[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14806-S14822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Reid, 
        and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1955. A bill to allow patients access to drugs and medical devices 
recommended and provided by health care practitioners that are not 
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    Access to Medical Treatment Act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to 
Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, 
Reid, Inouye and Johnson in this effort to increase individuals' 
freedom of choice in health care.
  At the outset, I want to extend my thanks to my friend Berkley 
Bedell, who formerly represented the 6th District of Iowa, for first 
bringing this issue to my attention and for his assistance in 
developing this bill. Berkley Bedell has experienced first-hand the 
life-saving potential of alternative treatments. His story underscores 
the need for the legislation I am introducing today and the importance 
of a national debate on ways to promote consumer choice and expand 
access to promising new medical treatments.
  American consumers have already voted for expanded access to 
alternative treatments with their feet and their pocket-books. The 
Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study 
by David Eisenberg and others that found that Americans spent nearly 
$27 billion on alternative therapies in 1997. Americans made more 
visits to alternative practitioners--a total of 629 million--than to 
primary care doctors. Expenditures for alternative medicine 
professional services increased 45.2 percent between 1990 and 1997 to 
$21.2 billion. Some type of alternative therapy is used by 46.3 percent 
of the American population.
  Alternative therapies are also being incorporated into mainstream 
medical programs and practice. The curriculum of at least 22 of the 
nation's 125 medical schools include courses on alternative medicine. 
The National Institutes of Health now has a Center for Complementary 
and Alternative Medicine where work is underway to expand our knowledge 
of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use.
  Despite the growing reliance on many types of alternative medicine, 
other alternative therapies remain unavailable because they do not fit 
the categories already carved out by Congress for exemption from the 
requirement to gain FDA approval. My bill would increase access to 
treatments that would normally be regulated by the FDA, but have not 
yet undergone the expensive and lengthy process currently required to 
gain FDA approval.
  Given the popularity of alternative medicine among the American 
public and its growing acceptance among traditional medical 
practitioners, it would seem logical to remove some of the access 
barriers that consumers face when seeking certain alternative 
therapies. The time and expense currently required to gain FDA approval 
both discourages the exploration of innovative, life-saving treatments 
by individual practitioners, scientists and smaller companies and 
limits patient access to low-cost treatments.
  Mr. President, the Access to Medical Treatment Act proposes one way 
to expand freedom of choice for medical consumers under carefully 
controlled situations. It asserts that individuals--especially those 
who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments 
have proven ineffective--should have the option of trying an 
alternative treatment, so long as they have been fully informed of the 
nature of the treatment, potential side effects, and given any other 
information necessary to meet carefully-crafted informed consent 
requirements. This is a choice that is rightly made by the consumer, 
and not dictated by the

[[Page S14807]]

Federal government. All treatments sanctioned by this Act must be 
prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner who has personally 
examined the patient. The practitioner must fully disclose all 
available information about the safety and effectiveness of any medical 
treatment, including questions that remain unanswered because the 
necessary research has not been conducted. Patients must be informed of 
any possible side effects or interactions with other drugs.
  The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to 
advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit 
financially from prescribing alternative medicine. This provision was 
included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of 
patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. If 
an individual or a company wants to earn a profit from a product, they 
would be wise to go through the standard FDA approval process.
  The bill protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any 
adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an 
unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, 
manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending a thorough 
investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused 
by the drug or medical device, as a part of a total recall, the 
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, along with 
the manufacturer, has the duty to inform all health care practitioners 
to whom the drug or device has been provided.
  This legislation will help build a knowledge base regarding 
alternative treatments by requiring practitioners to report on 
effectiveness. This is critical because current information available 
about the effectiveness of many promising treatments is inadequate. The 
information generated through this Act will begin to reverse this 
reality, particularly because information will be collected and 
analyzed by the Center for Alternative Medicine at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance 
between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of 
patients from dangerous and ineffective treatments and the preservation 
of the consumers' freedom to choose alternative therapies. The 
complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from 
seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served 
by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I 
am hopeful the discussion generated by introduction of this legislation 
will help point the way to its resolution.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to focus 
serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome 
current obstacles to their safe development and utilization.
  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:
       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 ``Access to Medical Treatment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Adulterated.--The term ``adulterated'' means any 
     unapproved drug or medical device that in whole or part 
     consists of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance that 
     has been prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary 
     conditions where such drug or device may have been 
     contaminated with such filthy, putrid, or decomposed 
     substance and be injurious to health.
       (2) Advertising claim.--The term ``advertising claim'' 
     means any representation made or suggested by statement, 
     word, device, sound, or any combination thereof with respect 
     to medical treatment.
       (3) Costs.--The term ``costs'' means a charge to patients 
     equal to the amount necessary to recover expenses for making 
     or obtaining the unapproved drug or medical device and 
     providing for its transport to the health care practitioner.
       (4) Danger.--The term ``danger'' means an adverse reaction, 
     to an unapproved drug or medical device, that used as 
     directed--
       (A) causes serious harm to the patient in a case in which 
     such harm would not have otherwise occurred; or
       (B) causes harm that is more serious than side effects for 
     drugs or medical devices approved by the Federal Food and 
     Drug Administration for the same disease or condition.
       (5) Drug.--The term ``drug'' has the same meaning given 
     that term in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).
       (6) Health care practitioner.--The term ``health care 
     practitioner'' means a physician or other individual who is a 
     provider of health care, who is authorized under the law of a 
     State to prescribe drugs or devices.
       (7) Interstate commerce.--The term ``interstate commerce'' 
     means commerce between any State or Territory and any place 
     outside thereof, and commerce within the District of Columbia 
     or within any other Territory not organized with a 
     legislative body.
       (8) Legal representative.--The term ``legal 
     representative'' means a parent or other person who qualifies 
     as a legal guardian under State law.
       (9) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' has the 
     same meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201(h) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).
       (10) Patient.--The term ``patient'' means any person who 
     seeks medical treatment from a health care practitioner for a 
     disease or health condition.
       (11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services.
       (12) Unapproved drug or medical device.--The term 
     ``unapproved'', with respect to a drug or medical device, 
     means a drug or medical device that is not approved or 
     authorized for manufacture, sale, and distribution in 
     interstate commerce under section 505, 513, or 515 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360c, 
     and 360e) or under section 351 of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 201).

     SEC. 3. ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 501(a)(2)(B), 
     501(e) through 501(h), 502(f)(1), 505, 513, and 515 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B), 
     351(e) through 351(h), 352(f)(1), 355, 360c, and 360e) and 
     section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201) 
     or any other provision of Federal law, a patient may receive, 
     and a health care practitioner may provide or administer, any 
     unapproved drug or medical device that the patient desires or 
     the legal representative of the patient authorizes if--
       (1) the unapproved drug or medical device is recommended by 
     a health care practitioner within that practitioner's scope 
     of practice under State law;
       (2) the provision or administration of the unapproved drug 
     or medical device is not a violation of the laws of the State 
     or States in which the activity is carried out; and
       (3) the health care practitioner abides by all of the 
     requirements in subsection (b).
       (b) Requirements.--A health care practitioner may 
     recommend, provide or administer any unapproved drug or 
     medical device for a patient, pursuant to subsection (a), if 
     that practitioner--
       (1) does not violate State law by providing or 
     administering the unapproved drug or medical device;
       (2) does not violate the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 801 et seq.) by providing or administering the 
     unapproved drugs;
       (3) has concluded based on generally accepted principles 
     and current information that the unapproved drug or medical 
     device, when used as directed, will not cause a danger to the 
     patient;
       (4) provides the recommendation under circumstances that 
     give the patient sufficient opportunity to consider whether 
     or not to use such a drug or medical device and that minimize 
     the possibility of coercion or undue influence by the health 
     care practitioner;
       (5) discloses to the patient any financial interest that 
     such a practitioner may have in the drug or medical device;
       (6) has informed the patient in writing, prior to 
     recommending, providing, or administering the unapproved drug 
     or medical device--
       (A) that the unapproved drug or medical device is not 
     approved by the Secretary as safe and effective for the 
     condition of the patient and is considered experimental;
       (B) of the foreseeable risks and benefits of the unapproved 
     drug or medical device, including any risk to an embryo or 
     fetus, and expected possible side effects or discomforts that 
     the patient may experience and any medical treatment 
     available if side affects occur;
       (C) of any appropriate alternative procedures or courses of 
     treatment (including procedures or courses of treatment that 
     may involve the use of a drug or medical device that has been 
     approved by the Food and Drug Administration), if any, that 
     may be advantageous for the patient's condition;
       (D) of any interactions the unapproved drug or medical 
     device may have with other drugs, if any;
       (E) of the active and inactive ingredients of the 
     unapproved drug and the mechanism of action of the medical 
     device, if known;
       (F) of the health condition for which the unapproved drug 
     or medical device is provided, the method of administration 
     that will be used, and the unit dose;
       (G) of the procedures that will be employed by the health 
     care practitioner in using such a drug or medical device;

[[Page S14808]]

       (H) of the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of 
     records identifying the patient will be maintained;
       (I) for use of such a drug or medical device involving more 
     than minimal risk, of the treatments available if injury 
     occurs, what such treatments involve, and where additional 
     information regarding such treatments may be obtained;
       (J) of any anticipated circumstances under which the 
     patient's use of such a drug or medical device may be 
     terminated by the health care practitioner without regard to 
     the patient's consent;
       (K) that the use of an such a drug or medical device is 
     voluntary and that the patient may suspend or terminate 
     treatment at any time;
       (L) of the consequences of a patient's decision to withdraw 
     from the use of such a drug or medical device;
       (M) if any information described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (L) cannot be provided by the health care 
     practitioner because such information is not known at the 
     time the practitioner provides or administers such drug or 
     medical device, that such information cannot be provided by 
     the practitioner; and
       (N) of any other information or disclosures required by 
     applicable State law for the administration of experimental 
     drugs or medical devices to human subjects;
       (7) has not made, except as provided in subsection (d), any 
     advertising claims for the unapproved drug or medical device;
       (8) does not impose a charge for the unapproved drug or 
     medical device in excess of costs;
       (9) complies with requirements for reporting a danger in 
     section 4; and
       (10) has received a signed affidavit from the patient or 
     the patient's legal representative confirming that the 
     patient or the legal representative--
       (A) has received the written information required by this 
     subsection and understands it; and
       (B) desires treatment with the unapproved drug or medical 
     device as recommended by the health care practitioner.
       (c) Mandatory Disclosure.--Any manufacturer of an 
     unapproved drug or medical device shall disclose, to any 
     health care practitioner that has received such drug or 
     medical device from such manufacturer, all information 
     available to such manufacturer regarding such drug or medical 
     device to enable such practitioner to comply with the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(3) and make a determination 
     regarding the danger posed by such drug or medical device. 
     Compliance with this subsection shall not constitute a 
     violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
       (d) Advertising Claims Exception.--Subsection (b)(7) shall 
     not apply to a health care practitioner's dissemination of 
     information on the results of the practitioner's 
     administration of the unapproved drug or medical device in a 
     peer-reviewed journal, through academic or professional 
     forums, or through statements by a practitioner to a patient. 
     Subsection (b)(7) shall not apply to any accurate and 
     truthful statement made in person by a health care 
     practitioner to an individual or a prospective patient.

     SEC. 4. CESSATION OF USE, AND REPORTING OF, DANGEROUS DRUGS 
                   AND MEDICAL DEVICES.

       (a) Duty To Protect Patient.--If a health care practitioner 
     discovers that an unapproved drug or medical device causes a 
     danger to a patient, the practitioner shall immediately cease 
     use and recommendation of the unapproved drug or medical 
     device and provide to the manufacturer of the unapproved drug 
     or medical device and the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention--
       (1) a written evaluation of the patient's medical condition 
     before and after administration of the unapproved drug or 
     medical device;
       (2) a written evaluation of the adverse reaction, including 
     its physiological manifestations, duration, and the effect of 
     cessation of treatment upon the patient's condition;
       (3) any other information the health care practitioner 
     deems pertinent to an evaluation of the adverse reaction;
       (4) the name, occupation, business address, and business 
     telephone number of the physician;
       (5) the name of the unapproved drug or medical device and a 
     description of the method of administration and operation, 
     dosage, and duration of treatment;
       (6) the lot number, if any, of the unapproved drug or 
     medical device; and
       (7) an affidavit pursuant to section 1746 of title 28, 
     United States Code, confirming that all statements made to 
     the manufacturer are accurate.
       (b) Manufacturer's Duty To Report.--Any manufacturer of an 
     unapproved drug or medical device that receives information 
     provided under subsection (a) shall immediately--
       (1) cease sale and distribution of the unapproved drug or 
     medical device pending completion of an investigation to 
     determine the actual cause of the danger;
       (2) notify all health care practitioners to whom the 
     manufacturer has provided the unapproved drug or medical 
     device of the information provided to the manufacturer under 
     subsection (a); and
       (3) report to the Secretary in writing that an unapproved 
     drug or medical device (identified by name, known method of 
     operation, unit dose, and intended use) that the manufacturer 
     provided to a health care practitioner for administration 
     under this Act has been reported to be a danger to a patient 
     and confirming that the manufacturer--
       (A) has ceased sale and distribution of the unapproved drug 
     or medical device pending completion of an investigation to 
     determine the actual cause of the danger; and
       (B) has notified health care practitioners to which the 
     unapproved drug or medical device has been sent of the 
     information it has received.
       (c) Investigation.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, upon receipt of the information 
     described in subsection (a), shall conduct an investigation 
     of the unapproved drug or medical device that a health care 
     practitioner has determined to cause a danger to a patient in 
     order to make a determination of the actual cause of such 
     danger.
       (2) Report to Secretary.--The Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention shall prepare and submit a 
     report to the Secretary regarding the determination made 
     under paragraph (1), including a determination concerning 
     whether the unapproved drug or medical device is or is not 
     the actual cause of danger or whether the actual cause of 
     danger cannot be determined.
       (3) Duty of Secretary.--Upon receipt of the report 
     described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
       (A) if the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention determines that the cause of such danger is the 
     unapproved drug or medical device, direct the manufacturer of 
     such drug or medical device to--
       (i) cease manufacture, sale, and distribution of such drug 
     or medical device; and
       (ii) notify all health care practitioners to whom the 
     manufacturer has provided such drug or medical device to 
     cease using or recommending such drug or medical device, and 
     to return such drug or medical device to the manufacturer as 
     part of a complete recall;
       (B) if the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention determines that the cause of such danger is not 
     such drug or medical device, direct the manufacturer of such 
     drug or medical device to inform all health care 
     practitioners to whom the manufacturer has provided such drug 
     or medical device of such a determination; and
       (C) if the Director of the Centers of Disease Control and 
     Prevention cannot determine the cause of the danger, direct 
     the manufacturer of the drug or medical device to inform all 
     health care practitioners to whom the manufacturer has 
     provided such drug or medical device of such a determination.
       (d) Secretary's Duty To Inform.--Upon receipt of the report 
     described in subsection (b)(3), the Secretary shall promptly 
     disseminate information concerning the danger to all health 
     care practitioners in the United States, to the Director of 
     the National Center for Complementary and Alternative 
     Medicine, and to agencies of the States that have 
     responsibility for regulating unsafe or adulterated drugs and 
     medical devices.

     SEC. 5. REPORTING OF RESULTS OF UNAPPROVED DRUGS AND MEDICAL 
                   DEVICES.

       (a) Reporting of Results.--If a health care practitioner 
     provides or administers an unapproved drug or medical device, 
     that in the opinion of the health care practitioner, produces 
     results that are more beneficial than results produced from 
     any drug or medical device approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration, or produces other results regarding the 
     effectiveness of the treatment relative to treatments 
     approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the same 
     condition, the practitioner shall provide to the 
     manufacturer--
       (1) the results of the administration of the drug or 
     device;
       (2) a written evaluation of the patient's medical condition 
     before and after administration of the unapproved drug or 
     medical device;
       (3) the name, occupation, business address, and business 
     telephone number of the physician;
       (4) the name of the unapproved drug or medical device and a 
     description of the method of operation and administration, 
     dosing, and duration of treatment; and
       (5) an affidavit pursuant to section 1746 of title 28, 
     United States Code, confirming that all statements made to 
     the manufacturer are accurate.
       (b) Manufacturer's Duty To Report.--Any manufacturer of an 
     unapproved drug or medical device that receives information 
     under subsection (a) shall provide to the Director of the 
     National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine--
       (1) a complete copy of the information;
       (2) the name, business address, and business telephone 
     number of the manufacturer;
       (3) the name, business address, and business telephone 
     number of the health care practitioner who supplied 
     information to the manufacturer;
       (4) the name of the unapproved drug or medical device;
       (5) the known method of operation and administration of the 
     unapproved drug or medical device;
       (6) the per unit dose; and
       (7) the intended use of the unapproved drug or medical 
     device.
       (c) Director's Duty To Make Public.--The Director of the 
     National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine 
     shall review and analyze information received pursuant to 
     subsection (b) about an unapproved

[[Page S14809]]

     drug or medical device and make available, on an Internet 
     website and in writing upon request by any individual, an 
     annual review and analysis of such information, and include a 
     statement that such drug or medical device is not approved by 
     the Food and Drug Administration.

     SEC. 6. OTHER LAWS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ACT.

       This Act shall not be construed to have any effect on 
     section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 353a) nor does this Act supersede any law of a State 
     or political subdivision of a State, including laws governing 
     rights and duties among health care practitioners and 
     patients. This Act shall also not apply to statements or 
     claims permitted or authorized under sections 403 and 403B of 
     such Act (21 U.S.C. 343, 343-2). This Act shall not in any 
     way adversely affect the distribution and marketing of 
     vitamins and supplements.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS.

       (a) Introduction in Interstate Commerce.--To the extent 
     necessary to comply with this Act, a health care practitioner 
     may--
       (1) introduce an unapproved drug or medical device into 
     interstate commerce;
       (2) deliver an unapproved drug or medical device for 
     introduction into such commerce;
       (3) transport an unapproved drug or medical device in such 
     commerce;
       (4) receive an unapproved drug or medical device in such 
     commerce and deliver the unapproved drug or medical device; 
     and
       (5) hold an unapproved drug or medical device for sale 
     after shipment of the unapproved drug or medical device in 
     such commerce.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--This Act shall not be construed 
     to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care 
     practitioner to prescribe, recommend, provide or administer 
     to a patient for any condition or disease any unapproved drug 
     or medical device lawful under the law of the State or States 
     in which the health care practitioner practices.

     SEC. 8. PENALTY.

       A health care practitioner or manufacturer found to have 
     knowingly violated this Act shall be denied coverage under 
     this Act.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Daschle today 
for the introduction of the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This bill 
will allow greater freedom of choice and increased access in the realm 
of medical treatments, while preventing abuses of unscrupulous 
entrepreneurs. The Access to Medical Treatment Act allows individual 
patients and their properly licensed health care provider to use 
certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
  Mr. President, we have made several important changes to the 
legislation from last Congress.
  We have improved the informed consent protections for patients by 
modeling them after the NIH's human subject protection regulations. The 
patient must be fully informed, orally and in writing of: the nature, 
content and methods of the medical treatment; that the treatment is not 
approved by the FDA; the anticipated benefits AND risks of the 
treatment; any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result; the 
results of past applications of the treatment by the health care 
provider and others; the comparable benefits and risks of any available 
FDA-approved treatment conventionally used for the patient's condition; 
and any financial interest the provider has in the product.
  Providers and manufacturers are required to report to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) any adverse effects, and must 
immediately cease use and manufacture of the product, pending a CDC 
investigation. The CDC is required to conduct an investigation of any 
adverse effects, and if the product is shown to cause any danger to 
patients, the physician and manufacturers are required to immediately 
inform all providers who have been using the product of the danger.
  Our legislation ensures the public's access to reliable information 
about complementary and alternative therapies by requiring providers 
and manufacturers to report the results of the use of their product to 
the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at NIH, 
which is then required to compile and analyze the information for an 
annual report.
  In addition, the provider and manufacturer may make no advertising 
claims regarding the safety and effectiveness of the treatment of 
therapy, and FDA has the authority to determine that the labeling of 
the treatment is not false or misleading.
  Mr. President, this legislation preserves the consumer's freedom to 
choose alternative therapies while addressing the fundamental concern 
of protecting patients from dangerous treatments and those who would 
advocate unsafe and ineffective therapies.
  It wasn't long ago that William Roentgen was afraid to publish his 
discovery of X-rays as a diagnostic tool. He knew they would be 
considered an ``alternative medical practice'' and widely rejected by 
the medical establishment. As everyone knows, X-rays are a common 
diagnostic tool today. Well into this century, many scientists resisted 
basic antiseptic techniques as quackery because they refused to accept 
the germ theory of disease. I think we can all be thankful the medical 
profession came around on that one.
  In addition, the Office of Technology Assessment reported in a 1978 
study that only about 25 percent of the practices of mainstream 
medicine were based on scientific evidence. And there is little 
evidence that has changed in the past two decades.
  Today's consumers want alternatives. They want less invasive, less 
expensive preventive options. Americans want to stay healthy. And they 
are speaking with their feet and their pocketbooks. Mr. President, 
Americans spend $30 billion annually on unconventional therapies. 
According to a recent survey published in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association (JAMA), nearly one-half of Americans use some kind 
of complementary and alternative medicine. These practices, which range 
from acupuncture, to chiropractic care, to naturopathic, herbal and 
homeopathic remedies, are not simply complementary and alternative, but 
integral to how millions of Americans manage their health and treat 
their illnesses.
  This legislation simply provides patients the freedom to use--with 
strong consumer protections--the complementary and alternative 
therapies and treatments that have the potential to relieve pain and 
cure disease. I thank Senator Daschle for his leadership on this issue, 
and urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 1956. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the 
assurance of efficiency, quality, and patient satisfaction in the 
furnishing of health care to veterans by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


             The Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance Act

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans 
Health Care Quality Assurance Act of 1999.
  This legislation contains a number of proposals designed to ensure 
that access to high quality medical services for our veterans is not 
compromised as the Department of Veterans Affairs--the VA--strives to 
increase efficiency in its nationwide network of veterans hospitals.
  Mr. President, the VA administers the largest health care network in 
the U.S., including 172 hospitals, 73 home care programs, over 800 
community-based outpatient clinics, and numerous other specialized care 
facilities.
  Moreover, there are approximately 25 million veterans in the U.S., 
including approximately 19.3 million wartime veterans, and the number 
of veterans seeking medical care in VA hospitals is increasing. The 
FY99 VA medical care caseload was projected to increase by 160,000 
veterans over the FY98 level, and is projected to increase by an 
additional 54,000 in FY00, reaching a total of 3.6 million veterans, an 
increase from 2.7 million in FY97. In FY00, outpatient visits at VA 
medical facilities are projected to increase by 2.5 million to 38.3 
million. The average age of veterans is increasing as well, and this is 
expected to result in additional demands for health care services, 
including more frequent and long-term health needs.
  The VA is attempting to meet this unprecedented demand for health 
care services without substantial increases in funding, largely through 
efforts to increase efficiency. Not surprisingly, these seemingly 
competing objectives are generating serious concerns about the 
possibility that quality of care and/or patient satisfaction are being 
sacrificed.
  Mr. President, many VA regional networks and medical center directors 
report that timely access to high quality health care is being 
jeopardized,

[[Page S14810]]

and that is why I am introducing the Veterans Health Care Quality 
Assurance Act, legislation which seeks to ensure that no veteran's 
hospital is targeted unfairly for cuts, and that efforts to 
``streamline'' and increase efficiency are not followed by the 
unintended consequence of undermining quality of care or patient 
satisfaction.
  I believe that all veterans hospitals should be held to the same 
equitable VA-wide standards, and that quality and satisfaction must be 
guaranteed. Toward that end, the Veterans Health Care Quality Assurance 
Act calls for audits of every VA hospital every three years. This will 
ensure that each facility is subject to an outside, independent review 
of its operations on a regular basis, and each audit will include 
findings on how to improve services to our veterans.
  The legislation will also establish an Office of Quality Assurance 
within the VA to ensure that steps taken to increase efficiency in VA 
medical programs do not undermine quality or patient satisfaction. This 
office will collect and disseminate information on efforts that have 
proven to successfully increase efficiency and resource utilization 
without undermining quality or patient satisfaction. The director of 
this new Office of Quality Assurance should be an advocate for veterans 
and would be placed in the appropriate position in the VA command 
structure to ensure that he or she is consulted by the VA Secretary and 
Under Secretary for Veterans Health on matters that impact quality or 
satisfaction.
  The bill would require an initial report to Congress within six 
months of enactment, which would include a survey of each VA regional 
network and a report on each network's efforts to increase efficiency, 
as well as an assessment of the extent to which each network and VA 
hospital is or is not implementing the same uniform, VA-wide policies 
to increase efficiency.
  Under the bill's reporting requirement, the VA would also be required 
to publish--annually--an overview of VA-wide efficiency goals and 
quality/satisfaction standards that each veterans facility should be 
held to. Further, the VA would be required to report to Congress on 
each hospital's standing in relation to efficiency, quality, and 
satisfaction criteria, and how each facility compares to the VA-wide 
average.

  In an effort to encourage innovation in efforts to increase 
efficiency within the agency, the bill would encourage the 
dissemination and sharing of information throughout the VA in order to 
facilitate implementation of uniform, equitable efficiency standards.
  Finally, Mr. President, the bill includes provisions calling for 
sharing of information on efforts to maximize resources and increase 
efficiency without compromising quality of care and patient 
satisfaction; exchange and mentoring initiatives among and between 
networks in order to facilitate sharing of such information; incentives 
for networks to increase efficiency and meet uniform quality/patient 
satisfaction targets; and formal oversight by the VA to ensure that all 
networks are meeting uniform efficiency criteria and that efforts to 
increase efficiency are equitable between networks and medical 
facilities.
  Last week America celebrated Veterans Day 1999--81 years after the 
Armistice was signed in France that silenced the guns and ended the 
carnage of World War I. World War I was supposed to be ``the war to end 
all wars'' . . . the war that made the world safe for democracy. Sadly, 
that was not to be, and America has been repeatedly reminded that the 
defense of democracy is an on-going duty.
  Mr. President, keeping our promise to our veterans is also an ongoing 
duty. The debt of gratitude we owe to our veterans can never be fully 
repaid. What we can and must do for our veterans is repay the financial 
debt we owe to them. Central to that solemn duty is ensuring that the 
benefits we promised our veterans when they enlisted are there for them 
when they need them.
  I consider it a great honor to represent veterans, these brave 
Americans. So many of them continue to make contributions in our 
communities upon their transition from military to civilian life--
through youth activities and scholarship programs, homeless assistance 
initiatives, efforts to reach out to fellow veterans in need, and 
national leadership on issues of importance to veterans and all 
Americans. The least we can do is make good on our promise, such as the 
promise of access to high quality health care.
  I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who have served their 
country, and this legislation is but a small tribute to the men and 
women and their families who have served this country with courage, 
honor and distinction. They answered the call to duty when their 
country needed them, and this is a component of my on-going effort to 
ensure that we, as elected officials, answer their call when they need 
us.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1958. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to authorize 
the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants for startup costs of school 
breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


  LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will go 
far in helping children start their school day ready to learn.
  The relationship between a healthy breakfast and both behavior and 
academic achievement has been documented by a number of studies. 
Fortunately, participation of schools in the School Breakfast program 
has increased steadily since the program was made permanent in 1975. 
According to the School Breakfast Scorecard, a report recently released 
by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a record number of 
schools--70,000--provided breakfast to school children last year. And 
nearly half of our states have 80 percent or more of their schools 
serving both lunch and breakfast under the National School Lunch and 
School Breakfast programs.
  That's good news. The bad news is that the gulf between states with 
the highest rates of school participation in breakfast and those with 
the lowest is wide. 20 percent of our states have fewer than 55 percent 
of their schools participating in both breakfast and lunch; that's a 
full 20 points below the national average. In my home state of 
Wisconsin, only 30 percent of the schools that serve lunch also serve 
breakfast.
  By another measure--participation of low-income children in both 
school lunch and breakfast--the results from the Scorecard are equally 
concerning. Nationally, only 42 percent of the kids receiving a free or 
reduced price lunch are also receiving breakfast; some states have 
fewer than 25 percent of kids receiving a free or reduced price lunch 
also receiving school breakfast.
  The bill I am introducing today would help states provide an 
additional financial incentive for schools to participate in the school 
breakfast program. While there are a number of reasons that schools do 
not offer their children a school breakfast, certainly the barrier most 
difficult to overcome is the cost of the meals throughout the year. In 
short, the cost of the school breakfast program may simply be too high 
for some schools and school districts.
  My bill authorizes, subject to appropriations, grants from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow states to provide schools 
with an additional five cent per meal reimbursement during the first 
year in which they provide the school breakfast program. This 
additional reimbursement may be used to supplement both the existing 
federal per meal reimbursement and any additional per meal 
reimbursement provided by the state. To ensure that the grants are as 
effective as possible they are targeted to those states with poor 
school breakfast participation rates and that also have a program in 
place to promote school breakfast participation. State educational 
agencies will have the discretion to determine, based on participation 
rates, which schools or school districts will receive the supplemental 
assistance.
  Providing a nutritious breakfast is the first step in ensuring that 
kids are ready to learn when they sit down at their desks each morning. 
The legislation I am introducing will go far in helping states and 
schools reach that goal and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

[[Page S14811]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation and letters of support for my bill from Wisconsin State 
Superintendent John Benson and Wisconsin School Food Service 
Association President Renee Slotten-Beauchamp be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1958

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

     SECTION 1. FINANCIAL INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFAST 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1773) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Startup Grants for School Breakfast Programs.--
       ``(1) Definition of eligible school.--In this subsection, 
     the term `eligible school' means a school that agrees to 
     operate the school breakfast program established with the 
     assistance provided under this subsection for a period of not 
     less than 3 years.
       ``(2) Grants.--The Secretary may make grants to State 
     educational agencies, from funds made available to the 
     Secretary, for a fiscal year, to assist eligible schools in 
     initiating school breakfast programs.
       ``(3) Payment rates.--A State educational agency shall use 
     grants made available under this subsection during the first 
     fiscal year an eligible school initiates a school breakfast 
     program--
       ``(A) to increase by not more than 5 cents the annually 
     adjusted payment for each breakfast served by the eligible 
     school; or
       ``(B) to assist eligible schools with non-recurring 
     expenses incurred in initiating school breakfast programs.
       ``(4) Funds supplementary.--A grant under this subsection 
     shall supplement any payment to which a State educational 
     agency is entitled under subsection (b).
       ``(5) Plan.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     subsection, a State educational agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary a plan to initiate school breakfast programs 
     conducted in the State, including a description of the manner 
     in which the State educational agency shall provide technical 
     assistance and funding to eligible schools in the State to 
     initiate the programs.
       ``(6) State educational agency preferences.--In making a 
     grant under this subsection for a fiscal year to initiate 
     school breakfast programs, the Secretary shall provide a 
     preference to a State educational agency that--
       ``(A) has in effect a State law that promotes the expansion 
     of State participation in the school breakfast program during 
     the year;
       ``(B) has significant public or private resources that will 
     be used to carry out the expansion of the school breakfast 
     program during the year;
       ``(C)(i) has not more than 55 percent of schools in the 
     State that are participating in the school lunch program also 
     participating in the school breakfast program; or
       ``(ii) has not more than 30 percent of the students in the 
     State receiving free or reduced price lunch also receiving 
     free or reduced price breakfasts; and
       ``(D) serves an unmet need among low-income children, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(7) Reallocation.--The Secretary shall act in a timely 
     manner to recover and reallocate to other State educational 
     agencies or States any amount made available to a State 
     educational agency or State under this subsection that is not 
     used by the agency or State within a reasonable period (as 
     determined by the Secretary).
       ``(8) Application.--The Secretary shall allow application 
     by State educational agencies on an annual basis for grants 
     under this subsection.
       ``(9) Preferences by state educational agencies and 
     states.--In allocating funds within the State, each State 
     educational agency shall give preference for assistance under 
     this subsection to an eligible school that demonstrates the 
     greatest need for assistance for a school breakfast program, 
     based on the percentage of children not participating in the 
     school breakfast program, as determined by the State 
     educational agency.
       ``(10) Maintenance of effort.--The expenditure of funds 
     from State and local sources for the maintenance of the 
     school breakfast program shall not be diminished as a result 
     of grants made available under this subsection.''.
                                  ____

                                               State of Wisconsin,


                             Department of Public Instruction,

                                    Madison, WI, November 5, 1999.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     US Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl:
       This letter is in support of your proposed amendment for 
     Startup Grants for School Breakfast Programs. I believe this 
     legislation will provide an essential incentive for schools 
     to implement a School Breakfast Program (SBP). Understanding 
     that breakfast is an important component for academic 
     achievement as well as the health of our nation's children, I 
     am very concerned with Wisconsin's low participation in the 
     SBP.
       The federal startup grants for SBP will enhance the many 
     public and private efforts within our state to increase the 
     number of schools offering breakfast. Our state legislature 
     has supported my budget initiative for a ten cents per 
     breakfast reimbursement, effective in fiscal year 2001. 
     Statewide public and nonpublic collaborative initiatives to 
     promote the importance of breakfast include the Good 
     Breakfast for Good Learning Breakfast Awareness Campaign, now 
     in its third year. Public and private hunger prevention 
     coalitions are actively promoting school breakfast. 
     Professional organizations, such the Wisconsin School Food 
     Service Association and the Wisconsin Dietetic Association 
     have taken a lead in school breakfast promotion efforts.
       However, the bottom line is that schools cannot absorb 
     financial loss in the Child Nutrition Programs. Fear that the 
     SBP will have a negative impact on the school district's 
     general fund has been detrimental to the promotional efforts 
     identified above. The startup grants for SBP will help 
     alleviate those fears and allow the children in this state to 
     have access to a nourishing breakfast at the start of the 
     school day.
       I would like to commend your efforts to help the children 
     in this state and the nation reach their full potential 
     through promotion of School Breakfast Program.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John T. Benson,
     State Superintendent.
                                  ____

                                                  Wisconsin School


                                     Food Service Association,

                                                November 17, 1999.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl:
       This letter is in support of your proposed amendment for 
     Startup Grants for School Breakfast Programs.
       The Wisconsin School Food Service Association with its 1700 
     members, along with other allied associations have been 
     working to increase the number of schools in Wisconsin 
     offering breakfast. We understand the connection between good 
     nutrition at breakfast and academic achievement. We see 
     first-hand how difficult it is for a hungry child to 
     concentrate on learning.
       The federal startup grants for School Breakfast Programs 
     will help our efforts to expand school breakfast 
     participation. A real concern for many school districts is 
     the cost of implementing and maintaining the program. During 
     the 1997-98 school year Wisconsin schools lost an average of 
     $0.23 per breakfast served. Our association believes school 
     food and nutrition programs deserve adequate funding and 
     reasonable regulations to help maintain financial integrity 
     and nutritional quality of meals. As a commitment to the 
     children of Wisconsin we made state funding for school 
     Breakfast Programs a high legislative priority this year. Our 
     state legislature recently supported a ten-cent per breakfast 
     reimbursement, which will be in effect for the fiscal year 
     2001. Federal Startup Grants would help districts implement 
     school Breakfast Programs.
       The Wisconsin School Food Service Association feels the 
     children of Wisconsin and the nation deserve every 
     educational opportunity to reach their full potential. School 
     breakfast is one of those opportunities.
       Our association commends you for your efforts to expand 
     School Breakfast.
           Sincerely,
                                Renee Slotten-Beauchamp R.D., D.C.
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1959. A bill to provide for the fiscal responsibility of the 
Federal Government; to the Committee on Finance.


                     the fiscal responsibility act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today as we are debating how to protect 
Social Security and Medicare while making necessary investments in our 
nation's future, I am introducing legislation designed to provide some 
options for reducing spending. In an effort to promote greater fiscal 
responsibility within the federal government, ``The Fiscal 
Responsibility Act'' would eliminate special interest tax loopholes, 
reduce corporate welfare, eliminate unnecessary government programs, 
reduce wasteful spending, enhance government efficiency and require 
greater accountability.
  The reforms contained in this bill would result in savings of up to 
$20 billion this year and up to $140 billion over the next five years. 
These savings could be used to pay down the federal debt, shore up 
Social Security and Medicare, provide middle-class tax relief, and/or 
pay for needed investment in education, health care and other 
priorities.
  While I recognize that everyone won't agree on each of the provisions 
of this measure, I believe it is important for us to put forward 
options to be considered. I hope that we can work together on a 
bipartisan basis to produce a set of reforms such as these to lay a 
path of fiscal responsibility as we move into the next century.
  The following is a summary of the bill's major provisions:
  Elimination of Unnecessary Government Programs.

[[Page S14812]]

  A number of outdated or unnecessary programs would be eliminated, 
including Radio Marti, TV Marti and certain nuclear energy research 
initiatives. These changes would save over $150 million this year.
  Reduction of Wasteful Spending and Government Efficiency 
Improvements.
  $13 billion a year is lost to Medicare waste and abuse. This would be 
substantially reduced through a series of comprehensive reforms. In 
addition, taxpayer support for the cost of certain nuclear energy 
lobbying activities would be eliminated.
  A number of common sense steps would be implemented to improve the 
efficiency of government activities.
  Spending by government agencies on travel, printing, supplies and 
other items would be frozen at 1998 levels. This change would save $2.8 
billion this year and about $12 billion over 5 years.

  Pentagon spending would be tied to the rate of inflation. This would 
force the Pentagon to reduce duplication and other inefficiencies 
identified by government auditors and outside experts. This change 
would save taxpayers $9.2 billion this year and approximately $69 
billion over the next 5 years.
  Enhancing the government's ability to collect student loan defaults 
would save taxpayers $892 million this year and $1 billion over five 
years.
  Eliminating Special Interest Tax Loopholes and Give-Aways.
  Tobacco use causes 400,000 deaths a year and costs taxpayers billions 
in preventable health care costs. And, yet, taxpayers are forced to 
cough up about $2 billion a year to subsidize the advertising and 
marketing of this deadly product. The tax deductibility of tobacco 
promotion would be ended and these funds would be saved.
  A loophole that allows estates valued above $10 million to elude 
taxation would be closed.
  The federal government allows mining companies to extract minerals 
from federally-owned lands at an actual cost of pennies on the dollar. 
This special interest giveaway would be ended, saving taxpayers $750 
million over the next five years.
  American citizens temporarily working in foreign countries can earn 
up to $70,000 without paying any U.S. taxes. This unfair provision 
would be eliminated, bringing in an estimated $15.7 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  A foreign tax credit that allows big oil and gas companies to escape 
paying their fair share for royalties would be limited. This common 
sense change would generate $3.1 billion over 5 years to reduce the 
debt our kids and grandkids will inherit.
  Increased Accountability.
  Tobacco companies hook 3,000 children a day on their deadly products. 
One in three of these kids will be sentenced to an early death. Tobacco 
companies should be held accountable. Accordingly, a goal of reducing 
teen smoking by at least 15 percent each year would be set. If tobacco 
companies fail to meet this goal, they would have to pay a penalty. 
Such a system would generate approximately $6 billion this year and $20 
billion over the next 5 years. It would also significantly reduce the 
number of young children who become addicted to tobacco.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review the provisions in this 
bill and look forward to moving forward next year on a fiscally 
responsible budget plan.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1960. A bill to provide for the appointment of 1 additional 
Federal district judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


          the federal judgeship for northeastern wisconsin act

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal 
Judgeship for Northeastern Wisconsin Act of 1999. This bill would 
create one additional judgeship in the eastern district of Wisconsin 
and seat it in Green Bay, at the center of a region in desperate need 
of a district court. Let me explain how an additional judgeship could 
alleviate the stress that the current system places on business, law 
enforcement agents, witnesses, victims and individual litigants in 
northeastern Wisconsin.
  First, while the four full-time district court judges for the eastern 
district of Wisconsin currently preside in Milwaukee, for most 
litigants and witnesses in northeastern Wisconsin, Milwaukee is well 
over 100 miles away. In fact, as the courts are currently arranged, the 
northern portion of the eastern district is more remote from a Federal 
court than any other major population center, commercial or industrial, 
in the United States. Thus, litigants and witnesses must incur 
substantial costs in traveling from northern Wisconsin to Milwaukee--
costs in terms of time, money, resources, and effort. Indeed, driving 
from Green Bay to Milwaukee takes nearly two hours each way. Add 
inclement weather or a departure point north of Green Bay--such as 
Oconto or Marinette--and often the driving time alone actually exceeds 
the amount of time witnesses spend testifying.
  Second, Mr. President, the few Wisconsin Federal judges serve a 
disproportionately large population. Last year, I commissioned a study 
by the General Accounting Office which revealed that Wisconsin Federal 
judges have to serve the highest population among all federal judges. 
Each sitting Federal judge in Wisconsin serves an average population of 
859,966, while the remaining federal judges across the country--more 
than 650--serve less than half that number, with an average of 417,000 
per judge. For example, while Louisiana has fewer residents than 
Wisconsin, it has 22 Federal judges, nearly four times as many as our 
state.
  Third, Mr. President, Federal crimes remain unacceptably high in 
northeastern Wisconsin. These crimes range from bank robbery and 
kidnaping to Medicare and Medicaid fraud. However, without the 
appropriate judicial resources, a crackdown on Federal crimes in the 
upper part of the state will be made enormously more difficult. 
Additionally, under current law, the Federal Government is required to 
prosecute all felonies committed by Indians that occur on the Menominee 
Reservation. The reservation's distance from the Federal prosecutors 
and courts--more than 150 miles--makes these prosecutions problematic. 
And because the Justice Department compensates attorneys, investigators 
and sometimes witnesses for travel expenses, the existing system costs 
all of us. Without an additional judge in Green Bay, the administration 
of justice, as well as the public's pocketbook, will suffer enormously.
  Fourth, many manufacturing and retail companies are located in 
northeastern Wisconsin. These companies often require a Federal court 
to litigate complex price-fixing, contract, and liability disputes with 
out-of-State businesses. But the sad truth is that many of these 
legitimate cases are never even filed --precisely because the northern 
part of the State lacks a Federal court. Mr. President, this hurts 
businesses not only in Wisconsin, but across the Nation.
  Fifth, the creation of an additional judgeship in the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin is justified based on caseload. The Judicial 
Conference, the administrative and statistical arm of the Federal 
judiciary, makes biannual recommendations to Congress regarding the 
necessity of additional judgeships using a system of weighted filings--
that is, the total number of cases modified by the average level of 
case complexity. In the Judicial Conference's most recent 
recommendations, new positions were justified where a district's 
workload exceeded 435 weighted filings per judge. Such high caseloads 
are common in the eastern district of Wisconsin, peaking in 1996 with 
an overwhelming 453 weighted filings. On this basis, an additional 
judgeship for the eastern district of Wisconsin is warranted.

  Mr. President, our legislation is simple, effective and 
straightforward. It creates an additional judgeship for the eastern 
district, requires that one judge hold court in Green Bay, and gives 
the chief judge of the eastern district flexibility to designate which 
judge holds court there. And this legislation would increase the number 
of Federal district judges in Wisconsin for the first time since 1978. 
During that period, nearly 150 new Federal district judgeships have 
been created nationwide, but not a single one in Wisconsin.
  And don't take my word for it, Mr. President, ask the people who 
would be most affected: since 1994, each and every sheriff and district 
attorney in northeastern Wisconsin has urged me to create a Federal 
district court in

[[Page S14813]]

Green Bay. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from these law 
enforcement officials be included in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. 
Attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, Tom Schneider, also be 
included. This letter expressed the support of the entire Federal law 
enforcement community in Wisconsin--including the FBI, the DEA and the 
BATF--for the legislation we are introducing. They needed this 
additional judicial resource in 1994, and certainly, Mr. President, 
that need has only increased over the last five years.
  Perhaps most important, the people of Green Bay also agree on the 
need for an additional Federal judge, as the endorsement of our 
proposal by the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce demonstrates.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, having a Federal judge in Green Bay 
will reduce costs and inconvenience while increasing judicial 
efficiency. But most important, it will help ensure that justice is 
more available and more affordable to the people of northeastern 
Wisconsin. For these sensible reasons, I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation, either separately or as part of an omnibus judgeship 
bill that I hope Congress will consider next session. The Judicial 
Conference has recommended the creation of over 60 new judgeships, yet 
not one has been created since 1990. Should such a bill be considered, 
I will be right there to ensure that Northeastern Wisconsin is 
included.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1960

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Judgeship for 
     Northeastern Wisconsin Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN 
                   DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district 
     judge for the eastern district of Wisconsin.
       (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     133(a) of title 28, United States Code, reflects the change 
     in the total number of permanent district judgeships 
     authorized under subsection (a), such table is amended by 
     amending the item relating to Wisconsin to read as follows:

``Wisconsin:
    ``Eastern....................................................5 ....

    ``Western..................................................2''.....

       (c) Holding of Court.--The chief judge of the eastern 
     district of Wisconsin shall designate 1 judge who shall hold 
     court for such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act, including such sums as may 
     be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for 
     the judicial position created by this Act.
                                  ____

                                                   August 8, 1994.
     U.S Senator Herb Kohl,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: We are writing to urge your support for 
     the creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. The 
     Eastern District of Wisconsin includes the 28 eastern-most 
     counties from Forest and Florence Counties in the north to 
     Kenosha and Walworth Counties in the south.
       Green Bay is central to the northern part of the district 
     which includes approximately one third of the district's 
     population. Currently, all Federal District Judges hold court 
     in Milwaukee.
       A federal court in Green Bay would make federal proceedings 
     much more accessible to the people of northern Wisconsin and 
     would alleviate many problems for citizens and law 
     enforcement. Travel time of 3 or 4 hours each way makes it 
     difficult and expensive for witnesses and officers to go to 
     court in Milwaukee. Citizen witnesses are often reluctant to 
     travel back and forth to Milwaukee. It often takes a whole 
     day to travel to come to court and testify for a few minutes. 
     Any lengthy testimony requires an inconvenient and costly 
     overnight stay in Milwaukee. Sending officers is costly and 
     takes substantial amounts of travel time, thereby reducing 
     the number of officers available on the street. Many cases 
     are simply never referred to federal court because of this 
     cost and inconvenience.
       In some cases there is no alternative. For example, the 
     Federal government has the obligation to prosecute all felony 
     offenses committed by Indians on the Menominee Reservation. 
     Yet the Reservation's distance from the Federal Courts and 
     prosecutors in Milwaukee poses serious problems. Imagine the 
     District Attorney of Milwaukee being located in Keshena or 
     Green Bay or Marinette and trying to coordinate witness 
     interviews, case preparation, and testimony.
       As local law enforcement officials, we try to work closely 
     with other local, state and federal agencies, and we believe 
     establishing a Federal District Court in Green Bay will 
     measurably enhance these efforts. Most important, a Federal 
     Court in Green Bay will make these courts substantially more 
     accessible to the citizens who live here.
       We urge you to introduce and support legislation to create 
     and fund an additional Federal District Court in Green Bay.
       Gary Robert Bruno, Shawano and Menominee County District 
     Attorney.
       Jay Conley, Oconto County District Attorney.
       John DesJardins, Outagamie County District Attorney.
       Douglas Drexler, Florence County District Attorney.
       Guy Dutcher, Waushara County District Attorney.
       E. James FitzGerald, Manitowoc County District Attorney.
       Kenneth Kratz, Calumet County District Attorney.
       Jackson Main, Jr., Kewaunee County District Attorney.
       David Miron, Marinette County District Attorney.
       Joseph Paulas, Winnebago County District Attorney.
       Gary Schuster, Door County District Attorney.
       John Snider, Waupaca County District Attorney.
       Ralph Uttke, Langlade County District Attorney.
       Demetrio Verich, Forest County District Attorney.
       John Zakowski, Brown County District Attorney.
       William Aschenbrener, Shawano County Sheriff.
       Charles Brann, Door County Sheriff.
       Todd Chaney, Kewaunee County Sheriff.
       Michael Donart, Brown County Sheriff.
       Patrick Fox, Waushare County Sheriff.
       Bradley Gehring, Outagamie County Sheriff.
       Daniel Gillis, Calumet County Sheriff.
       James Kanikula, Marinette County Sheriff.
       Norman Knoll, Forest County Sheriff.
       Thomas Kocourek, Manitowoc County Sheriff.
       Robert Kraus, Winnebago County Sheriff.
       William Mork, Waupaca County Sheriff.
       Jeffrey Rickaby, Florence County Sheriff.
       David Steger, Langlade County Sheriff.
       Kenneth Woodworth, Oconto County Sheriff.
       Richard Awonhopay, Chief, Menominee Tribal Police.
       Richard Brey, Chief of Police, Manitowoc.
       Patrick Campbell, Chief of Police, Kaukauna.
       James Danforth, Chief of Police, Oneida Public Safety.
       Donald Forcey, Chief of Police, Neenah.
       David Gorski, Chief of Police, Appleton.
       Robert Langan, Chief of Police, Green Bay.
       Michael Lien, Chief of Police, Two Rivers.
       Mike Nordin, Chief of Police, Sturgeon Bay.
       Patrick Ravet, Chief of Police, Marinette.
       Robert Stanke, Chief of Police, Menasha.
       Don Thaves, Chief of Police, Shawano.
       James Thorne, Chief of Police, Oshkosh.
                                  ____



                                   U.S. Department of Justice,

                                    Milwaukee, WI, August 9, 1994.
     To: The District Attorney's, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs 
         Urging the Creation of a Federal District Court in Green 
         Bay.
     From: Thomas P. Schneider, United States Attorney, Eastern 
         District of Wisconsin.
       Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1994, urging the 
     creation of a Federal District Court in Green Bay. You point 
     out a number of facts in your letter:
       (1) Although 1/3 of the population of the Eastern District 
     of Wisconsin is in the northern part of the district, all of 
     the Federal District Courts are located in Milwaukee.
       (2) A federal court in Green Bay would be more accessible 
     to the people of northern Wisconsin. It would substantially 
     reduce witness travel time and expenses, and it would make 
     federal court more accessible and less costly for local law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (3) The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over 
     most felonies committed on the Menominee Reservation, located 
     approximately 3 hours from Milwaukee. The distance to 
     Milwaukee is a particular problem for victims, witnesses, and 
     officers from the Reservation.
       I have discussed this proposal with the chiefs of the 
     federal law enforcement agencies in the Eastern District of 
     Wisconsin, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco and Firearms, Secret Service, U.S. Marshal, U.S. 
     Customs Service, and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal 
     Investigation Division. All express support for such a court 
     and give additional reasons why it is needed.
       Over the past several years, the FBI, DEA, and IRS have 
     initiated a substantial number of investigations in the 
     northern half of the district. In preparation for indictments 
     and trials, and when needed to testify before the Grand Jury 
     or in court, officers regularly travel to Milwaukee. Each 
     trip requires 4 to 6 hours of round trip travel per day, plus 
     the actual time in court. In other words, the

[[Page S14814]]

     agencies' already scarce resources are severely taxed. 
     Several federal agencies report that many cases which are 
     appropriate for prosecution are simply not charged federally 
     because local law enforcement agencies do not have the 
     resources to bring these cases and officers back and forth to 
     Milwaukee.
       Nevertheless, there have been a substantial number of 
     successful federal investigations and prosecutions from the 
     Fox Valley area and other parts of the Northern District of 
     Wisconsin including major drug organizations, bank frauds, 
     tax cases, and weapons cases.
       It is interesting to note that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 
     the Eastern District of Wisconsin holds hearings in Green 
     Bay, Manitowoc, and Oshkosh, all in the northern half of the 
     district. For the past four years approximately 29 percent of 
     all bankruptcy filings in the district were in these three 
     locations.
       In addition, we continue to prosecute most felonies 
     committed on the Menominee Reservation. Yet, the 
     Reservation's distance from the federal courts in Milwaukee 
     poses serious problems. A federal court in Green Bay is 
     critically important if the federal government is to live up 
     to its moral and legal obligation to enforce the law on the 
     Reservation.
       In summary, I appreciate and understand your concerns and I 
     join you in urging the creation of a Federal District Court 
     in Green Bay.

                                          Thomas P. Schneider,

                                           United States Attorney.
                                    Eastern District of Wisconsin.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1961. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the 
number of acres authorized for inclusion in the conservation reserve; 
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


         the conservation reserve program acreage expansion act

 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation which would increase the acreage cap currently in place for 
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) under the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
  CRP continues to be a popular alternative for landowners who wish to 
take a portion of their land out of production for conservation 
purposes. While the program serves a multitude of beneficial purposes, 
there are items of the program that we must continue to work on in 
Congress. As a start, I am introducing companion legislation to 
Congressman Collin Peterson's (D-MN) bill in the House to increase the 
acreage allotted in CRP up to 45 million acres.
  CRP has undergone significant changes as a result of the 1996 Farm 
Bill. Wildlife benefits provided by certain grass species and 
conservation practices are now heavily emphasized in the Environmental 
Benefits Index (EBI) which sets forth eligibility into the program. 
While many of these changes have been welcomed because of the favorable 
effect they have on conservation and the environment, I have some 
concerns with certain requirements farmers face in relation to the EBI 
requirements.
  First, producers with existing CRP contracts that have tracts of land 
accepted for re-enrollment into CRP have indicated that in certain 
cases, they were required to plow under at least half of the existing 
grass stand on those tracts in order to plant new grass seeds to meet 
the EBI criteria. Those participants are concerned this may lead to 
soil erosion instead of soil conservation on tracts that are already 
highly erodible because plowing up half of grass stand exposes that 
land to the unpredictable forces of weather. Moreover, it often 
requires more than one growing season for new grass species to take 
root and establish adequate cover in order to protect habitat. That 
said, both producers and conservationists have expressed concern to me 
that this requirement may place habitat protection in a precarious 
position in some instances. Finally, the costs of seed varieties called 
for in the EBI, especially for native grass species, have skyrocketed 
to a point here it is oftentimes cost-prohibitive for producers to meet 
the requirements of establishing a new grass stand. These and other 
matters I plan to address with the input of all interested parties as 
we proceed with the legislation.
  However, on the whole CRP remains a very popular program in my home 
state of South Dakota and across the country. During the twelve signups 
held between 1986 and 1992, 36.4 million acres were enrolled in CRP. 
USDA estimates that the average erosion rate on enrolled acres was 
reduced from 21 to less than 2 tons per acre per year. Retiring these 
lands also expanded wildlife habitat, enhanced water quality, and 
restored soil. The annual value of these benefits has been estimated 
from less than $1 billion to more than $1.5 billion; some estimates of 
these benefits approach or exceed annual costs, especially in areas of 
heavy participation. While major changes cannot occur to CRP until we 
undertake a renewed effort to change the Farm Bill, I am hopeful that 
Congress reconsider the current Farm Bill in 2000.
  In addition to supporting CRP, I have co-sponsored S. 1426, the 
Conservation Security Act of 1999. This bill creates a voluntary 
incentive program to encourage conservation activities by landowners. 
This bill includes a variety of solid conservation practices that 
landowners may choose from in order to qualify for certain incentives. 
Some of the conservation practices include conservation tillage, runoff 
control, buffer strips, wetland restoration, and wildlife management.
  I believe the Conservation Security Act is a strong piece of 
legislation that would benefit agriculture producers, wildlife, and the 
environment. I will continue to support and work with Senator Harkin in 
seeing this legislation move forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 1962. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses through strengthened 
budgetary enforcement mechanisms; to the Committee on the Budget and 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order 
of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the 
other Committee have 30 days to report or be discharged.


         the social security and Medicare safe deposit box act

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. 1962

       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 ``Social Security and Medicare 
     Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

       (a) Medicare Surpluses Off-Budget.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the net surplus of any trust fund for 
     part A of Medicare shall not be counted as a net surplus for 
     purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President;
       (2) the congressional budget; or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (b) Points of Order to Protect Social Security and Medicare 
     Surpluses.--Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Points of Order To Protect Social Security and 
     Medicare Surpluses.--
       ``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not 
     be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
     consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would 
     set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
       ``(2) Subsequent Legislation.--It shall not be in order in 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 
     report if--
       ``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       ``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       ``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report,
     would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal 
     year.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `on-budget deficit', when applied to a fiscal year, means the 
     deficit in the budget as set forth in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to 
     section 301(a)(3) for that fiscal year.''.
       (c) Content of Concurrent Resolution On The Budget.--
     Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) the receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors

[[Page S14815]]

     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund, combined, established by title II of the Social 
     Security Act;''.
       (d) Super Majority Requirement.--
       (1) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.
       (2) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 11 of subtitle II of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding before section 1101 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 1100. Protection of social security and medicare 
       surpluses

       ``The budget of the United States Government submitted by 
     the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
     budget deficit for any fiscal year covered by that budget.''.
       (b) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     before the item for section 1101 the following:

``1100. Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect upon the date of its enactment 
     and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to fiscal 
     year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1963. A bill to authorize a study of alternatives to the current 
management of certain Federal lands in Arizona; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


  alternatiave land management study for the barry goldwater military 
                             training range

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will require a comprehensive study of alternative land 
management options for areas comprising the Barry Goldwater military 
training range and Organ Pipe National Monument in Arizona.
  Earlier this year, the Congress finalized the Department of Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 which included language to renew 
a land-withdrawal for the Barry Goldwater training range for an 
additional twenty-five years to the year 2024. The final proposal 
transferred land management of the natural and cultural resources 
within the range to the Air Force and the Navy, a decision that was 
fully supported by both the Interior Department and the President's 
Council on Environmental Quality.
  In practical effect, the Air Force and Marine Corps have been 
performing the management functions at the Goldwater range for many 
years, and doing a very good job of it, according to most observers. In 
fact, the Department of Defense already dedicates significant resources 
to land and natural resource management of the Range. The decision to 
formally transfer management recognizes the superior fiscal and 
manpower resources available to the military Services, who also have 
the most compelling interest in maintaining future training access to 
the range, which can only be accomplished by effectively addressing 
environmental concerns regarding its use.
  During consideration of the legislative environmental impact 
statements and subsequent renewal proposals, no one disagreed that 
essential military training should continue on the range. However, 
several environmental groups registered concerns about the 
Administration's proposal for DOD management of the Range and expressed 
their fears that the military Services would be inappropriate and 
ineffective natural resources managers. I took personal interest in 
these expressed concerns and advocated for the strongest possible 
language in the final withdrawal bill to redress any potential problems 
should the land management of these areas ever be jeopardized under 
primary military authority.
  However, in response to continuing apprehension about proper land 
management in the newly passed withdrawal package, I worked with the 
concerned individuals to develop language directing the Department of 
the Interior to study and make recommendations for alternative land 
management scenarios for the range. Such a comprehensive study would 
provide information to guide the Administration and the Congress in 
taking appropriate future action to ensure that the cultural and 
natural resources on the range will continue to be preserved and 
protected in future years.
  Although I was unable to convince my colleagues that studying various 
land management options should be added to the Defense authorization 
package, I am continuing to explore appropriate land management options 
for the long-term. I do so because it is important that we assure that 
the best possible protection will be provided to the unique natural and 
cultural resources of these areas, consistent with the primary purpose 
of the range.
  While the Barry Goldwater Range will continue to serve its vital 
purpose, we have an obligation to ensure proper stewardship of our 
natural resources. This study will provide us with the critical 
information necessary to fulfill that obligation. Once an alternative 
management study is completed, I will ensure that any recommendations 
for improved management of the Goldwater Range are considered and acted 
on, as necessary, by the Congress.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this 
legislation to ensure that the Goldwater Range is managed by the agency 
most qualified to protect the public's interest and preserve the 
precious land and natural resources of these pristine areas for future 
generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1964. A bill to designate the United States Post Office located at 
14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as the Joseph Ileto Post 
Office; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              DESIGNATION OF THE JOSEPH ILETO POST OFFICE

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by 
Senator Boxer in introducing a bill to designate the United States Post 
Office located at 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as the 
``Joseph Ileto Post Office.'' This post office would be designated in 
memory and in celebration of the life of Joseph Santos Ileto, the 
Filipino American postal worker who was brutally gunned down during his 
postal route in August by Buford Furrow, Jr., a white supremacist. Only 
hours earlier, this same assailant opened fire on the North Valley 
Jewish Community Center, wounding three young children, one teenager, 
and one elderly woman.
  Joseph Ileto touched many lives. He was a kind-hearted, intelligent 
man who gave so much to those he loved and even to those he did not 
know. He was known for his unselfishness and his willingness to give a 
helping hand to anyone in need. In fact, the day Joseph Ileto was 
killed, he was filling in for another mail carrier, as he had done so 
many times before. His life and death exemplify the ultimate sacrifice 
of public service, which we too often take for granted. As a U.S. 
Postal Service employee, he served our nation with honor and dignity 
and died doing his job.
  My heart goes out to the Ileto family, who is grieving over the death 
of their son, brother, and friend. Despite the sadness of their loss, 
they can be proud that the life and spirit of Joseph Ileto lives on. 
His death only confirms the urgency in which we as a community must 
take a strong stand against hate crimes and racism. The number of hate 
crimes in the U.S. has increased during the last five years, and the 
time is now to have dialogue and pass meaningful legislation to address 
this issue. As a first step, it is my hope that we can expedite passage 
this bill, to remember and honor the life of Joseph Ileto.
  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. 1964

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOSEPH ILETO POST OFFICE.

       The United States Post Office located at 14071 Peyton Drive 
     in Chino Hills, California, shall be known and designated as 
     the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 
     or other record of the United States to the post office 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the Joseph Ileto Post Office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1965. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau 
of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study on

[[Page S14816]]

the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in the State of New Mexico, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


    legislation authorizing the bureau of reclamation to conduct a 
feasibility study regarding water supply to the jicarilla apache indian 
                       reservation in new mexico

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Bingaman in introducing legislation authorizing the Bureau of 
Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study regarding water supply on 
the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in New Mexico. There are major 
deficiencies with regard to safe water supplies for residents of the 
Jicarilla Apache Reservation, since the federally owned municipal water 
system is severely dilapidated.
  The United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate 
and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, 
environmental, water supply, and public health needs of the Jicarilla 
Apache Indian Reservation . Today, the House of Representatives passed 
identical legislation to help resolve this problem.
  The Jicarilla Apache Tribe is a federally recognized Indian nation in 
northern New Mexico, with over 3,000 citizens. In the 1920s, the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) constructed a water delivery system to serve 
federal facilities on the Reservation. In the 1960s, the system was 
extended to serve tribal facilities and members, but for the last 20 
years this federal owned and operated water system has been 
deteriorating due to inadequate federal funding for regular maintenance 
and improvements.
  No capital improvements have been made to the system for at least ten 
years. Currently, the system is not in compliance with Federal safe 
drinking water standards or pollutant discharge standards.
  In October of 1988, the inlet system collapsed and caused a 
devastating five-day water outage on the Reservation. That catastrophe 
required emergency assistance from the National Guard. A home burned to 
the ground without necessary water to fight the fire. After that 
experience, the Tribe expended its own funds to make some repairs, and 
began a large-scale evaluation of the system. The Tribe has discovered 
serious problems with the system.
  Line breaks are common and frequent, and existing supply facilities 
are near or at maximum capacity. The Jicarilla Apaches have had to 
ration water for the last seven summers.
  According to a recent EPA report, the water system on the Jicarilla 
Reservation is the third worst system operating in a six-state region. 
In addition to being out of compliance with federal drinking water 
standards, the sewage plant has been operating without a federal 
discharge permit, exposing the BIA to fines up to $25,000 per day.
  Sewage lagoons are operating at 200% capacity, and wastewater 
spillage threatens not only the Jicarilla Apaches, but down-stream 
communities in New Mexico and beyond. The Jicarilla Apache Tribal 
Council has enacted a resolution declaring a state of emergency due to 
the continued operation of these unsafe water systems.
  The Tribe has been forced to expend their own funds due to the 
serious health threats posed by the unsafe system. In addition to the 
severe health threats that these systems pose, their inadequate and 
unsafe condition has virtually suspended social and economic 
development on the Reservation.
  The water deficiencies have forced the Tribe to place a moratorium on 
new projects, including housing, school, senior center, post office, 
and health care facility construction. These projects cannot be 
completed, even though many are already funded, because the existing 
infrastructure cannot support any further development. While the 
federal government is entirely responsible to maintain and operate the 
federal water systems which serve the Reservation, the BIA lacks the 
resources improve the system.
  The water system on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is one of only 
two or three such systems still being maintained by the BIA. The BIA 
does not even own equipment necessary for routine sewer cleaning. While 
the BIA has continued federal responsibility for these systems, BIA no 
longer budgets for water delivery systems.
  In fact, Kevin Gover of the BIA referred the Tribe to the Bureau of 
Reclamation for assistance. The Bureau of Reclamation has the needed 
expertise to help, having experience in providing water to Native 
Americans through irrigation projects, as well as providing water 
supplies to other rural communities.
  The Tribe wants to eventually own and operate the water system, and 
wishes to enter into a relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation for 
completion of rehabilitation of this project. This legislation will 
allow the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study to 
determine the best method for developing a safe and adequate municipal, 
rural, and industrial water supply for the residents of the Jicarilla 
Apache Indian Reservation in the State of New Mexico.
  We want to help the Jicarilla Apaches end their water crisis, and 
secure congressional authorization for the necessary studies the Bureau 
of Reclamation has the expertise to conduct. I ask unanimous consent 
that our proposed legislation and the Jicarilla Apache Counsel 
Resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1965

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are major deficiencies with regard to adequate 
     and sufficient water supplies available to resident of the 
     Jicarilla Apache Reservation in the State of New Mexico.
       (2) the existing municipal water system that serves the 
     Jicarilla Apache Reservation is under the ownership and 
     control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and is outdated, 
     dilapidated, and cannot adequately and safely serve the 
     existing and future growth needs of the Jicarilla Apache 
     Tribe;
       (3) the federally owned municipal water system on the 
     Jicarilla Apache Reservation has been unable to meet the 
     minimum Federal water requirements necessary for discharging 
     wastewater into a public watercourse and has been operating 
     without a Federal discharge permit;
       (4) the federally owned municipal water system that serves 
     the Jicarilla Apache Reservation has been cited by the United 
     States Environmental Protection Agency for violations of 
     Federal safe drinking standards and poses a threat to public 
     health and safety both on and off the Jicarilla Apache 
     Reservation;
       (5) the lack of reliable supplies of potable water impedes 
     economic development and has detrimental effects on the 
     quality of life and economic self-sufficiency of the 
     Jicarilla Apache Tribe;
       (6) due to the severe health threats and impediments to 
     economic development, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe has 
     authorized and expended $4,500,000 of tribal funds for the 
     repair and replacement of the municipal water system on the 
     Jicarilla Apache Reservation; and
       (7) the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure 
     that adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet 
     the economic, environmental, water supply, and public health 
     needs of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Authorization.--Pursuant to reclamation laws, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation 
     and in consultation and cooperation with the Jicarilla Apache 
     Tribe, shall conduct a feasibility study to determine the 
     most feasible method of developing a safe and adequate 
     municipal, rural, and industrial water supply for the 
     residents of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation in the 
     State of New Mexico.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after funds are 
     appropriated to carry out this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall transmit to Congress a report containing the 
     results of the feasibility study required by subsection (a).

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $200,000 to carry 
     out this Act.
                                  ____


         The Jicarilla Apache Tribe--Resolution No. 99-R-314-06

       Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe is a federally 
     recognized Indian tribe organized under Section 17 of the 
     Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 476 (1988); 
     and
       Whereas, the inherent powers of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe 
     are vested in the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council pursuant to 
     Article XI, Section 1 of the Revised Constitution of the 
     Jicarilla Apache Tribe; and
       Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council is authorized 
     by Article XI, Section I(d) of the Revised Constitution of 
     the Jicarilla Apache Tribe to enact ordinances to promote the 
     peace, safety, property, health and general welfare of the 
     people of the Reservation and is authorized by Article X of 
     the Revised Constitution to enact ordinances and resolutions 
     on matters of permanent interest to

[[Page S14817]]

     the members of the tribe and on matters relating to 
     particular individuals, officials or circumstances; and
       Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Council has the power 
     to authorize tribal officials to act on its behalf for 
     regulatory and other purposes; and
       Whereas, the lack of adequate and safe drinking water 
     facilities on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation leads to 
     serious health problems among tribal members and other 
     residents of the Reservation, such as early loss of life and 
     morbidity and diseases; and
       Whereas, the current water treatment plant, water delivery 
     infrastructure and sewage systems that serve the Jicarilla 
     Apache Reservation are owned and operated by the United 
     States, through the Jicarilla Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     (``BIA''); and
       Whereas, the Federal Government has a trust responsibility 
     to provide safe drinking water to the Jicarilla Apache people 
     and the United States has failed to carry out this 
     responsibility by not providing the BIA adequate resources to 
     properly maintain and operate the water systems;
       Whereas, in October 1998, due to the lack of adequate 
     Federal resources to properly maintain and operate the water 
     systems, the inlet system, which diverts water from the 
     Navajo River, collapsed causing a catastrophic five-day water 
     outage on the Jicarilla Apache Reservation, which 
     necessitated emergency relief by the National Guard; and
       Whereas, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe worked around the clock 
     to restore water and expended tribal funds to do so, and as a 
     result of the water outage, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe began 
     investigating and evaluating the operation of the water 
     systems and discovered numerous additional problems; and
       Whereas, the water treatment plant, which treats water 
     diverted from the Navajo River prior to being released for 
     public consumption in Dulce, New Mexico, has been the subject 
     of various notices of environmental non-compliance by the 
     United States Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'');
       Whereas, the sewage facilities that serve the Jicarilla 
     Apache Reservation are not in compliance with Federal law and 
     are operating without a federal discharge permit, which 
     exposes the BIA to fines up to $25,000 a day, and to meet the 
     national requirements, a new waste water plant must be 
     constructed; and
       Whereas, although the Federal Government is responsible for 
     maintaining and operating its own water systems that serve 
     the Reservation, the Tribe has been forced to take action out 
     of its own funds due to the serious health threats the these 
     deficient and unsafe systems have on the people within and 
     near the Reservation; and
       Whereas, based on the analysis and recommendation of the 
     Tribe's engineers and consultants, the Tribal Council has 
     authorized the construction of a new inlet system, waste 
     water treatment plant, and sewage facilities and the upgrade 
     and rehabilitation of the water delivery infrastructure; and
       Whereas, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, in 
     1996 and found, among other things, that:
       (1) safe drinking water is essential to the protection of 
     public health;
       (2) because the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) now exceed the financial and 
     technical capacity of some public water systems, especially 
     many small public water systems, the Federal Government needs 
     to provide assistance to communities to help the communities 
     meet Federal drinking water requirements;
       (3) more effective protection of public health requires 
     prevention of drinking water contamination through well-
     trained system operators, water systems with adequate 
     managerial, technical and financial capacity and enhanced 
     protection of source waters of public water systems;
       (4) compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act continues to be a concern at public water systems 
     experiencing technical and financial limitations and Federal, 
     State and local governments need more resources and more 
     effective authority to attain the objectives of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act;
       (5) Federal health services to maintain and improve the 
     health of the Indians are consistent with and required by the 
     Federal Government's trust relationship with the American 
     Indian people;
       Whereas, the repair and replacement authorization by the 
     Tribal Council is consistent with the Congressional purposes 
     of ensuring safe drinking water to the public; and
       Whereas, Indian tribes are recognized as domestic nations 
     under the protection of the United States Government and 
     possessed with the inherent powers of government; and
       Whereas, pursuant to the Federal trust relationship between 
     the Federal government and Indian tribes arising from the 
     United States Constitution, United States Supreme Court 
     caselaw, numerous treaties, statutes, and regulations, the 
     Federal government had fiduciary duties to Indian tribes to 
     protect tribal self-government and to provide and ensure 
     adequate and safe drinking water; and
       Whereas, in accordance with the Federal policy of Indian 
     Self-Determination, the Federal government has pledged to 
     assist Indian tribes in making reservations permanent homes 
     from Indian people; and
       Whereas, The Federal Indian policy of Self-Determination 
     and the Federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes 
     requires that the Federal government conduct government-to-
     government consultations with Indian tribes on matters 
     affecting tribal interests and to promote tribal economic 
     development, tribal governments, tribal self-sufficiency, 
     which includes proper and adequate and safe drinking water 
     facilities.
       Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, by the Tribal Council of 
     the Jicarilla Apache Tribe that the Tribal Council hereby 
     declares that the Jicarilla Apache Reservation is in a state 
     of critical emergency due to the continued operation of the 
     unsafe water systems that serve the Jicarilla Apache 
     Reservation.
       Be It Further Resolved, by the Tribal Council of the 
     Jicarilla Apache Tribe that the Tribal Council, hereby 
     authorizes the Vice-President and his staff to do all acts 
     immediate and necessary to address this emergency, including 
     but not limited to, executing contracts, consulting on a 
     government-to-government basis with Congressional members and 
     the Executive Branch, including the Federal agencies and the 
     White House and lobbying for congressional appropriations.
       And Be It Further Resolved, by the Tribal Council of the 
     Jicarilla Apache Tribe that the Jicarilla Apache Tribe calls 
     upon the United States Congress and the United States 
     Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau 
     of Reclamation, the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, to 
     exercise their Federal Trust Responsibility and work with the 
     Jicarilla Apache Tribe on a government-to-government basis to 
     address this emergency.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Lott):
  S. 1967. A bill to make technical corrections to the status of 
certain land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 
to take certain land into trust for that Band, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                  MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
make technical corrections to the status of certain land held in trust 
for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and to take certain land 
into trust for the Band.
  Mr. President, the lands involved in this bill are lands currently 
owned by the tribe. Over the last 20 years, the tribe has attempted to 
transfer the land to reservation land, through the regular processes of 
the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land 
transfer applications have the support of the State of Mississippi and 
the local neighboring governments.
  Countless times over the years, the tribe has been told by the 
Department that land transfer applications have been lost and that 
action would occur soon.
  Housing, a school and a medical clinic are among the construction 
plans that are detained because of the inaction by the Department and 
BIA. Mr. President, this tribe is simply out of time. The school 
waiting to be replaced has over two pages of safety violations from the 
BIA. The medical clinic will not pass its next inspection. Thousands of 
Mississippi Choctaw citizens have substandard living conditions because 
of the lack of available housing.
  Mr. President, the Choctaws are held up as the best example of self 
determination. Yet, the federal government seems determined to throw 
obstacles in the course of their success. The history of these land 
acquisition applications and the treatment of the tribe is intolerable.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed the bill and advises it 
has no budgetary impact. I urge the Senate to pass this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 1969. A bill to provide for improved management of, and increases 
accountability for, outfitted activities by which the public gains 
access to and occupancy and use of Federal land, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    the outfitter policy act of 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in 
conjunction with my colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Thomas the 
Outfitter Policy Act of 1999.
  This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in the 
past congress. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law 
many of the management practices by which federal land management 
agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on 
National Forests, National Parks and other federal lands over many 
decades.

[[Page S14818]]

  The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills 
and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a 
safe and pleasant journey through our forests and deserts and over the 
rivers and lakes that are the spectacular destinations for many 
visitors to our federal lands.
  The Outfitter Policy Act would assure the public continued 
opportunities for reasonable and safe access to the special areas found 
throughout our public lands. It establishes high standards that will be 
met for the health and welfare of visitors who choose outfitted 
services. It will help guarantee that quality professional services. It 
will help guarantee that will be available for their recreational and 
educational experiences on federal land.
  This legislation is needed because the management of outfitting and 
guiding services by this Administration had created problems that 
threaten to destabilize many of these typically small, independent 
outfitter and guide businesses. In addressing these problems, this 
legislation relies heavily on practices that have historically worked 
well for outfitters, visitors, and other users groups, as well as for 
federal land managers in the field. When the bill is enacted, it will 
assure that these past levels of service are continued and enhanced.
  Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this 
legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This 
process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. It allowed 
for the examination of the historical practices that have offered 
consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. The legislation 
I am now introducing is a result of that process.
  I look forward to considering this legislation in the coming session 
of the 106th Congress.
  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. 1969

       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 ``Outfitter Policy Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the experience, skills, trained staff, and investment 
     in equipment that are provided by authorized outfitters are 
     necessary to provide access to Federal land to members of the 
     public that need or desire commercial outfitted activities to 
     facilitate their use and enjoyment of recreational or 
     educational opportunities on Federal land;
       (2) such activities constitute an important contribution 
     toward meeting the recreational and educational objectives of 
     resource management plans approved and administered by 
     agencies of the Department of Agriculture and the Department 
     of the Interior;
       (3) an effective relationship between those agencies and 
     authorized outfitters requires implementation of agency 
     policies and programs that provide for--
       (A) a reasonable opportunity for an authorized outfitter to 
     realize a profit;
       (B) a fair and reasonable return to the United States 
     through appropriate fees;
       (C) renewal of outfitter permits based on a performance 
     evaluation system that rewards outfitters that meet required 
     performance standards and discontinues outfitters that fail 
     to meet those standards; and
       (D) transfer of an outfitter permit to the qualified 
     purchaser of the operation of an authorized outfitter, an 
     heir or assign, or another qualified person or entity; and
       (4) the provision of opportunities for outfitted visitors 
     to Federal land to engage in fishing and hunting is best 
     served by continued recognition that the States retain 
     primary authority over the taking of fish and wildlife on 
     Federal land.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to establish terms and conditions of access to, and 
     occupancy and use of, Federal land by visitors who require or 
     desire the assistance of an authorized outfitter; and
       (2) to establish a stable regulatory climate that 
     encourages a qualified person or entity to provide, and to 
     continue to invest in the ability to provide, outfitted 
     visitors with access to, and occupancy and use of, Federal 
     land.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Actual use.--The term ``actual use'' means the portion 
     of a principal allocation of outfitter use that an authorized 
     outfitter uses in conducting commercial outfitted activities 
     during a period, for a type of use, for a location, or in 
     terms of another measurement of the term or outfitted 
     activities covered by an outfitter permit.
       (2) Allocation of use.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``allocation of use'' means a 
     method or measurement of access that--
       (i) is granted by the Secretary to an authorized outfitter 
     for the purpose of facilitating the occupancy and use of 
     Federal land by an outfitted visitor;
       (ii) takes the form of--

       (I) an amount or type of commercial outfitted activity 
     resulting from an apportionment of the total recreation 
     capacity of a resource area; or
       (II) in the case of a resource area for which recreation 
     capacity has not been apportioned, a type of commercial 
     outfitted activity conducted in a manner that is not 
     inconsistent with or incompatible with an approved resource 
     management plan; and

       (iii) is calibrated in terms of amount of use, type of use, 
     or location of a commercial outfitted activity, including 
     user days or portions of user days, seasons or other periods 
     of operation, launch dates, assigned camps, or other 
     formulations of the type or amount of authorized activity.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``allocation of use'' includes the 
     designation of a geographic area, zone, or district in which 
     a limited number of authorized outfitters are authorized to 
     operate.
       (3) Authorized outfitter.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``authorized outfitter'' means a 
     person that conducts a commercial outfitted activity on 
     Federal land under an outfitter authorization.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``authorized outfitter'' includes 
     an outfitter that conducts a commercial outfitted activity on 
     Federal land under an outfitter authorization awarded under 
     an agreement between the Secretary and a State or local 
     government that provides for the regulation by a State or 
     local agency of commercial outfitted activities on Federal 
     land.
       (4) Commercial outfitted activity.--The term ``commercial 
     outfitted activity'' means an authorized outfitted activity--
       (A) that is available to the public;
       (B) that is conducted under the direction of paid staff; 
     and
       (C) for which an outfitted visitor is required to pay more 
     than shared expenses (including payment to an authorized 
     outfitter that is a nonprofit organization).
       (5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means--
       (A) the Forest Service;
       (B) the Bureau of Land Management;
       (C) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
       (D) the Bureau of Reclamation.
       (6) Federal land.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Federal land'' means all land 
     and interests in land administered by a Federal agency.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal land'' does not 
     include--
       (i) land held in trust by the United States for the benefit 
     of an Indian tribe or individual; or
       (ii) land held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to 
     a restriction by the United States against alienation.
       (7) Institutional recreation program.--The term 
     ``institutional recreation program'' means a program of 
     recreational activities on Federal land that may include the 
     conduct of an outfitted activity on Federal land sponsored 
     and guided by--
       (A) an institution with a membership or limited 
     constituency, such as a religious, conservation, youth, 
     fraternal, or social organization; or
       (B) an educational institution, such as a college or 
     university.
       (8) Limited outfitter authorization.--The term ``limited 
     outfitter authorization'' means an outfitter authorization 
     under section 6(f).
       (9) Livery.--The term ``livery'' means the dropping off or 
     picking up of visitors, supplies, or equipment on Federal 
     land.
       (10) Outfitted activity.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``outfitted activity'' means an 
     activity--
       (i) such as outfitting, guiding, supervision, education, 
     interpretation, skills training, assistance, or livery 
     operation conducted for a member of the public in an outdoor 
     environment; and
       (ii) that uses the recreational, natural, historical, or 
     cultural resources of Federal land.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``outfitted activity'' does not 
     include a service provided under the National Forest Ski Area 
     Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b).
       (11) Outfitted visitor.--The term ``outfitted visitor'' 
     means a member of the public that relies on an authorized 
     outfitter for access to and occupancy and use of Federal 
     land.
       (12) Outfitter.--The term ``outfitter'' means a person that 
     conducts a commercial outfitted activity, including a person 
     that, by local custom or tradition, is known as a ``guide''.
       (13) Outfitter authorization.--The term ``outfitter 
     authorization'' means--
       (A) an outfitter permit; or
       (B) a limited outfitter authorization.
       (14) Outfitter permit.--The term ``outfitter permit'' means 
     an outfitter permit under section 6.
       (15) Principal allocation of outfitter use.--The term 
     ``principal allocation of outfitter use'' means a commitment 
     by the Secretary in an outfitter permit for an allocation of 
     use to an authorized outfitter in accordance with section 9.

[[Page S14819]]

       (16) Resource area.--The term ``resource area'' means a 
     management unit that is described by or contained within the 
     boundaries of--
       (A) a national forest;
       (B) an area of public land;
       (C) a wildlife refuge;
       (D) a congressionally designated area;
       (E) a hunting zone or district; or
       (F) any other Federal planning unit (including an area in 
     which outfitted activities are regulated by more than 1 
     Federal agency).
       (17) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
       (A) with respect to Federal land administered by the Forest 
     Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 
     Chief of the Forest Service or a designee;
       (B) with respect to Federal land administered by the Bureau 
     of Land Management, the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management or a 
     designee;
       (C) with respect to Federal land administered by the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service or a designee; and
       (D) with respect to Federal land administered by the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 
     the Commissioner of Reclamation or a designee.
       (18) Temporary allocation of use.--The term ``temporary 
     allocation of use'' means an allocation of use to an 
     authorized outfitter in accordance with section 9.

     SEC. 5. NONOUTFITTER USE AND ENJOYMENT.

       Nothing in this Act enlarges or diminishes the right or 
     privilege of occupancy and use of Federal land under any 
     applicable law (including planning process rules and any 
     administrative allocation), by a commercial or noncommercial 
     individual or entity that is not an authorized outfitter or 
     outfitted visitor.

     SEC. 6. OUTFITTER AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Prohibition.--No person or entity, except an authorized 
     outfitter, shall conduct a commercial outfitted activity on 
     Federal land.
       (2) Conduct of outfitted activities.--An authorized 
     outfitter shall not conduct an outfitted activity on Federal 
     land except in accordance with an outfitter authorization.
       (3) Special rule for alaska.--With respect to a commercial 
     outfitted activity conducted in the State of Alaska, the 
     Secretary shall not establish or impose a limitation on 
     access by an authorized outfitter that is inconsistent with 
     the access ensured under subsections (a) and (b) of section 
     1110 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3170).
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--An outfitter authorization shall 
     specify--
       (1) the rights and obligations of the authorized outfitter 
     and the Secretary; and
       (2) other terms and conditions of the authorization.
       (c) Criteria for Award of an Outfitter Permit.--The 
     Secretary shall establish criteria for award of an outfitter 
     permit that--
       (1) identify skilled, experienced, and financially capable 
     persons or entities with knowledge of the resource area to 
     offer and conduct commercial outfitted activities;
       (2) provide a stable regulatory climate in accordance with 
     this Act and other law (including regulations) that 
     encourages a qualified person or entity to provide, and to 
     continue to invest in the ability to provide, commercial 
     outfitted activities;
       (3) offer a reasonable opportunity for an authorized 
     outfitter to realize a profit; and
       (4) subordinate considerations of revenue to the United 
     States to the objectives of--
       (A) providing recreational or educational opportunities for 
     the outfitted visitor;
       (B) providing for the health and welfare of the public; and
       (C) conserving resources.
       (d) Award.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may award an outfitter 
     permit under this Act if--
       (A) the commercial outfitted activity to be authorized is 
     not inconsistent with or incompatible with an approved 
     resource management plan applicable to the resource area in 
     which the commercial outfitted activity is to be conducted; 
     and
       (B) the authorized outfitter meets the criteria established 
     under subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Use of competitive process.--
       (A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by this Act, 
     the Secretary shall use a competitive process to select an 
     authorized outfitter to which an outfitter permit is to be 
     awarded.
       (B) Exception for certain activities.--The Secretary may 
     award an outfitter permit to an applicant without conducting 
     a competitive selection process if the Secretary determines 
     that--
       (i) the applicant meets criteria established by the 
     Secretary under subsection (c); and
       (ii) there is no competitive interest in the commercial 
     outfitted activity to be conducted.
       (C) Exception for renewals and transfers.--The Secretary 
     shall award an outfitter permit to an applicant without 
     conducting a competitive selection process if the 
     authorization is a renewal or transfer of an existing 
     outfitter permit under section 11 or 12.
       (e) Provisions of Outfitter Permits.--
       (1) In general.--An outfitter permit shall provide for--
       (A) the health and welfare of the public;
       (B) conservation of resource values;
       (C) a fair and reasonable return to the United States 
     through an authorization fee in accordance with section 7;
       (D) a term of 10 years;
       (E) the obligation of an authorized outfitter to defend and 
     indemnify the United States in accordance with section 8;
       (F) a principal allocation of outfitter use, and, if 
     appropriate, a temporary allocation of use, in accordance 
     with section 9;
       (G) a plan to conduct performance evaluations in accordance 
     with section 10;
       (H) renewal or termination of an outfitter permit in 
     accordance with section 11;
       (I) transfer of an outfitter permit in accordance with 
     section 12;
       (J) a means of modifying an outfitter permit to reflect 
     material changes from the terms and conditions specified in 
     the outfitter permit;
       (K) notice of a right of appeal and judicial review in 
     accordance with section 14; and
       (L) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (2) Extensions.--The Secretary may award not more than 3 
     temporary 1-year extensions of an outfitter permit, unless 
     the Secretary determines that extraordinary circumstances 
     warrant additional extensions.
       (f) Limited Outfitter Authorizations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may issue a limited 
     outfitter authorization to an applicant for incidental 
     occupancy and use of Federal land for the purpose of 
     conducting a commercial outfitted activity on a limited 
     basis.
       (2) Term.--A limited outfitter authorization shall have a 
     term of not to exceed 2 years.
       (3) Reissuance or renewal.--A limited outfitter 
     authorization may be reissued or renewed at the discretion of 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FEES.

       (a) Amount of Fee.--
       (1) In general.--An outfitter permit shall provide for 
     payment to the United States of a fair and reasonable 
     authorization fee, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Determination of amount of fee.--In determining the 
     amount of an authorization fee, the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration--
       (A) the obligations of the outfitter under the outfitter 
     permit;
       (B) the provision of a reasonable opportunity for net 
     profit in relation to capital invested; and
       (C) economic conditions.
       (b) Establishment of Amount Applicable to an Outfitter 
     Permit.--
       (1) In general.--The amount of the authorization fee paid 
     to the United States for the term of an outfitter permit 
     shall be specified in the outfitter permit.
       (2) Requirements.--The amount of the authorization fee--
       (A)(i) shall be expressed as--

       (I) a simple charge per day of actual use; or
       (II) an annual or seasonable flat fee;

       (ii) if calculated as a percentage of revenue, shall be 
     determined based on adjusted gross receipts; or
       (iii) with respect to a commercial outfitted activity 
     conducted in the State of Alaska, shall be based on a simple 
     charge per user day;
       (B) shall be subordinate to the objectives of--
       (i) conserving resources;
       (ii) protecting the health and welfare of the public; and
       (iii) providing reliable, consistent performance in 
     conducting outfitted activities; and
       (C) shall be required to be paid by an authorized outfitter 
     to the United States on a reasonable schedule during the 
     operating season.
       (3) Adjusted gross receipts.--For the purpose of paragraph 
     (2)(A)(ii), the Secretary shall--
       (A) take into consideration revenue from the gross receipts 
     of the authorized outfitter from commercial outfitted 
     activities conducted on Federal land; and
       (B) exclude from consideration any revenue that is derived 
     from--
       (i) fees paid by the authorized outfitter to any unit of 
     Federal, State, or local government for--

       (I) hunting or fishing licenses;
       (II) entrance or recreation fees; or
       (III) other purposes (other than commercial outfitted 
     activities conducted on Federal land);

       (ii) goods and services sold to outfitted visitors that are 
     not within the scope of authorized outfitter activities 
     conducted on Federal land; or
       (iii) operations on non-Federal land.
       (4) Substantially similar services in a specific geographic 
     area.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if 
     more than 1 outfitter permit is awarded to conduct the same 
     or similar commercial outfitted activities in the same 
     resource area, the Secretary shall establish an identical fee 
     for all such outfitter permits.
       (B) Exception.--The terms and conditions of an existing 
     outfitter permit shall not be subject to modification or open 
     to renegotiation by the Secretary because of the award of a 
     new outfitter permit at the same resource area for the same 
     or similar commercial outfitted activities.
       (5) Actual use.--
       (A) In general.--For the purpose of calculating an 
     authorization fee for actual use under clauses (ii) and (iii) 
     of paragraph (2)(A), the sum of authorization fees 
     proportionately assessed per outfitted visitor in a single 
     calendar day for commercial outfitted

[[Page S14820]]

     activities at more than 1 resource area shall be not greater 
     than the equivalent fee charged for 1 full user day.
       (B) Reconsideration of fee.--The authorization fee may be 
     reconsidered during the term of the outfitter permit in 
     accordance with paragraph (6) or section 9(c)(3) at the 
     request of the Secretary or the authorized outfitter.
       (6) Adjustment of fees.--The amount of an authorization 
     fee--
       (A) shall be determined as of the date of the outfitter 
     permit; and
       (B) may be modified to reflect--
       (i) changes relating to the terms and conditions of the 
     outfitter permit, including 1 or more outfitter permits 
     described in paragraph (5);
       (ii) extraordinary unanticipated changes affecting 
     operating conditions, such as natural disasters, economic 
     conditions, or other material adverse changes from the terms 
     and conditions specified in the outfitter permit;
       (iii) changes affecting operating or economic conditions 
     determined by other governing entities, such as the 
     availability of State fish or game licenses; or
       (iv) the imposition of new or higher fees assessed under 
     other law.
       (c) Establishment of Amount Applicable to a Limited 
     Outfitter Authorization.--The Secretary shall determine the 
     amount of an authorization fee, if any, under a limited 
     outfitter authorization.

     SEC. 8. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--An authorized outfitter shall defend and 
     indemnify the United States for costs or expenses associated 
     with injury, death, or damage to any person or property 
     caused by the authorized outfitter's negligence, gross 
     negligence, or willful and wanton disregard for persons or 
     property arising directly out of the authorized outfitter's 
     conduct of a commercial outfitted activity under an outfitter 
     authorization.
       (b) No Liability.--An authorized outfitter--
       (1) shall have no responsibility to defend or indemnify the 
     United States, its agents, employees, or contractors, or 
     third parties for costs or expenses associated with injury, 
     death, or damage to any person or property caused by the 
     acts, omissions, negligence, gross negligence, or willful and 
     wanton misconduct of the United States, its agents, 
     employees, or contractors, or third parties;
       (2) shall not incur liability of any kind to the United 
     States, its agents, employees, or contractors, or third 
     parties as a result of the award of an outfitter 
     authorization or as a result of the conduct of a commercial 
     outfitted activity under an outfitter authorization absent a 
     finding by a court of competent jurisdiction of negligence, 
     gross negligence, or willful and wanton disregard for persons 
     or property on the part of the authorized outfitter; and
       (3) shall have no responsibility to defend or indemnify the 
     United States, its agents, employees, or contractors, or 
     third parties for costs or expenses associated with injury, 
     death, or damage to any person or property resulting from the 
     inherent risks of the commercial outfitted activity conducted 
     by the authorized outfitter under the outfitter authorization 
     or the inherent risks present on Federal land.
       (c) Agreements.--An authorized outfitter may enter into 
     contracts or other agreements with outfitted visitors, 
     including agreements providing for release, waiver, 
     indemnification, acknowledgment of risk, or allocation of 
     risk.

     SEC. 9. ALLOCATION OF USE.

       (a) In General.--In a manner that is not inconsistent with 
     or incompatible with an approved resource management plan 
     applicable to the resource area in which a commercial 
     outfitted activity occurs, the Secretary--
       (1) shall provide a principal allocation of outfitter use 
     to an authorized outfitter under an outfitter permit; and
       (2) may provide a temporary allocation of use to an 
     authorized outfitter under an outfitter permit.
       (b) Renewals, Transfers, and Extensions.--The Secretary 
     shall provide a principal allocation of outfitter use to an 
     authorized outfitter that--
       (1) in the case of the renewal of an outfitter permit, is 
     not inconsistent with or incompatible with the terms and 
     conditions of an approved resource management plan applicable 
     to the resource area in which the commercial outfitted 
     activity occurs; or
       (2) in the case of the transfer or temporary extension of 
     an outfitter permit, is the same amount of principal 
     allocation of outfitter use provided to the current 
     authorized outfitter.
       (c) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--At the request of an authorized outfitter, 
     the Secretary may waive any obligation of the authorized 
     outfitter to use all or part of the amount of allocation of 
     use provided under the outfitter permit, if the request is 
     made in sufficient time to allow the Secretary to temporarily 
     reallocate the unused portion of the allocation of use in 
     that season or calendar year.
       (2) Reclaiming of allocation of use.--Unless the Secretary 
     has reallocated the unused portion of an allocation of use in 
     accordance with paragraph (1), the authorized outfitter may 
     reclaim any part of the unused portion in that season or 
     calendar year.
       (3) No fee obligation.--An outfitter permit fee may not be 
     charged for any amount of allocation of use subject to a 
     waiver under paragraph (1).
       (d) Adjustment to Allocation of Use.--The Secretary--
       (1) may adjust an allocation of use assigned to an 
     authorized outfitter to reflect--
       (A) material change arising from approval of a change in 
     the resource management plan for the area of operation; or
       (B) requirements arising under other law; and
       (2) shall provide an authorized outfitter with 
     documentation supporting the basis for any adjustment in the 
     principal allocation of outfitter use, including new terms 
     and conditions that result from the adjustment.
       (e) Temporary Allocation of Use.--
       (1) In general.--A temporary allocation of use may be 
     provided to an authorized outfitter at the discretion of the 
     Secretary for a period not to exceed 2 years.
       (2) Renewals, transfers, and extensions.--A temporary 
     allocation of use may be renewed, transferred, or extended at 
     the discretion of the Secretary.

     SEC. 10. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE UNDER OUTFITTER PERMITS.

       (a) Evaluation Process.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a process for 
     annual evaluation of the performance of an authorized 
     outfitter in conducting a commercial outfitted activity under 
     an outfitter permit.
       (2) Evaluation Criteria.--Criteria to be used by the 
     Secretary to evaluate the performance of an authorized 
     outfitter shall--
       (A) be objective, measurable, and reasonably attainable; 
     and
       (B) include--
       (i) standards generally applicable to all commercial 
     outfitted activities;
       (ii) standards specific to a resource area, an individual 
     outfitter operation, or a type of commercial outfitted 
     activity; and
       (iii) such other terms and conditions of the outfitter 
     permit as are agreed to by the Secretary and the authorized 
     outfitter as measurements of performance.
       (3) Special rule for alaska.--With respect to commercial 
     outfitted activities conducted in the State of Alaska, 
     objectives relating to conservation of natural resources and 
     the taking of fish and game shall not be inconsistent with 
     the laws (including regulations) of the Alaska Department of 
     Fish and Game.
       (4) Requirements.--In evaluating the level of performance 
     of an authorized outfitter, the Secretary shall--
       (A) appropriately account for factors beyond the control of 
     the authorized outfitter, including conditions described in 
     section 7(b)(6)(B);
       (B) ensure that the effect of any performance deficiency 
     reflected by the performance rating is proportionate to the 
     severity of the deficiency, including any harm that may have 
     resulted from the deficiency; and
       (C) allow additional credit to be earned for elements of 
     performance that exceed the requirements of the outfitter 
     permit.
       (b) Levels of Performance.--The Secretary shall define 3 
     levels of performance, as follows:
       (1) Good, indicating a level of performance that fulfills 
     the terms and conditions of the outfitter permit.
       (2) Marginal, indicating a level of performance that, if 
     not corrected, will result in an unsatisfactory level of 
     performance.
       (3) Unsatisfactory, indicating a level of performance that 
     fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the outfitter 
     permit.
       (c) Performance Evaluation.--
       (1) Evaluation system.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     performance evaluation system that assures the public of 
     continued availability of dependable commercial outfitted 
     activities and discontinues any authorized outfitter that 
     fails to meet the required standards.
       (2) Procedure.--An authorized outfitter shall be entitled--
       (A) to be present, or represented, at inspections of 
     operations or facilities, which inspections shall be limited 
     to the operations and facilities of the authorized outfitter 
     located on Federal land;
       (B) to receive written notice of any conduct or condition 
     that, if not corrected, might lead to a performance 
     evaluation of marginal or unsatisfactory, which notice shall 
     include an explanation of needed corrections and provide a 
     reasonable period of time in which the corrections may be 
     made without penalty; and
       (C) to receive written notice of the results of the 
     performance evaluation not later than 30 days after the 
     conclusion of the authorized outfitter's operating season, 
     including the level of performance and the status of 
     corrections that may have been required.
       (d) Marginal Performance.--If an authorized outfitter's 
     level of performance for a year is determined to be marginal, 
     and the authorized outfitter fails to complete the 
     corrections within the time period specified under subsection 
     (c)(2)(B), the level of performance shall be determined to be 
     unsatisfactory for the year.
       (e) Determination of Eligibility for Renewal.--
       (1) In general.--The results of all annual performance 
     evaluations of an authorized outfitter shall be reviewed by 
     the Secretary in the year preceding the year in which the 
     outfitter permit expires to determine whether the authorized 
     outfitter's overall performance during the term has met the 
     requirements for renewal under section 11.
       (2) Failure to evaluate.--If, in any year of the term of an 
     outfitter permit, the Secretary fails to evaluate the 
     performance of the authorized outfitter by the date that is

[[Page S14821]]

     60 days after the conclusion of the authorized outfitter's 
     operating season, the performance of the authorized outfitter 
     in that year shall be considered to have been good.
       (3) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the end of the 
     year preceding the year in which an outfitter permit expires, 
     the Secretary shall provide the authorized outfitter with the 
     cumulative results of performance evaluations conducted under 
     this subsection during the term of the outfitter permit.
       (4) Unsatisfactory performance in final year.--If an 
     authorized outfitter receives an unsatisfactory performance 
     rating under subsection (d) in the final year of the term of 
     an outfitter permit, the review and determination of 
     eligibility for renewal of the outfitter permit under 
     paragraph (1) shall be revised to reflect that result.

     SEC. 11. RENEWAL OR TERMINATION OF OUTFITTER PERMITS.

       (a) Renewal at Expiration of Term.--
       (1) In general.--On expiration of the term of an outfitter 
     authorization, the Secretary shall renew the authorization in 
     accordance with paragraph (2).
       (2) Determination based on annual performance rating.--The 
     Secretary shall renew an outfitter authorization under 
     paragraph (1) at the request of the authorized outfitter and 
     subject to the requirements of this Act if the Secretary 
     determines that the authorized outfitter has received not 
     more than 1 unsatisfactory annual performance rating under 
     section 10 during the term of the outfitter permit.
       (b) Termination.--An outfitter permit may be terminated 
     only if the Secretary determines that--
       (1) the authorized outfitter has failed to correct a 
     condition for which the authorized outfitter received notice 
     under section 10(c)(2)(B) and the condition is considered by 
     the Secretary to be significant with respect to the health 
     and welfare of outfitted visitors or the conservation of 
     resources;
       (2) the authorized outfitter is repeatedly in arrears in 
     the payment of fees under section 7; or
       (3) the authorized outfitter's conduct demonstrates 
     repeated and willful disregard for--
       (A) the health and welfare of outfitted visitors; or
       (B) the conservation of resources on which the commercial 
     outfitted activities are conducted.

     SEC. 12. TRANSFERABILITY OF OUTFITTER PERMITS.

       (a) In General.--An outfitter permit shall not be 
     transferred (including assigned or otherwise conveyed or 
     pledged) by the authorized outfitter without prior written 
     notification to, and approval by, the Secretary.
       (b) Approval.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve a transfer of 
     an outfitter permit unless the Secretary determines that the 
     transferee does not have sufficient professional, financial, 
     and other resources or business experience to be capable of 
     performing under the outfitter permit for the remainder of 
     the term of the outfitter permit.
       (2) Qualified transferees.--Subject to section 6(d)(1), the 
     Secretary shall approve a transfer of an outfitter permit--
       (A) to a purchaser of the operation of the authorized 
     outfitter;
       (B) at the request of the authorized outfitter, to an 
     assignee, partner, or stockholder or other owner of an 
     interest in the operation of the authorized outfitter; or
       (C) on the death of the authorized outfitter, to an heir or 
     assign.
       (c) No Modification as Condition of Approval.--The terms 
     and conditions of an outfitter permit shall not be subject to 
     modification or open to renegotiation by the Secretary 
     because of a transfer described in subsection (a), unless the 
     terms and conditions of the outfitter permit that is proposed 
     to be transferred have become inconsistent or incompatible 
     with an approved resource management plan for the resource 
     area as a result of a modification to the plan.
       (d) Consideration Period.--
       (1) Threshold for automatic approval.--Subject to paragraph 
     (2), if the Secretary fails to approve or disapprove the 
     transfer of an outfitter permit within 90 days after the date 
     of receipt of an application containing the information 
     required with respect to the transfer, the transfer shall be 
     deemed to have been approved.
       (2) Extension.--The Secretary and the authorized outfitter 
     making application for transfer of an outfitter permit may 
     agree to extend the period for consideration of the 
     application.
       (e) Continuance of Outfitter Permit.--If the transfer of an 
     outfitter permit is not approved by the Secretary or if the 
     transfer is not subsequently made, the outfitter permit shall 
     remain in effect.

     SEC. 13. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--An authorized outfitter shall keep such 
     reasonable records as the Secretary may require to enable the 
     Secretary to determine that all the terms of the outfitter 
     authorization have been and are being carried out.
       (b) Burden on Authorized Outfitter.--The recordkeeping 
     requirements established by the Secretary shall incorporate 
     simplified procedures that do not impose an undue burden on 
     an authorized outfitter.
       (c) Access to Records.--The Secretary, or an authorized 
     representative of the Secretary, shall, until the end of the 
     fifth calendar year beginning after the end of the business 
     year of an authorized outfitter, have access to and the right 
     to examine any books, papers, documents, and records of the 
     authorized outfitter relating to each outfitter authorization 
     held by the authorized outfitter during the business year.

     SEC. 14. APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Appeals Procedure.--The Secretary shall by regulation--
       (1) grant an authorized outfitter full access to 
     administrative remedies under the Secretary's authority at 
     the time of an appeal; and
       (2) establish an expedited procedure for consideration of 
     appeals of Federal agency decisions to deny, suspend, fail to 
     renew, or terminate an outfitter permit.
       (b) Judicial Review.--An authorized outfitter that is 
     adversely affected by a final decision of the Secretary under 
     this Act may commence a civil action in United States 
     district court.

     SEC. 15. INSTITUTIONAL RECREATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage the occupancy 
     and use of Federal land by institutional recreation programs 
     that conduct outfitted activities under this Act.
       (b) Requirements.--In managing an institutional recreation 
     program authorized under this Act, the Secretary shall 
     require that the program--
       (1) operate in a manner that is not inconsistent with or 
     incompatible with an approved resource management plan 
     applicable to the resource area in which the outfitted 
     activity is conducted;
       (2) provide for the health and welfare of members of the 
     sponsoring organization or affiliated participants; and
       (3) ensure the conservation of resources.

     SEC. 16. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAW AND RIGHTS.

       (a) Consistency With Other Law.--Each program of outfitted 
     activities carried out on Federal land shall be consistent 
     with the mission of the administering Federal agency and all 
     laws (including regulations) applicable to the outfitted 
     activities.
       (b) Consistency With Rights of United States.--Nothing in 
     this Act limits or restricts any right, title, or interest of 
     the United States in or to any land or resource.

     SEC. 17. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as are 
     appropriate to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 18. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.

       (a) National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998.--Nothing 
     in this Act supersedes or otherwise affects any provision of 
     title IV of the National Park Omnibus Management Act of 1998 
     (16 U.S.C. 5951 et seq.).
       (b) State Outfitter Licensing Law.--This Act does not 
     preempt any outfitter or guide licensing law (including any 
     regulation) of any State or territory.

     SEC. 19. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Outfitters with satisfactory ratings.--An outfitter 
     that holds a permit, contract, or other authorization to 
     conduct commercial outfitted activities (or an extension of 
     such a permit, contract, or other authorization) in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this Act shall be entitled, on 
     request or on expiration of the authorization, to the 
     issuance of an outfitter permit under this Act if a recent 
     performance evaluation determined that the outfitter's 
     aggregate performance under the permit, contract, or other 
     authorization was good or was the equivalent of good, 
     satisfactory, or acceptable under a rating system in use 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Outfitters with no ratings.--For the purpose of 
     paragraph (1), if no recent performance evaluation exists 
     with respect to an outfitter, the outfitter's aggregate 
     performance under the permit, contract, or other 
     authorization shall be deemed to be good.
       (b) Effect of Issuance of Outfitter Permit.--The issuance 
     of an outfitter permit under subsection (a) shall not 
     adversely affect any right or obligation that existed under 
     the permit, contract, or other authorization (or an extension 
     of the permit, contract, or other authorization) on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1970. A bill to amend chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
with respect to the liability of the United States for claims of 
military personnel for damages for certain injuries; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


                  feres doctrine reversal legislation

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce a bill 
which will overturn what has come to be known as the ``Feres 
doctrine.'' In the 1950 case of Feres v. U.S., the Supreme Court held 
that the United States Government is not liable under the Federal Tort 
Claims Act for injuries to military personnel where the injuries are 
sustained ``incident to service.'' Under the Feres doctrine, therefore, 
a soldier would not be able to seek compensation from the government 
for injuries sustained due to government negligence unless the soldier 
happened to be on leave or furlough at the time he or she sustained the 
injuries.
  Over the years, we have seen the Feres doctrine produce anomalous 
results which reflect neither the will of

[[Page S14822]]

the Congress nor basic common sense. For instance, under Feres, a 
soldier who is the victim of medical malpractice at an army hospital 
cannot sue the government for compensation. Likewise, his family cannot 
sue for compensation if the soldier dies from the malpractice. But a 
civilian who suffers from the same malpractice would be entitled to 
file suit against the government. Likewise, if a soldier driving home 
from work on an army base is hit by a negligently driven army truck, he 
is barred from suing the government for compensation. If the soldier 
dies in the accident, his family will be barred from suing for 
compensation. Meanwhile, a civilian hit by the same truck would have a 
cause of action against the United States. Unfortunately, the 
individuals hurt by the Feres doctrine are the men and women of our 
armed forces--people whom we should protect and reward, not punish.
  The recent decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in O'Neil 
v. United States illustrates the troubling results produced by the 
Feres doctrine. In O'Neil, the family of slain Naval officer Kerryn 
O'Neil was barred from pursuing a wrongful death claim against the 
government under the Feres doctrine. O'Neil was murdered by her former 
fiance, George Smith, a Navy ensign. The two met at the U.S. Naval 
Academy and were stationed at the same Naval base in California. After 
Ms. O'Neil broke off their engagement, Mr. Smith began to stalk her. 
One night while Ms. O'Neil was sitting in her on-base apartment 
watching a movie with a friend, Smith came to her building and killed 
her, her friend, and then himself.
  After the murders, Kerryn O'Neil's family learned that Mr. Smith had 
scored in the 99.99th percentile for aggressive/destructive behavior in 
Navy psychological tests. Under Naval procedures, these results should 
have been forwarded to the Department of Psychiatry at the Naval 
Hospital for a full psychological evaluation. Had their claim not been 
barred, the O'Neils would have argued that the Navy was negligent in 
failing to follow up on these extreme test results. I do not know 
whether the O'Neil's deserved to be compensated under the Act--this 
depends on the specific facts and the case law in this area. But it 
does seem clear to me that the O'Neils should not have been barred from 
pursuing their claim because their daughter's fatal injuries were 
sustained ``incident to service.''
  Of course, there are situations in which soldiers should not be 
allowed to sue the government in tort. For example, in a combat 
situation, countless judgment calls are made which result in death or 
injuries to soldiers. We cannot have lawyers and juries second guessing 
the decisions made by field commanders and combatants in the heat of 
battle. But such considerations do not necessitate that military 
personnel should lose the right to sue the government in any context.
  The bill I introduce today will reverse the court-created Feres 
doctrine and return the law to the way it was originally intended by 
Congress. My bill is very short and simple. It amends the Federal Tort 
Claims Act to specifically provide that the Act applies to military 
personnel on active duty the same as it applies to anyone else. My bill 
further specifies that military personnel will be limited by the 
exceptions to government liability already included in the Act, 
including the bar on liability for injuries sustained by military 
personnel in combat and the bar on liability for claims which arise in 
a foreign country. In short, my bill will ensure that members of our 
armed forces will be entitled to damages they deserve when injured 
through the negligence or wrongful actions of the Federal government or 
its agents, except for certain limited cases contemplated by Congress 
when it originally passed the Act.

  Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to give the 
general consent of the government to be sued in tort, subject to 
several specific restrictions. Under the common law doctrine of 
sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be sued without such 
specific consent. The Act provides that the government will be held 
liable ``in the same manner and to the same extent as a private 
individual under the circumstances.'' Thus, the Act makes the United 
States liable for the torts of its employees and agents to the extent 
that private employers are liable under state law for the torts of 
their employees and agents.
  The Act contains many exceptions to government liability, but it does 
not contain an explicit exception for injuries sustained by military 
personnel incident to service. In fact, one of the Act's exceptions 
prevents ``any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the 
military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard during time of war.'' By 
including this exception, Congress clearly contemplated the special 
case of military personnel and decided that certain limits must be 
placed on government liability in this context. But by drawing this 
exception narrowly and limiting it to combat situations, Congress 
rejected any broad exception for injuries sustained ``incident to 
service.'' The Supreme Court did far more than interpret our statute 
when it significantly broadened the limited combat exception provided 
by Congress. This bill leaves intact the government's exemption for 
injuries sustained in combat.
  The Feres doctrine has been the subject of harsh criticism by some of 
the leading jurists in the nation. In the 1987 case of United States v. 
Johnson, a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Feres 
doctrine bars suits on behalf of military personnel injured incident to 
service even in cases of torts committed by employees of civilian 
agencies. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent in Johnson, in which 
he was joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens. Scalia wrote 
that Feres was ``wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, 
almost universal criticism it has received.''
  Judge Edward Becker, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals, has also spoken out strongly against the Feres doctrine. He 
has noted that ``the scholarly criticism of the doctrine is legion'' 
and has urged the Supreme Court to grant cert. to reconsider Feres. 
Judge Becker has written to me that given the failure of the Court to 
overturn Feres thus far, I should introduce legislation doing so.
  Even in the Feres opinion itself, the Supreme Court expressed an 
uncharacteristic doubt about its decision. The justices recognized that 
they may be misinterpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act. They called 
upon Congress to correct their mistake if this were the case. The Court 
wrote:

       There are few guiding materials for our task of statutory 
     construction. No committee reports or floor debates disclose 
     what effect the statute was designed to have on the problem 
     before us, or that it even was in mind. Under these 
     circumstances, no conclusion can be above challenge, but if 
     we misinterpret the Act, at least Congress possesses a ready 
     remedy.

  Congress does possess a ready remedy, and I call upon my colleagues 
to exercise it. The bill I introduce today will eliminate the 
judicially created Feres doctrine and revive the original framework of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. There is no reason to deny compensation to 
the men and women of our armed services who are injured or killed in 
domestic accidents or violence outside the heat of combat. I hope that 
when we resume our business next year my colleagues will join me in 
supporting and passing this legislation.

                          ____________________