are at risk 
for, based on their individual responses to the questions, and inform 
them of actions they can take to lead a healthier life.
  Any modern health care professional can tell you that effective 
health care addresses the whole health of an individual. A lifestyle 
that includes proper exercise and nutrition, and access to regular 
disease screening ensures attention to the whole individual, not just a 
solitary body part. It is time we reaffirm our commitment to provide 
our nation's seniors with quality health care.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Graham, Chafee, Bryan, 
Rockefeller, and Kerry for their dedication to the idea of changing 
Medicare from a sickness program to a wellness program.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Dorgan, and 
        Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1619. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide for 
periodic revision of retaliation lists or other remedial action 
implemented under section 306 of such Act; to the Committee on Finance.


                    CAROUSEL RETALIATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on behalf of my 
colleague, Senator Hagel, as well as Majority Leader Lott, Senator 
Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Roberts, Senator Bunning, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Conrad, to introduce the 
Carousel Retaliation Act of 1999. This bill would create a powerful 
mechanism to protect our Nation from illegal foreign trade practices.
  These are the facts. Today, our Nation is being injured by the 
refusal of

[[Page S11261]]

some foreign countries to comply with World Trade Organization, WTO, 
dispute settlement rulings. Let me repeat that. Other countries are 
failing to comply with the rulings of the WTO. As many of my colleagues 
know, the WTO has a very detailed process for handling trade disputes 
between member nations. Unfortunately, some member nations are simply 
undermining this entire process by refusing to comply with the final 
dispute settlement decision, even after losing their cases on appeal.
  Noncompliance with dispute settlement rulings severely undermines 
open and fair trade. As many of our farmers, cattle ranchers, and large 
and small businessowners know firsthand, this is having a devastating 
impact on their efforts and attempt to maintain or gain access to 
important new international markets.
  In an effort to secure compliance, the dispute settlement process 
provides the winning nation the authority to retaliate. The winning 
nation, after a decision has been made, can legally retaliate. That is 
what the provision is; they can retaliate against that losing nation. 
They can do so if, at the end of a reasonable period of time, the 
losing country does not abide by the final decision. Retaliation 
usually begins with the estimation of damages caused by the refusal, 
followed then by WTO authorization to impose penalty duties on the 
offending country's exports. However, even with retaliation, some 
nations are still refusing to comply.
  The European Union has made it clear that it is willing to live in 
perpetuity with the present U.S. retaliation lists, which is why the 
WTO ruled in both the pending beef and banana trade cases that the 
United States can impose retaliatory tariffs on European imports. We 
are doing that. Moreover, they are entertaining the possibility of 
subsidizing their affected domestic targets to counter our WTO-
authorized action. Not only are they ignoring what the ruling was, not 
only are they ignoring our retaliation, now they are turning around and 
preparing to subsidize these particular products. Both of these trade 
cases that I have mentioned took several long years to work through the 
dispute settlement system and were undertaken, frankly, at great 
expense to the U.S. Government and to the private sector in our 
country.
  The European Union's actions are establishing a very dangerous 
precedent. If they are successful, then other nations can be expected 
to follow a similar course. Something simply must be done. Something 
must be done to increase the likelihood of compliance, or we risk 
losing more than a WTO case; we risk losing American jobs. Therefore, 
it is important that the WTO's dispute settlement process be 
strengthened. That is what this bill does, and that is what we are 
talking about today.
  Our proposed Carousel Retaliation Act will help ensure the integrity 
of the WTO settlement dispute process because it will provide a 
powerful mechanism that will place considerable pressure on 
noncompliant countries to comply. The measure will shake these 
noncompliant countries up and it will complicate any effort they 
undertake to counter U.S. retaliatory measures. Specifically, our bill 
would amend the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 by requiring the U.S. Trade 
Representative to periodically carousel--or rotate--the list of goods 
subject to retaliation when a foreign country or countries have failed 
to comply with a WTO ruling. Let me add that this is very clearly 
consistent with WTO rules.
  Under our bill, the retaliation list would be carouseled, or rotated, 
to affect other goods 120 days from the date the first list is made, 
and then every 180 days thereafter. The bill provides the U.S. Trade 
Representative the authority to make exceptions. The representative 
would not have to do this if, 1, it could be determined that compliance 
is imminent; or, 2, if both the U.S. Trade Representative and the 
affected petitioners agree that carouseling in that particular case is 
not necessary. Currently, the U.S. Trade Representative has the 
authority to carousel retaliation lists, but is not required to do so. 
What our bill does is change the law and requires the Trade 
Representative to do this.
  The WTO is one of the most important means for American businesses 
and producers to open foreign markets, liberalize commerce, resolve 
disputes, and ensure more open and fair trade. American farmers and 
agribusiness, for example, are major net exporters, posting exports of 
more than $57 billion in 1997. But frankly we can do more and better, 
and we must. Of the nearly 50 complaints filed by the United States in 
the WTO, almost 30 percent involved agriculture. If countries fail to 
comply with WTO rulings, American agriculture and other U.S. sectors in 
need of trade relief will suffer greatly. The American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American 
Meat Institute, the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and the Hawaii Banana 
Industry Association support the bill.
  The ``Carousel Retaliation Act,'' candidly, is tough, but it is meant 
to be tough. It is the right response to chronic noncompliance with WTO 
rules.
  Again, I commend my colleague, Senator Hagel, who is on the floor at 
this moment, and Senators Lott, Akaka, Inouye, Roberts, Bunning, 
Voinovich, Dorgan, and Conrad for their dedication to this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to join this effort to protect our Nation from 
illegal foreign trade practices and cosponsor the ``Carousel 
Retaliation Act.''
  I thank the Chair.
  I see my colleague from Nebraska is on the floor. I suspect he would 
like to talk about this bill as well.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  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. 1619

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

     SECTION 1. REVISION OF RETALIATION LIST OR OTHER REMEDIAL 
                   ACTION.

       Section 306(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2416(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If the'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Failure to implement recommendation.--If the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Revision of retaliation list and action.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), in 
     the event that the United States initiates a retaliation list 
     or takes any other action described in section 301(c)(1) (A) 
     or (B) against the goods of a foreign country or countries 
     because of the failure of such country or countries to 
     implement the recommendation made pursuant to a dispute 
     settlement proceeding under the World Trade Organization, the 
     Trade Representative shall periodically revise the list or 
     action to affect other goods of the country or countries that 
     have failed to implement the recommendation.
       ``(ii) Exception.--The Trade Representative is not required 
     to revise the retaliation list or the action described in 
     clause (i) with respect to a country, if--

       ``(I) the Trade Representative determines that 
     implementation of a recommendation made pursuant to a dispute 
     settlement proceeding described in clause (i) by the country 
     is imminent; or
       ``(II) the Trade Representative together with the 
     petitioner involved in the initial investigation under this 
     chapter (or if no petition was filed, the affected United 
     States industry) agree that it is unnecessary to revise the 
     retaliation list.

       ``(C) Schedule for revising list or action.--The Trade 
     Representative shall, 120 days after the date the retaliation 
     list or other section 301(a) action is first taken, and every 
     180 days thereafter, review the list or action taken and 
     revise, in whole or in part, the list or action to affect 
     other goods of the subject country or countries.
       ``(D) Standards for revising list or action.--In revising 
     any list or action against a country or countries under this 
     subsection, the Trade Representative shall act in a manner 
     that is most likely to result in the country or countries 
     implementing the recommendations adopted in the dispute 
     settlement proceeding or in achieving a mutually satisfactory 
     solution to the issue that gave rise to the dispute 
     settlement proceeding. The Trade Representative shall consult 
     with the petitioner, if any, involved in the initial 
     investigation under this chapter.
       ``(E) Retaliation list.--The term `retaliation list' means 
     the list of products of a foreign country or countries that 
     have failed to comply with the report of the panel or 
     Appellate Body of the WTO and with respect to which the Trade 
     Representative is imposing duties above the level that would 
     otherwise be imposed under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
     the United States.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague 
and friend from Ohio for his leadership on the ``Carousel Retaliation 
Act.''

[[Page S11262]]

  I am a free trader, but I am also a fair trader. Trade is our 
economic future. It is especially so in agriculture. Trade is our 
strongest engine of economic growth.
  I, as have many of my colleagues, have fought for legislative reform 
on unilateral sanctions policies that hurt our trade, trade reform, 
fast-track authority for the President, and other trade-related 
legislation.
  Free trade is a two-way street. Unfortunately, throughout the world 
the instinct for protectionism still remains strong. If trading 
partners take advantage of us, we can't simply remain passive and 
permit American exporters--especially farmers and ranchers--to continue 
to take a beating in foreign markets.
  Trade is a two-way street. Free, fair, and open trade is a two-way 
street. Access to markets improves all people's standard of living. 
Some of our trading partners believe this. Some people talk about it, 
and some people actually do something about it. Unfortunately, many of 
our trading partners' rhetoric is stronger than their actions. That is 
why I am an original cosponsor of this bill.
  As you heard from my colleague, Senator DeWine, this bill would 
require the U.S. Trade Representative to periodically review a 
retaliation list of foreign products from countries that fail to comply 
with the World Trade Organization rulings or do not reduce trade 
barriers against the United States. Different products would be rotated 
on and off the list every few months until the offending countries made 
the right changes in trade policy.
  That is what we as a community of nations of civilized people decided 
to do when we formed the World Trade Organization. That is what the 
World Trade Organization is about--to sort through disputes in trade. 
If we cannot rely on the World Trade Organization to make tough 
decisions, settle those disputes, and then enforce the WTO rulings, 
then what good is the organization?
  If the members of the World Trade Organization find some rulings 
against their own self-interest and not in compliance with what they 
think is right, or if they believe they must pick and choose which WTO 
rulings they will enforce and live with, then we don't have much of an 
open, fair, and free trade organization that today is known as the 
World Trade Organization. It is a myth and it is a charade unless we 
all comply with the WTO rulings and enforce the rulings. That is the 
only way it will work.
  The policy of targeted tariffs is prompted, quite honestly, by the 
European Union's ban on American beef. There is no scientific evidence 
to support the European Union's contention that using growth-enhancing 
hormones in cattle poses any health threat to humans. There is no 
scientific evidence at all.
  But yet, even though we have won case after case in the World Trade 
Organization, the European Union continues to walk through this charade 
of artificial tariffs and barriers. The hormone argument is a very 
flimsy excuse, at best, for straight out, raw protectionism. The WTO's 
recent position vindicating their position was essentially a slap on 
the wrist for the EU, and still the EU is trying to delay compliance 
with even this token penalty.
  If the EU keeps playing games with the United States in the hormone-
enhancing beef issue, this policy of targeted tariffs will provide us 
with a flexible, effective way to respond. No one wants to take this 
kind of action. But each one of us in this body represents hard-working 
constituents who seek to improve their communities, enhance the growth 
of their families, give the world opportunities, and playing by the 
rules. That is what we are talking about here--playing by the rules 
straight out, to be honest.
  Again, I don't look forward to working on this bill to implement it 
if, in the interest of open, fair, and free trade, we must resort to 
this kind of activity. American farmers and ranchers are hurting partly 
because of weak export markets. It is not because they are not 
producing quality products. We produce quality products. But it is 
because of politics and protectionism.
  I strongly support this bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. 
I am sorry we have to take this measure, but it is necessary. And the 
world must understand that the United States will do whatever it takes 
to support our producers and to assure, as best we can, that the world 
improves all people's lives, all people's standard of living, hope, 
opportunity, and economic growth if we continue to make progress with 
free, open, fair trade.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 1620. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 
certain land to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permit holders; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           MOUNT BAKER SNOQUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST LEGISLATION

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in recent years, I have become 
increasingly frustrated with the inability of the Forest Service to 
complete work on several small hydroelectric projects located on the 
Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest in my State. The Service's 
inability to make important decisions on these renewable energy 
resources is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the President's 
Northwest Forest Plan (``ROD'') which has stopped these projects from 
going forward.
  The President's Northwest Forest Plan states clearly that 
multipurpose uses of the federal forests are not precluded, and that 
the plan must follow existing law applying to such uses. Yet, since its 
adoption in 1994, the Forest Service has and continues to paralyze the 
development of small hydroelectric projects by ignoring laws applying 
to multipurpose. This inaction has delayed and stifled review of such 
projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--the agency 
responsible for issuing federal licenses for hydroelectric projects.
  Forest Service interpretation of the ROD intrudes directly on the 
ability of the Commission to perform its hydroelectric licensing 
function of balancing development and nondevelopment issues. Both the 
Commission, when determining consistency with the purpose of a national 
forest under Section 4(e) of the Act, and the Forest Service, when 
determining whether to issue a special use permit, must apply existing 
law fairly. Forest Service inaction on pending projects (some of which 
have been under review for over a decade) prevents FERC from completing 
its licensing responsibilities.
  In terms of federal forest management, the six small hydroelectric 
projects proposed for the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest are 
virtually inconsequential. All are located well above areas affecting 
anadromous fish, and would occupy a total of 10 to 40 acres each, with 
most of the sites being untouched except for the portions needed for 
project facilities. Adverse impacts to fish, wildlife or other 
environmental resources are subject to mitigation by FERC and the 
Forest Service.
  Project proponents in my state have spent millions of dollars to 
secure approval of six projects located in the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie 
National Forest, including project design and environmental analysis 
necessary to gain approval from the Forest Service and FERC. In spite 
of the fact that the 1994 ROD instructs the Forest Service to use 
``transition'' provisions to approve pending projects, it has not done 
so, and continues to add project review requirements not allowed by the 
ROD or existing law. As a result, the Forest Service is stopping FERC 
from making timely licensing decisions on these projects. Shifting 
standards of review and delay by the Forest Service have deprived 
project proponents of their right to rely upon clear standards for 
project approval before expending funds in reliance on such standards.
  Many aspects of these projects were found to be in compliance with 
prior forest regulations and other environmental laws, and are being 
subjected to duplicative and inconsistent review. Provisions of the ROD 
developed for application to extremely large-scale timber harvest are 
not meant to impact small-scale hydroelectric projects. Timber 
management regulations are totally disproportionate with the scale of 
any potential environmental impacts of small scale hydroelectric 
facilities. In fact, the ROD itself explicitly recognizes that uses 
other than timber harvest do not require the same level of 
restrictions.
  The Forest Service continues to use the ROD as a reason for imposing 
new study requirements, increasing mitigation demands, and ignoring 
agreements

[[Page S11263]]

on project compliance with forest plan standards and FERC requirements. 
Each new requirement adds onerous financial burdens on project 
proponents, delays project approval, and undermines the regulatory need 
for an end to project review so a final licensing decision can be made 
by FERC.
  Actions by the Forest Service have placed that agency in direct 
conflict with FERC, a result not intended by the ROD. FERC's 
jurisdiction over hydroelectric project licensing is unaltered by the 
ROD, which itself calls for increased interagency cooperation, not 
confrontation.
  Mr. President, I have tried in recent years through my position as 
Chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee responsible 
for funding the Forest Service's annual budget to get some answers from 
this agency as to why it was holding up these hydroelectric projects. 
In 1995, I inserted language directing the Forest Service to ``conduct 
an expeditious review'' of projects covered by the ROD. In subsequent 
hearings, I have continued to ask agency witnesses for a status report. 
To date, none of the responses from the Forest Service have satisfied 
my concerns or adequately addressed this issue.
  For this reason, I am introducing legislation today that would 
expedite the hydroelectric project review process. It will require the 
Forest Service to convey to permit holders and license applicants for 
these projects at fair market value the parcels of land necessary for 
development of these projects. While I would prefer and am still 
hopeful that this issue can be resolved in negotiations between the 
project proponents and the agency, clearly this process is broken and 
needs to be fixed. This legislation should serve as a catalyst for 
resolving outstanding hydroelectric project review issues. Project 
proponents deserve at least that much.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux)
  S. 1621. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize funding to carry out certain water quality restoration 
projects for Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


          the lake pontchartrain basin restoration act of 1999

 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of myself 
and my colleague, Senator John Breaux to introduce legislation that 
would restore and maintain the ecological health of the Lake 
Pontchartrain Basin--one of the largest estuarine systems in the United 
States. Known for its slow flowing rivers and bayous, tranquil swamps 
and lush hardwood forests, the Pontchartrain Basin contains the most 
diverse topography in the State of Louisiana.
  The Pontchartrain Basin is a 5,000 square mile watershed encompassing 
16 parishes in southeast Louisiana and 4 Mississippi counties. The vast 
wetlands and marshes that surround the Basin's waters provide essential 
habitat for countless species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and 
plants. At the center of the Basin is the 630 square mile Lake 
Pontchartrain, which is surrounded by 1.5 million residents, making it 
the most densely populated area in Louisiana. Lake Pontchartrain is 
just one part of a vast ecological system called the Pontchartrain 
Basin. The Basin also includes Lake Maurepas and Lake Borgne. These 
three contiguous water bodies make up the largest estuary system in the 
Gulf Coast region, and their wetland fisheries contribute over $35 
million to the local economy and provide the abundance of fresh seafood 
that has made southeastern Louisiana famous.
  Since the 1940's, increased population, urbanization, and land use 
changes have altered or destroyed much of the Pontchartrain Basin's 
valuable ecological resources. The Lake's south shore--once a famous 
gathering ground for swimmers, has been closed since the late 1960's 
because of pollution and other conditions caused by stormwater and 
wastewater discharges, oil and gas development and some agricultural 
activities. Natural occurrences such as shoreline erosion, hurricanes, 
and land subsidence combined with sea level rise also have harmed the 
Basin's sensitive ecology.
   Mr. President, we introduce the ``Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
Restoration Act of 1999,'' with the purpose of restoring and 
maintaining the unique ecology of this nationally significant 
watershed. This important legislation would establish a well 
coordinated and technically sound management program for the 
restoration and sustainable health of the Pontchartrain Basin 
ecosystem.
  This legislation would also: coordinate the restoration efforts of 
federal, state and local agencies and organizations in the restoration 
of the Basin; authorize and provide resources for restoration projects 
in the Pontchartrain Basin; and establish a Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
Restoration Program within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  We believe this is a nationally significant watershed restoration 
effort that deserves our support. The Pontchartrain Basin is the center 
of Southeastern Louisiana's unique cultural heritage--providing 
valuable habitat for wildlife and countless recreation opportunities 
for sportsmen and other outdoor enthusiasts. The area is brimming with 
a diverse population of people bound by a common interest: The desire 
for clean and healthy waters in the Pontchartrain Basin. Over the last 
decade, the restoration of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin has become one 
of the strongest grassroots watershed clean-up efforts in the nation.
   Mr. President, I would also like to publicly acknowledge the Lake 
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, the University of New Orleans and the 
Regional Planning Commission for the Louisiana parishes of Orleans, 
Jefferson, St. Bernard, St. Tammany and Plaquemines, for their efforts 
in developing this important legislation. We strongly urge our 
colleagues to support this measure as well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Mr. Frist, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1622. A bill to provide economic, planning, and coordination 
assistance needed for the development of the lower Mississippi River 
region; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                the delta regional authority act of 1999

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Delta 
Regional Authority Act of 1999, which is aimed at improving the economy 
of the Mississippi Delta region, the poorest region in the country.
  The lower Mississippi Delta region, following the course of the 
Mississippi River, stretches from southern Illinois to the Delta of the 
Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. According to the latest Census 
figures, communities in the Delta region of seven States--Illinois, 
Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana--
face a poverty rate of 22 percent while the national average is 12 
percent.
  This legislation seeks to build on efforts begun more than a decade 
ago, when Congress created the Lower Mississippi Delta Development 
Commission. Under the leadership of former Arkansas Senator Dale 
Bumpers, the Commission was charged with studying the unique problems 
of the Delta region and recommending a course of action. I refer my 
colleagues to Senator Bumpers' statement, which appears on page S25689 
of the September 27, 1988 Congressional Record, in which he introduced 
legislation authorizing the Commission. The Commission submitted its 
report, ``Realizing the Dream . . . Fulfilling the Potential,'' in 
1990. The Chairman of the Commission, former Arkansas Governor Bill 
Clinton, called the report a ``handbook for action.''
  The report highlighted problems facing the Delta, whose economy has 
traditionally been based on agriculture. The report noted the Delta 
faced high unemployment, low levels of income and education, welfare 
dependency, poor health care and housing, along with serious 
shortcomings in transportation infrastructure. Unfortunately, a decade 
after the report was issued, these problems still exist. While Congress 
took one bold step toward solving these problems when we passed welfare 
reform, there is still much to be done.
  In particular, this bill seeks to improve the infrastructure of the 
Delta region. It is common knowledge that when industries seek to 
expand and build new facilities, they look at the availability of 
roads, water systems

[[Page S11264]]

and other infrastructure. The Federal Government has tried to foster 
development in these areas by providing Federal grant monies, but we 
haven't approached the economic problems in the region with an 
appropriate understanding of the unique demographic and geographic 
challenges that face the Delta.
  Education programs are available, but if there's no technical 
assistance to help people actually access the grant resources, then the 
programs are essentially wasted. We can encourage young folks to pursue 
higher education and start their own businesses, but if there is no 
basic infrastructure, if transportation and other resources are 
inadequate, how can they succeed? For instance, in many areas of the 
Arkansas Delta there are no copy shops, computer repair stores, or 
office supply stores. These basic offerings that we take for granted in 
larger cities simply are not available and that is why creating a 
central location for technical assistance is so vital. We may not be 
able to put copy shops in place, but we can provide help that will be 
only a phone call or an e-mail away.
  Currently, many communities in the Delta have problems gaining 
federal grants for two reasons. First, they often don't have the 
technical expertise to complete the grant applications. Second, they 
often don't have enough money to meet the local matching requirement. 
The Delta Regional Authority created by this legislation will be 
authorized $30 million annually to provide technical assistance in the 
grant application process. In effect, local communities across the 
seven state region will have one-stop shopping when they need 
assistance completing grant applications and accessing resources for 
economic development. Second, the Delta Regional Authority will be 
authorized to provide money to help grant applicants meet the federal 
match. Certainly the matching dollar requirement in the grant 
application process is important to demonstrate the community's 
commitment to the project, but we shouldn't exclude the very 
communities who need grant assistance the most.
  The Delta Regional Authority will function along the same lines as 
the Appalachian Regional Commission. But it will operate entirely 
independently of the ARC. The Delta Regional Authority's mission will 
be to help create jobs, attract industrial development and grow the 
local economies by improving infrastructure, training the workforce and 
building local leadership.
  I would like to thank staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission, 
who worked very closely with us in drafting this legislation. Special 
thanks also is due to the National Association of Development 
Organizations, the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center and many 
local economic development groups who provided suggestions and input. 
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to commend Representative 
Marion Berry, who represents my home in the First Congressional 
District of Arkansas, who has introduced companion legislation in the 
House of Representatives. I certainly hope that today's introduction of 
legislation is the first step toward making the Delta Regional 
Authority a reality.
  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. 1622

       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 ``Delta Regional Authority Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the lower Mississippi River region (referred to in this 
     Act as the ``region''), though rich in natural and human 
     resources, lags behind the rest of the United States in 
     economic growth and prosperity;
       (2) the region suffers from a greater proportion of 
     measurable poverty and unemployment than any other region of 
     the United States, resulting in a drain on the national 
     economy and diminishing national wealth;
       (3) the greatest hope for economic growth and 
     revitalization in the region lies in the creation of jobs, 
     the expansion of businesses, and the development of 
     entrepreneurial local economies;
       (4) the economic progress of the region requires an 
     adequate physical infrastructure, a skilled and trained 
     workforce, enhanced local leadership and civic capacity, and 
     greater opportunities for enterprise development and 
     entrepreneurship;
       (5) a concerted and coordinated effort among Federal, 
     State, and local agencies, the private sector, nonprofit 
     groups, and community-based organizations is needed if the 
     region is to share in the prosperity of the United States;
       (6) economic development planning on a regional or 
     multicounty basis offers the best prospect for achieving the 
     maximum benefit from public and private investments; and
       (7) improving the economy of the region requires a special 
     emphasis on those of the region that are most economically 
     distressed.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to promote and encourage the economic development of 
     the region--
       (A) to ensure that the communities and people in the region 
     have the opportunity to participate more fully in the 
     prosperity of the United States; and
       (B) to ensure that the economy of the region reaches 
     economic parity with that of the rest of the United States;
       (2) to establish a formal framework for joint Federal-State 
     collaboration in meeting and focusing national attention on 
     the economic development needs of the region;
       (3) to assist the region in obtaining the basic 
     infrastructure, skills training, local leadership capacity, 
     and opportunities for enterprise development that are 
     essential for strong local economies;
       (4) to foster coordination among all levels of government, 
     the private sector, community organizations, and nonprofit 
     groups in crafting common regional strategies that will lead 
     to broader economic growth;
       (5) to strengthen efforts that emphasize regional 
     approaches to economic development and planning;
       (6) to encourage the participation of interested citizens, 
     public officials, groups, agencies, and others in developing 
     and implementing local and regional plans for broad-based 
     economic and community development; and
       (7) to focus special attention on areas of the region that 
     suffer from the greatest economic distress.

     SEC. 3. DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY.

       The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1921 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                 ``Subtitle F--Delta Regional Authority

     ``SEC. 382A. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Authority.--The term `Authority' means the Delta 
     Regional Authority established by section 382B.
       ``(2) Region.--The term `region' means areas in the States 
     of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
     Missouri, and Tennessee, as defined under section 4 of the 
     Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act (Public Law 100-460; 
     42 U.S.C. 3121 note).
       ``(3) Federal grant program.--The term `Federal grant 
     program' means a Federal grant program to provide assistance 
     in--
       ``(A) acquiring or developing land;
       ``(B) constructing or equipping a facility; or
       ``(C) carrying out other community or economic development 
     or economic adjustment activities.

     ``SEC. 382B. DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is established the Delta Regional 
     Authority.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Authority shall be composed of--
       ``(A) a Federal member, to be appointed by the President, 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate; and
       ``(B) the Governor (or a designee of the Governor) of each 
     State in the region that elects to participate in the 
     Authority.
       ``(3) Cochairpersons.--The Authority shall be headed by 2 
     cochairpersons, which shall be--
       ``(A) the Federal member, who shall serve--
       ``(i) as the Federal cochairperson; and
       ``(ii) as a liaison between the Federal Government and the 
     Authority; and
       ``(B) a State cochairperson, who--
       ``(i) shall be a Governor of a participating State in the 
     region; and
       ``(ii) shall be elected by the State members for a term of 
     not less than 1 year.
       ``(b) Alternate Members.--
       ``(1) State alternates.--Each State member may have a 
     single alternate, appointed by the Governor from among the 
     members of the cabinet or the personal staff of the Governor.
       ``(2) Alternate federal cochairperson.--The President shall 
     appoint an alternate Federal cochairperson.
       ``(3) Quorum.--A State alternate shall not be counted 
     toward the establishment of a quorum of the Authority in any 
     instance in which a quorum of the State members is required 
     to be present.
       ``(4) Delegation of power.--No power or responsibility of 
     the Authority specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (b), and no voting right of any Authority member, 
     shall be delegated to any person--
       ``(A) who is not a Authority member; or
       ``(B) who is not entitled to vote in Authority meetings.
       ``(c) Voting.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in section 382I(d), 
     decisions by the Authority

[[Page S11265]]

     shall require the affirmative vote of the Federal 
     cochairperson and of a majority of the State members (not 
     including a member representing a State that is delinquent 
     under subsection (g)(2)(C).
       ``(2) Quorum.--A quorum of State members shall be required 
     to be present for the Authority to make any policy decision, 
     including--
       ``(A) a modification or revision of a Authority policy 
     decision;
       ``(B) approval of a State or regional development plan; and
       ``(C) any allocation of funds among the States.
       ``(3) Project and grant proposals.--The approval of project 
     and grant proposals shall be--
       ``(A) a responsibility of the Authority; and
       ``(B) conducted in accordance with section 382I.
       ``(4) Voting by alternate members.--An alternate member 
     shall vote in the case of the absence, death, disability, 
     removal, or resignation of the State or Federal 
     representative for which the alternate member is an 
     alternate.
       ``(d) Duties.--The Authority shall--
       ``(1) develop, on a continuing basis, comprehensive and 
     coordinated plans and programs to establish priorities and 
     approve grants for the economic development of the region, 
     giving due consideration to other Federal, State, and local 
     planning and development activities in the region;
       ``(2) not later than 220 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subtitle, establish priorities in a development plan 
     for the region (including 5-year regional outcome targets);
       ``(3) provide for an understanding of the needs and assets 
     of the region through research, demonstration, investigation, 
     assessment, and evaluation of the region, in cooperation with 
     Federal, State, and local agencies, universities, local 
     development districts, and other nonprofit groups, as 
     appropriate;
       ``(4) review and study, in cooperation with the appropriate 
     agencies, Federal, State, and local public and private 
     programs in the region;
       ``(5) recommend any modification or addition to a program 
     described in paragraph (4) that could increase the 
     effectiveness of the program;
       ``(6) formulate and recommend interstate compacts and other 
     forms of interstate cooperation;
       ``(7) work with State and local agencies in developing 
     appropriate model legislation;
       ``(8) encourage the formation of, build the capacity of, 
     and provide support for, local development districts in the 
     region;
       ``(9) encourage private investment in industrial, 
     commercial, and other economic development projects in the 
     region;
       ``(10) serve as a focal point and coordinating unit for 
     region programs;
       ``(11) provide a forum for consideration of problems of the 
     region and proposed solutions for those problems; and
       ``(12) establish and involve citizens, special advisory 
     councils, and public conferences to consider and resolve 
     issues concerning the region.
       ``(e) Information.--In carrying out the duties of the 
     Authority under subsection (d), the Authority may--
       ``(1) hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and print 
     or otherwise reproduce and distribute the proceedings and 
     reports on actions by the Authority as the Authority 
     considers appropriate;
       ``(2) authorize, through the Federal or State 
     cochairperson, or any other member of the Authority 
     designated by the Authority, the administration of oaths if 
     the Authority determines that testimony shall be taken or 
     evidence shall be received under oath; and
       ``(3) arrange for the head of any Federal, State, or local 
     department or agency to furnish to the Authority such 
     information as may be available to or procurable by the 
     department or agency;
       ``(4) adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws and rules governing 
     the conduct of Authority business and the performance of 
     Authority functions;
       ``(5) request the head of any Federal department or agency 
     to detail to the Authority such personnel as the Authority 
     requires to carry out functions of the Authority, each such 
     detail to be without loss of seniority, pay, or other 
     employee status;
       ``(6) request the head of any State department or agency or 
     local government to detail to the Authority such personnel as 
     the Authority requires to carry out functions of the 
     Authority, each such detail to be without loss of seniority, 
     pay, or other employee status;
       ``(7) provide for coverage of Authority employees in a 
     suitable retirement and employee benefit system by--
       ``(A) making arrangements or entering into contracts with 
     any participating State government; or
       ``(B) otherwise providing retirement and other employee 
     benefit coverage;
       ``(8) accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of 
     services or real, personal, tangible, or intangible property;
       ``(9) enter into and perform such contracts, leases, 
     cooperative agreements, or other transactions as are 
     necessary to carry out Authority duties, including any 
     contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or any other 
     arrangement with--
       ``(A) any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States;
       ``(B) any State (including a political subdivision, agency, 
     or instrumentality of the State); or
       ``(C) any person, firm, association, or corporation;
       ``(10) establish and maintain a central office and field 
     offices at such locations as the Authority may select; and
       ``(11) take such other actions and incur such other 
     expenses as are necessary or appropriate.
       ``(f) Federal Agency Cooperation.--Federal agencies shall--
       ``(1) cooperate with the Authority; and
       ``(2) provide such assistance in carrying out this subtitle 
     as the Federal cochairperson may request.
       ``(g) Administrative Expenses.--
       ``(1) In general.--Administrative expenses of the Authority 
     shall be paid--
       ``(A) by the Federal Government, during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this subtitle and 
     ending on September 30, 2000; and
       ``(B) after September 30, 2000 (except for the expenses of 
     the Federal cochairperson, including expenses of the 
     alternate and staff of the Federal cochairperson, which shall 
     be paid solely by the Federal Government)--
       ``(i) by the Federal Government, in an amount equal to 50 
     percent of the administrative expenses; and
       ``(ii) by the States in the region represented on the 
     Authority, in an amount equal to 50 percent of the 
     administrative expenses.
       ``(2) State share.--
       ``(A) In general.--The share of administrative expenses of 
     the Authority to be paid by each State shall be determined by 
     the Authority.
       ``(B) No federal participation.--The Federal cochairperson 
     shall not participate or vote in any decision under 
     subparagraph (A) to determine the share of administrative 
     expenses of the Authority to be paid by a State.
       ``(C) Delinquent states.--If a State is delinquent in 
     payment of the State's share of administrative expenses of 
     the Authority under this subsection--
       ``(i) no assistance under this subtitle shall be furnished 
     to the State (including assistance to a political subdivision 
     or a resident of the State); and
       ``(ii) no member of the Authority from the State shall 
     participate or vote in any action by the Authority.
       ``(h) Compensation.--
       ``(1) Federal cochairperson.--The Federal cochairperson 
     shall be compensated by the Federal Government at level III 
     of the Executive Schedule in subchapter II of chapter 53 of 
     title V, United States Code.
       ``(2) Alternate federal cochairperson.--The alternate 
     Federal cochairperson--
       ``(A) shall be compensated by the Federal Government at 
     level V of the Executive Schedule described in paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(B) when not actively serving as an alternate for the 
     Federal cochairperson, shall perform such functions and 
     duties as are delegated by the Federal cochairperson.
       ``(3) State members and alternates.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State shall compensate each member and 
     alternate representing the State on the Authority at the rate 
     established by law of the State.
       ``(B) No additional compensation.--No State member or 
     alternate member shall receive any salary, or any 
     contribution to or supplementation of salary from any source 
     other than the State for services provided by the member or 
     alternate to the Authority.
       ``(4) Detailed employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--No person detailed to serve the 
     Authority under subsection (e)(6) shall receive any salary or 
     any contribution to or supplementation of salary for services 
     provided to the Authority from--
       ``(i) any source other than the State, local, or 
     intergovernmental department or agency from which the person 
     was detailed; or
       ``(ii) the Authority.
       ``(B) Violation.--Any person that violates this paragraph 
     shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 
     1 year, or both.
       ``(C) Applicable law.--The Federal cochairperson, the 
     alternate Federal cochairperson, and any Federal officer or 
     employee detailed to duty on the Authority under subsection 
     (e)(5) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A), but shall 
     remain subject to sections 202 through 209 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       ``(5) Additional personnel.--
       ``(A) Compensation.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Authority may appoint and fix the 
     compensation of an executive director and such other 
     personnel as are necessary to enable the Authority to carry 
     out the duties of the Authority.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Compensation described under clause (i) 
     shall not exceed the maximum rate for the Senior Executive 
     Service under section 5382 of title 5, United States Code, 
     including any applicable locality-based comparability payment 
     that may be authorized under section 5304(h)(2)(C) of that 
     title.
       ``(B) Executive director.--The executive director shall be 
     responsible for--
       ``(i) the carrying out of the administrative functions of 
     the Authority;
       ``(ii) direction of the Authority staff; and
       ``(iii) such other duties as the Authority may assign.
       ``(C) No federal employee status.--No member, alternate, 
     officer, or employee of the Authority (except the Federal 
     cochairperson of the Authority, the alternate and staff for 
     the Federal cochairperson, and any Federal employee detailed 
     to the Authority

[[Page S11266]]

     under subsection (e)(5)) shall be considered to be a Federal 
     employee for any purpose.
       ``(i) Conflicts of Interest.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     no State member, alternate, officer, or employee of the 
     Authority shall participate personally and substantially as a 
     member, alternate, officer, or employee of the Authority, 
     through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the 
     rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in any 
     proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other 
     determination, contract, claim, controversy, or other matter 
     in which, to knowledge of the member, alternate, officer, or 
     employee--
       ``(A) the member, alternate, officer, or employee;
       ``(B) the spouse, minor child, partner, or organization 
     (other than a State or political subdivision thereof) of the 
     member, alternate, officer, or employee, in which the member, 
     alternate, officer, or employee is serving as officer, 
     director, trustee, partner, or employee; or
       ``(C) any person or organization with whom the member, 
     alternate, officer, or employee is negotiating or has any 
     arrangement concerning prospective employment;
       has a financial interest.
       ``(2) Disclosure.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the 
     State member, alternate, officer, or employee--
       ``(A) immediately advises the Authority of the nature and 
     circumstances of the proceeding, application, request for a 
     ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, 
     or other particular matter presenting a conflict of interest;
       ``(B) makes full disclosure of the financial interest; and
       ``(C) before the proceeding concerning the matter 
     presenting the conflict of interest, receives a written 
     determination by the Authority that the interest is not so 
     substantial as to be likely to affect the integrity of the 
     services that the Authority may expect from the State member, 
     alternate, officer, or employee.
       ``(3) Violation.--Any person that violates this subsection 
     shall be fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned not more 
     than 2 years, or both.
       ``(j) Validity of Contracts, Loans, and Grants.--The 
     Authority may declare void any contract, loan, or grant of or 
     by the Authority in relation to which the Authority 
     determines that there has been a violation of any provision 
     under subsection (h)(4), subsection (i), or sections 202 
     through 209 of title 18, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 382C. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Authority may approve grants to 
     States and public and nonprofit entities for projects, 
     approved in accordance with section 382I--
       ``(1) to assist the region in obtaining the job training 
     and employment-related education, leadership, business, and 
     civic development (with an emphasis on entrepreneurship), 
     that are needed to build and maintain strong local economies;
       ``(2) to provide assistance to severely distressed and 
     underdeveloped counties that lack financial resources for 
     improving basic services;
       ``(3) to fund--
       ``(A) research, demonstrations, evaluations, and 
     assessments of the region; and
       ``(B) training programs, and construction of necessary 
     facilities, and the provision of technical assistance 
     necessary to complete activities described in subparagraph 
     (A); or
       ``(4) to otherwise achieve the objectives of this subtitle.
       ``(b) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds for grants under subsection (a) 
     may be provided--
       ``(A) entirely from appropriations to carry out this 
     section;
       ``(B) in combination with funds available under another 
     Federal or Federal grant program; or
       ``(C) from any other source.
       ``(2) Priority of funding.--To best build the foundations 
     for long-term, self-sustaining economies and to complement 
     other Federal and State resources in the region, Federal 
     funds available under this subtitle shall be focused on the 
     activities in the following order or priority:
       ``(A) Basic infrastructure in distressed counties.
       ``(B) Job-related infrastructure.
       ``(C) Job training or employment-related education.
       ``(D) Leadership and civic development.
       ``(E) Business development, with emphasis on 
     entrepreneurship.
       ``(3) Federal share in grant programs.--Notwithstanding any 
     provision of law limiting the Federal share in any grant 
     program, funds appropriated to carry out this section may be 
     used to increase a Federal share in a grant program, as the 
     Authority determines to be appropriate.

     ``SEC. 382D. SUPPLEMENTS TO FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Finding.--Congress finds that certain people, States, 
     and local communities of the region, including local 
     development districts, are unable to take maximum advantage 
     of Federal grant programs for which the people are eligible 
     because--
       ``(1) they lack the economic resources to supply the 
     required matching share; or
       ``(2) there are insufficient funds available under the 
     applicable Federal grant law authorizing the program to meet 
     pressing needs of the region.
       ``(b) Federal Grant Program Funding.--In accordance with 
     subsection (c), the Federal cochairperson may use amounts 
     made available to carry out this subtitle, without regard to 
     any limitations on areas eligible for assistance or 
     authorizations for appropriation under any other Act to fund 
     all or any portion of the basic Federal contribution to a 
     project or activity under a Federal grant program in an 
     amount that is above the fixed maximum portion of the cost of 
     the project otherwise authorized by the applicable law, not 
     to exceed 80 percent of the costs of the project except as 
     provided in section 382F(b).
       ``(c) Certification.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any program or project 
     for which all or any portion of the basic Federal 
     contribution to the project under a Federal grant program is 
     proposed to be made under this section, no Federal 
     contribution shall be made until the Federal official 
     administering the Federal law authorizing the contribution 
     certifies that the program or project--
       ``(A) meets the applicable requirements of the applicable 
     Federal grant law; and
       ``(B) could be approved for Federal contribution under the 
     law if funds were available under the law for the program or 
     project.
       ``(2) Certification by authority.--
       ``(A) In general.--The certifications and determinations 
     required to be made by the Authority for approval of projects 
     under this subtitle in accordance with section 382I--
       ``(i) shall be controlling; and
       ``(ii) shall be accepted by the Federal agencies.
       ``(B) Acceptance by federal cochairperson.--Any finding, 
     report, certification, or documentation required to be 
     submitted to the head of the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government responsible for the 
     administration of any Federal grant program shall be accepted 
     by the Federal cochairperson with respect to a supplemental 
     grant for any project under the program.

     ``SEC. 382E. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS; CERTIFICATION AND 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       ``(a) Definition of Local Development District.--In this 
     section, the term ``local development district'' means an 
     entity that is--
       ``(1) organized and operated in a manner that ensures 
     broad-based community participation and an effective 
     opportunity for other nonprofit and citizen groups to 
     contribute to the development and implementation of programs 
     in the region;
       ``(2) certified to the Authority as having a charter or 
     authority that includes the economic development of counties 
     or parts of counties or other political subdivisions within 
     the region--
       ``(A) by the Governor of each State in which the entity is 
     located; or
       ``(B) by the State officer designated by the appropriate 
     State law to make the certification; and
       ``(3) is--
       ``(A) a nonprofit incorporated body organized or chartered 
     under the law of the State in which the entity is located;
       ``(B) a nonprofit agency or instrumentality of a State or 
     local government;
       ``(C) a nonprofit agency or instrumentality created through 
     an interstate compact; or
       ``(D) a nonprofit association or combination of bodies, 
     agencies, and instrumentalities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C).
       ``(b) Grants to Local Development Districts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Authority may make grants for 
     administrative expenses of local development districts.
       ``(2) Conditions for grants.--
       ``(A) Maximum amount.--The amount of any grant awarded 
     under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 80 percent of the 
     administrative expenses of the local development district 
     receiving the grant.
       ``(B) Maximum period.--No grant described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be awarded to a State agency certified as a local 
     development district for a period greater than 3 years.
       ``(C) Local share.--The contributions of a local 
     development district for administrative expenses may be in 
     cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including space, 
     equipment, and services.
       ``(c) Duties of Local Development Districts.--Local 
     development districts--
       ``(1) shall operate as lead organizations serving 
     multicounty areas in the region at the local level; and
       ``(2) shall serve as a liaison between State and local 
     governments, nonprofit organizations (including community-
     based groups and educational institutions), the business 
     community, and citizens that--
       ``(A) are involved in multijurisdictional planning;
       ``(B) provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions 
     and potential grantees; and
       ``(C) provide leadership and civic development assistance.

     ``SEC. 382F. DISTRESSED COUNTIES AND ECONOMICALLY STRONG 
                   COUNTIES.

       ``(a) Designations.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subtitle, and annually thereafter, the 
     Authority, in accordance with such criteria as the Authority 
     may establish, shall designate--
       ``(1) as distressed counties, counties in the region that 
     are the most severely and persistently distressed and 
     underdeveloped;
       ``(2) as economically strong counties, counties in the 
     region that are approaching or

[[Page S11267]]

     have reached economic parity with the rest of the United 
     States; and
       ``(3) as isolated areas of distress, areas located in an 
     economically strong county that have high rates of poverty or 
     unemployment.
       ``(b) Distressed Counties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Authority shall allocate at least 50 
     percent of the appropriations made available under section 
     382N for programs and projects designed to serve the needs of 
     distressed counties in the region.
       ``(2) Funding limitations.--The funding limitations under 
     section 382D(b) shall not apply to projects providing basic 
     services to residents in 1 or more distressed counties in the 
     region.
       ``(c) Economically Strong Counties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in this subsection, 
     no funds shall be provided under this subtitle for a project 
     located in a county designated as an economically strong 
     county under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) In general.--The funding prohibition under paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply to grants to fund the administrative 
     expenses of local development districts under section 
     382E(b).
       ``(B) Multicounty projects.--The Authority may approve 
     additional exceptions to the funding prohibition under 
     paragraph (1) for--
       ``(i) multicounty projects that include participation by an 
     economically strong county; and
       ``(ii) any other type of project, if the Authority 
     determines that the project could bring significant benefits 
     to areas of the region outside an economically strong county.
       ``(C) Isolated areas of distress.--
       ``(i) In general.--An isolated area of distress shall be 
     eligible for assistance at the discretion of the Authority.
       ``(ii) Determination.--A determination of eligibility of an 
     isolated area of distress for assistance shall be supported--

       ``(I) by the most recent Federal data available; or
       ``(II) if no recent Federal data are available, by the most 
     recent data available through the government of the State in 
     which the isolated area of distress is located.

     ``SEC. 382G. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS.

       ``(a) State Development Plan.--In accordance with policies 
     established by the Authority, each State member shall submit 
     on such schedule as the Authority shall prescribe a 
     development plan for the area of the region represented by 
     the State member.
       ``(b) Content of Plan.--A State development plan submitted 
     under subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) reflect the goals, objectives, and priorities 
     identified in the regional development plan under section 
     382B(d);
       ``(2) describe--
       ``(A) the organization and continuous process for 
     development planning of the State, including the procedures 
     established by the State for the participation of local 
     development districts in the development planning process;
       ``(B) the means by which the development planning process 
     of the State is related to overall State-wide planning and 
     budgeting processes; and
       ``(C) the method of coordinating planning and projects in 
     the region under this subtitle and other Federal, State, and 
     local programs;
       ``(3)(A) identify the goals, objectives, priorities, and 
     expected outcomes of the State for the region, as determined 
     by the Governor;
       ``(B) identify the needs on which those goals, objectives, 
     priorities are based; and
       ``(C) describe the development strategy for achieving and 
     the expected outcomes of those goals, objectives, and 
     priorities; and
       ``(4) describe how strategies proposed in the plan would 
     advance the objectives of this subtitle.
       ``(c) Consultation With Interested Local Parties.--In 
     carrying out the development planning process (including the 
     selection of programs and projects for assistance), a State 
     shall--
       ``(1) consult with--
       ``(A) local development districts;
       ``(B) local units of government; and
       ``(C) citizen groups; and
       ``(2) take into consideration the goals, objectives, 
     priorities, and recommendations of the entities identified in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Public Participation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Authority and applicable State and 
     local development districts shall encourage and assist, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, public participation in the 
     development, revision, and implementation of all plans and 
     programs under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Authority shall develop guidelines 
     specifying minimum goals for public participation described 
     in paragraph (1), including public hearings.

     ``SEC. 382H. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA.

       ``(a) In General.--In considering programs and projects to 
     be provided assistance under this subtitle, and in 
     establishing a priority ranking of the requests for 
     assistance presented to the Authority, the Authority shall 
     follow procedures that ensure, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, consideration of--
       ``(1) the relationship of the project or class of projects 
     to overall regional development;
       ``(2) the per capita income and poverty and unemployment 
     rates in the area;
       ``(3) the financial resources available to the applicants 
     for assistance seeking to carry out the project;
       ``(4) the importance of the project or class of projects in 
     relation to other projects or classes of projects that may be 
     in competition for the same funds;
       ``(5) the prospects that the project for which assistance 
     is sought will improve, on a continuing rather than a 
     temporary basis, the opportunities for employment, the 
     average level of income, or the economic and social 
     development of the area served by the project; and
       ``(6) the extent to which the project design provides for 
     detailed outcome measurements by which grant expenditures and 
     the results of the expenditures may be evaluated.
       ``(b) No Relocation Assistance.--No financial assistance 
     authorized by this subtitle shall be used to assist a person 
     or entity in relocating from 1 area to another.
       ``(c) Reduction of Funds.--Funds may be provided for a 
     program or project in a State under this subtitle only if the 
     Authority determines that the level of Federal or State 
     financial assistance provided under a law other than this 
     subtitle, for the same type of program or project in the same 
     area of the State within the region, will not be reduced so 
     as to substitute funds authorized by this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 382I. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PROJECTS.

       ``(a) In General.--A State or regional development plan or 
     any multistate subregional plan that is proposed for 
     development under this subtitle shall be reviewed for 
     approval by the Authority in accordance with section 
     382B(e)(3).
       ``(b) Evaluation by State Member.--An application for a 
     grant or any other assistance for a project under this 
     subtitle shall be made through and evaluated for approval by 
     the State member of the Authority representing the applicant.
       ``(c) Certification.--An application for a grant or other 
     assistance for a project shall be approved only on 
     certification by the State member and the Federal 
     cochairperson that the application--
       ``(1) reflects an intent that the project comply with any 
     applicableState development plan;
       ``(2) meets applicable criteria under section 382H;
       ``(3) provides adequate assurance that the proposed project 
     will be properly administered, operated, and maintained; and
       ``(4) otherwise meets the requirements of this subtitle.
       ``(d) Votes for Decisions.--The certification by a State 
     member of an application for a grant or other assistance for 
     a specific project under this section shall, when joined by 
     an affirmative vote of the Federal cochairperson for the 
     application, be considered to satisfy the requirements for 
     affirmative votes for decisions under section 382B.

     ``SEC. 382J. CONSENT OF STATES.

       Nothing in this subtitle requires any State to engage in or 
     accept any program under this subtitle without the consent of 
     the State.

     ``SEC. 382K. RECORDS.

       ``(a) Records of the Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Authority shall maintain accurate 
     and complete records of all transactions and activities of 
     the Authority financed with Federal funds.
       ``(2) Availability.--All records of the Authority shall be 
     available for audit and examination by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States (including authorized 
     representatives of the Comptroller General).
       ``(b) Records of Recipients of Federal Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Recipients of Federal assistance under 
     this subtitle shall, as required by the Authority, maintain 
     accurate and complete records of transactions and activities 
     financed with Federal funds and report on the transactions 
     and activities to the Authority.
       ``(2) Availability.--All records described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be available for audit by the Comptroller General of 
     the United States and the Authority or their duly authorized 
     representatives.

     ``SEC. 382L. ANNUAL REPORT.

       ``Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal 
     year, the Authority shall submit to the President and to 
     Congress a report describing the activities carried out under 
     this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 382M. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Authority to carry out this subtitle $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, to remain available 
     until expended.
       ``(b) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of 
     the amount appropriated under subsection (a) shall be used 
     for administrative expenses.''.

                          ____________________